The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02/06/2024 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA WORK SESSION February 6, 2024 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 315 (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: 21:55:42 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: Yalecrest – Laird Heights Local Historic District ~ 2:15 p.m. 15 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the zoning map to apply the H-Historic Overlay District, establishing the Yalecrest-Laird Heights Local Historic District. The proposal includes 66 homes located on Laird Avenue from 1300 East to 1500 East, including the homes on Laird Circle and Uintah Circle. The project is within Council District 6. Petitioner: Kelly McAleer. For more information visit tinyurl.com/HistoricDistrictsSLC. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 6, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, February 20, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, March 19, 2024 3.Ordinance: Zoning Map and General Plan Amendments at Approximately 2445 South 500 East (Woodland Commons)~ 2:30 p.m. 15 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the zoning of properties located at approximately 2445 South 500 East from R-1/7,000 (Single-Family Residential) to RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential). This proposal would also amend the Sugar House Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map. The proposed amendments would facilitate the construction of eight townhomes at this property. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 7. Petitioner: Jason Foster with Atlas Architects representing the property owner. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 6, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, February 20, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, March 19, 2024 4.Resolution: Authorizing the Salt Lake County Housing Authority to Operate within Salt Lake City for The Deeply Affordable Housing Development 44 North Apartments ~ 2:45 p.m. 15 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal declaring there is a need for the Salt Lake County Housing Authority, doing business as Housing Connect, to exercise its powers within the boundaries of Salt Lake City. The Resolution would allow Housing Connect, in partnership with the nonprofit First Step House, to develop 67 apartments of one and two bedrooms as an affordable housing development at 44 and 48 North 1000 West. The rents would be affordable to tenants earning 25% - 35% of area median income or AMI. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 6, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, February 20, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, March 19, 2024 5.City’s Annual Financial Audit Report ~ 3:00 p.m. 20 min. The Council will be briefed about the City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the previous fiscal year ending June 30, 2023. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 6, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 6.Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.3 for Fiscal Year 2023-24 Follow-up ~ 3:20 p.m. 10 min. The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about Budget Amendment No.3 for the Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget. Budget amendments happen several times each year to reflect adjustments to the City’s budgets, including proposed project additions and modifications. The proposed amendment includes four new full-time paramedic employees in the Fire Department's Medical Response Team, creation of a Legislative Division with four new full-time employees in the City Attorney's Office, over $6 million of additional transportation impact fees for reconstructing 2100 South through the Sugar House Business district and the 600 North / 700 North corridor transformation project among other items. For more information visit https://tinyurl.com/SLCFY24. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, December 5, 2023; Tuesday, December 12, 2023; Tuesday, January 9, 2024; Tuesday, January 16, 2024; and Tuesday, February 6, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, November 14, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD 7.Ordinance: Landscaping and Buffers Chapter Text Amendment Follow-up ~ 3:30 p.m. 25 min. The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about an ordinance that would amend various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to Landscaping and Buffers chapter amendments. The proposed amendments would seek to reduce water consumption, enhance the urban forest, and improve air quality and green infrastructure city-wide. The proposal would also seek to clarify, simplify, and reorganize the landscaping and buffer chapter to be more user-friendly. The City Council may consider modifications to other related sections of the code as part of this proposal. For more information visit tinyurl.com/SLCLandscapingAndBuffers. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, December 5, 2023; Tuesday, December 12, 2023; and Tuesday, February 6, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, December 12, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, February 20, 2024 8.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 9.Resolution: University of Utah Baseball Stadium Public Benefits Analysis ~ 4:15 p.m. 30 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a resolution that would authorize a 99-year below-market ground lease to the University of Utah of 1.175 acres of City-owned property at approximately 1735 Sunnyside Avenue. This lease would facilitate the expansion of the University’s baseball field to meet the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) requirements for a competition field, but also result in the removal of one existing City-owned softball field and one multi-purpose field located at Sunnyside Park. In exchange for this lease, the University would commit $4.2 million to the City for improvements and new amenities at Sunnyside Park, as well as, possibly, other public benefits. The types of improvements and amenities would be determined through a community engagement process. For more information visit http://tinyurl.com/UofUBaseballSunnysidePark. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 6, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, February 6, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, February 20, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, February 20, 2024 10.Ordinance: Zoning Text Amendment for Daycare Facilities ~ 4:45 p.m. 15 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to childcare facilities, including Daycare Centers, Home Daycares, and Home Occupations. The proposal would amend sections 21A.33 Land Use Tables, 21A.36.030 Home Occupations, 21A.36.130 Daycares, 21A.60.020 List of Defined terms, and 21A.62.040 Definitions of Terms. The proposed amendments intend to align City daycare related regulations more closely with Utah State Code and reduce zoning barriers to childcare facilities in the City. The proposed amendments would apply citywide. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 6, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, February 20, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, March 19, 2024 11.Informational: State Legislative Briefing ~ 5:00 p.m. 30 min. The Council will receive a briefing about issues affecting the City that may arise during the 2024 Utah State Legislative Session. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, January 16, 2024 and Tuesday, February 6, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Standing Items 12.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair Report of Chair and Vice Chair. 13.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director - - Report of the Executive Director, including a review of Council information items and announcements. The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to City Council business, including but not limited to scheduling items. 14.Tentative Closed Session - - The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session. A closed meeting described under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including, but not limited to: a. discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual; b. strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining; c. strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation; d. strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the transaction would: (i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; e. strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if: (i) public discussion of the transaction would: (A) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; (ii) the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be offered for sale; and (iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body approves the sale; f. discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and g. investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct. A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah Code § 78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act. CERTIFICATE OF POSTING On or before 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 1, 2024, 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 February 6, 2024 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 PlacePlanning Item Status Ballpark Station Area Zoning Map Amendments Planning Commission Recommends Adoption Historic Overlay Enforcement Planning Commission Recommends Adoption Demolition in Historic Districts regulation if done without permits Planning Commission Recommends Adoption Title 18 Amendments Planning Commission Recommends Adoption Allowing Projecting Signs in all commercial and mixed use districts Scheduled for February 14th PC meeting. Prohibiting Demolition of Housing for parking Tentatively scheduled for February 28th PC meeting. Adaptive Reuse Ordinance Tentatively scheduled for February 28th PC meeting. Mobile Business Text Amendment Pending scheduling with Planning Commission Modifications to PC and HLC commission numbers Project is currently in 45-day public engagement period 2100 South Station Area Plan and Zoning Amendments, including Ballpark Station Area Zoning amendments. Draft plan received, being reviewed by planning staff. Gas Stations near water bodies Tabled by Planning Commission for consideration of a few items. Working with owners of gas stations on updates. Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canBallpark NEXT / RDA Ballparknext.comThriving in PlaceSustainability slc.gov/planning Homeless Resource Center Utilization: •99% Full- Base Shelter Capacity + Winter beds •Code Blue beds have not been full yet Encampment Impact Mitigation/ Rapid Intervention: •EIM •Folsom Trail/1000 W | JRT North Temple/200 S •RIT •Day-Riverside Library | Backman School | Fife Wetlands | Fremont Ave | Three Creeks Confluence Resource Fair: •Friday, Feb. 9, 9:30 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. @ Rescue Mission Parking Lot Point In Time Count: •Thank you to all the Volunteers Code Blue Shelters: • Volunteers are still needed! Homelessness Update Shelters: 801-990 -9999 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 State Legislative Funding Requests Public Safety & Emergency Services •$25 M- Low Barrier Shelter Development •$33.9 M- Low Barrier Shelter Operations (3yrs) •$27.3 M- Non-Congregate Shelter Ops. (3yrs) •$28.8 M- Winter Response/ Stabilization (3yrs) •$10 M- Ongoing Homeless System funding •$2.5 M- Ongoing Shelter Cities Mitigation Funds Prevention •$25M- Deeply Affordable Housing Grants •$5M- Ongoing DAH Stabilization Grants •$10M- Housing Preservation Fund •$10M- HOME Court Pilot Behavioral Health •$3.3 M- Workforce Incentives Homelessness Update Shelters: 801-990 -9999 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:February 6, 2024 RE: Yalecrest – Laird Heights Local Historic District PLNHLC2023-00074 The Council will be briefed about the proposed Laird Heights Local Historic District (LHD) in the Yalecrest neighborhood. This will update the Council on progress since its May 2, 2023 briefing on initiating the Laird Heights and Princeton Heights LHDs, the required Planning Director’s reports, and the LHD creation process. (Note-the proposed Princeton Heights LHD transmittal will be sent to the Council for review in the coming weeks.) Creating an LHD amends the zoning map by applying the H-Historic Overlay District to the proposed area, which is a step that requires City Council approval. Council review, public hearing, and vote are the final steps in the process. Boundaries of the proposed Laird Heights LHD are 1300 East to 1500 East including both sides of Laird Avenue, Laird Circle and Uintah Circle as shown in the map below. The proposed LHD boundaries include 66 parcels with homes and two vacant parcels. There are several steps to LHD creation as outlined below and in a graphic at the end of this report. LHD Creation Process •Pre-application meeting. •Initial letter mailed to all property owners within proposed district. •Application submittal. •Notice of application letter mailed. •Planning Director’s report to the City Council (May 2, 2023) Item Schedule: Briefing: February 6, 2024 Set Date: February 6, 2024 Public Hearing: February 20, 2024 Potential Action: March 5, 2024 Page | 2 •Property owner meeting seeking input from and informing owners about the process and requirements. •Open house seeking input from and informing immediate neighborhood and general public about the proposal. •Historic Landmark Commission public hearing, review, and recommendation. •Planning Commission public hearing, review, and recommendation. •Property owner ballot to determine support of LHD creation. •City Council review, public hearing, and decision. (Current step) Map of subject proposed Laird Heights (tan), and Princeton Heights (purple (awaiting transmittal)) Local Historic Districts. Existing Local Historic Districts are shown in blue. Image courtesy of the Salt Lake City Planning Division ADDITIONAL INFORMATION A 2005 Reconnaissance Level Survey of the Yalecrest National Historic District area found all 66 homes within the proposed Laird Heights LHD were rated as contributing structures. Since that time, two homes had substantial exterior alterations, and one home was demolished, and a new home constructed on the property. Those three homes are now considered non-contributing structures. Reconnaissance Level Surveys are the most basic approach for systematically documenting and evaluating historic buildings and are based on a visual evaluation of the properties. Page | 3 For the creation of Local Historic Districts, the Historic Landmark Commission (HLC) first reviews the proposals and forwards a recommendation to the Planning Commission. This included: •The proposed Laird Heights LHD was reviewed at the HLC’s September 7, 2023 meeting and a public hearing was held at which five people spoke in favor of the proposal. The Commission found the proposal meets criteria for LHD designation and voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. •In addition, the HLC forwarded a unanimous positive recommendation to the Council to adopt changes to the building ratings from the 2005 Reconnaissance Level Survey. The buildings’ ratings changed from “contributing” to “non-contributing” based on changes to those homes since the 2005 survey. This recommended change is included in the draft ordinance. The Planning Commission reviewed this petition at its September 13, 2023 meeting and held a public hearing at which four people spoke. Two were supportive, one expressed concern about affordable housing in the proposed LHD area, and one asked about limitations on property owners within the proposed LHD. Planning staff stated that within the LHD, exterior modifications to a home, building or property would require City review for historic appropriateness. A Commissioner asked if an LHD would make it more difficult to increase housing units. Planning staff stated that only changes to the exterior of buildings are reviewed, so interior changes could be made to add dwelling units. Additional exterior units could also be constructed that met requirements. The Commission voted 5-4 to send a negative recommendation on the Laird LHD to the Council citing inconsistencies with Plan Salt Lake’s housing, transportation and mobility, and air quality goals, Housing SLC, and Thriving in Place. (It is worth noting that at its November 8, 2023 meeting the Planning Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to the Council on the other proposed LHD for Yalecrest – Princeton Heights. Two Commissioners who voted against the Laird Heights LHD voted in support of the Princeton Heights LHD. The two proposed LHDs are adjacent to each other and very similar.) Following the Historic Landmark, and Planning Commission meetings, ballots required for LHD creation were mailed October 13, 2023 to all property owners within the proposed Laird Heights LHD. Owners were given 30 days to return their ballots indicating support of, or opposition to the proposal. The City Recorder issued the Official Canvas of the Property Owner Opinion Ballot November 20, 2023, which contained the following results: Ballots in Support..........................49 Ballots Opposed...............................9 Did Not Vote...................................10 Undeliverable/Did Not Receive ......0 Returned After Due Date.................0 Total Ballots Received..........58 of 68 Since the number of returned property owner opinion ballots (85%) exceeds the required two-thirds threshold of ballots mailed, and ballots in support (72%) represents more than 50% of the number of parcels in the proposed LHD, the City Council may designate the LHD by a simple majority vote. It should be noted that the Council is not bound by the property owners’ opinion ballot results. Goal of the briefing: To review the proposed local historic district, address questions Council Members may have and prepare for a public hearing. Page | 4 POLICY QUESTIONS 1. The Council may wish to ask for more information about whether establishing a Historic District will conflict with other Citywide policies, such as the recently passed Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) ordinance, or the upcoming multi-family residential overlay. If the Historic Districts create some obstacle to increasing density throughout the City, does the Council want to discuss whether density is appropriate citywide, or whether there are exceptions? 2. In the past, the creation of Historic Districts created some contention. The Council may wish to ask the Administration whether they have received any concerns or anticipate any substantive objections. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Below is a chronology for the proposed LHD with steps in the flowchart below indicated. •December 22, 2022 – Pre-application meeting. (Step 1) •January 5, 2023 – Letter sent to property owners within proposed LHD letting them know Planning was notified a property owner is interested in creating a new LHD. (Step 2) •February 1, 2023 – LHD application submitted to Planning and assigned to Lex Traughber, Senior Planner. Property owner petition initiated. (Step 3) •February 9, 2023 – Property owners within the proposed LHD sent notice of application, and “Local Historic District Pros and Cons” information letter indicating the Planning Division received an application, including the required number of signatures to initiate the designation of a new LHD. (Step 4) •May 2, 2023 – Planning Director’s report to the City Council. The Council directed Planning staff to move forward processing the proposed new LHD. (Step 5) •May 10, 2023 – Property owners sent notice for the required neighborhood information meeting to be held June 20, 2023. (Step 6) •June 20, 2023 – Property owner meeting held at Carmen B. Pingree School. Approximately 16 property owners were in attendance. (Step 6) •June 27, 2023 – Email sent to Yalecrest Neighborhood Council, East Liberty Park Community Organization, Wasatch Hollow Community Council, and KEEPYalecrest with online open house notification. (Step 6) •June 29, 2023 – Property owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposed LHD mailed online open house notification. Open house ran from June 29-August 9, 2023. (Step 6) •August 25, 2023 – Historic Landmark Commission public hearing notice sent to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposed LHD. Listserv notification of the Historic Landmark Commission’s agenda emailed. Agenda posted on the Planning Division and State websites. (Step 7) •August 30, 2023 – Planning Commission public hearing notice mailed to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposed LHD. Listserv notification of the Planning Commission Page | 5 agenda emailed. Agenda posted on the Planning Division and State websites. (Step 7) •September 7, 2023 – Historic Landmark Commission briefing and public hearing. The Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. (Step 7) •September 13, 2023 – Planning Commission briefing and public hearing. The Commission voted to forward a negative recommendation to the City Council on the proposed LHD. (Step 7) •October 13, 2023 – Property Owner Opinion Ballot (Support Survey) mailed to all property owners within the proposed LHD asking if they support or are opposed to the proposed LHD. Ballots were required to be returned to the City Recorder’s Office or postmarked by November 15, 2023. (Step 8) •November 15, 2023 – Planning staff requested ordinance from the City Attorney’s Office. •November 20, 2023 – City Recorder’s Office released results of the survey. 49 property owners were in support, 9 were opposed, and 10 did not vote. •November 30, 2023 – Planning received ordinance from the City Attorney’s Office. •December 6, 2023 – Transmittal received in City Council Office. •February 6, 2024 – City Council briefing. (Public hearing anticipated to be held February 20, 2024, and a potential Council vote March 5, 2024.) (Step 9) Page | 6 LHD Designation Process Flowchart Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division CITY COUNCIL // FEBRUARY 6, 2024 YALECREST –LAIRD HEIGHTSLOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT PLNHLC2023-00074 Factor Finding Rationale 1.Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes,goals,objectives,and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents; Complies The proposal is consistent with the stated purposes, goals,objectives,and policies of the City as identified in the Community Preservation Plan,East Bench Master Plan,Plan Salt Lake,Creating Tomorrow Together:Final Report of the Salt Lake City Futures Commission,the City Vision and Strategic Plan,and the Salt Lake City Urban Design Element as discussed in this staff report as well as the HLC staff report. 2.Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Complies The Zoning Map amendment is consistent with the purposes of the H Historic Preservation Overlay district. 3.The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties; Complies The proposed Zoning Map amendment will not have any additional effects on the adjacent properties. 4.Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards Complies The proposed Zoning Map amendment will not affect the administration of the Groundwater Source Protection Overlay and will be complimentary to the provisions of the Yalecrest Compatible Overlay. 5.The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property,including,but not limited to,roadways,parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection,schools,stormwater drainage systems,water supplies,and wastewater and refuse collection. Complies The proposed amendment has all utility and public services necessary to serve the properties and is consistent with this standard. •The proposed local historic district is supported by City policies in multiple documents, including: •Community Preservation Plan (2012) •East Bench Community Master Plan (2017) •Plan Salt Lake (2015) •Creating Tomorrow Together: Final Report of the Salt Lake City Futures Commission (1998) •City Vision and Strategic Plan (1993) •Salt Lake City Urban Design Element (1990) 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: December 5, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods _______________________ SUBJECT: Petition PLNHLC2023-00074 Yalecrest – Laird Heights – Local Historic District STAFF CONTACT: Lex Traughber, Senior Planner (801) 535-6184 or lex.traughber@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: The Historic Landmark Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for consideration, and the Planning Commission voted to forward a negative recommendation to the City Council. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: This petition is a request that the City Council designate a new local historic district that includes 66 homes (68 properties) located on Laird Avenue from 1300 East to 1500 East including the homes on Laird Circle and Uintah Circle. The proposed Yalecrest – Laird Heights Local Historic District is located within the Yalecrest Neighborhood, which is generally located between 1300 East, and 1900 East, from 800 South/Sunnyside Avenue to 1300 South. The Yalecrest Neighborhood was designated as a National Register Historic District in 2007. J9# D*LL*җ хѶспстпшѷуч+12Ҙ рсҝпхҝспст рсҝпхҝспст On February 1st, 2023, Kelly McAleer submitted a petition to designate a new local historic district within the Yalecrest neighborhood of the city. The application was submitted with approximately 66% of property owner’s signatures (representing a majority ownership interest in a given lot) in the proposed district, which exceeds the required 33% necessary to initiate a petition of this nature. As required by ordinance, a report regarding the proposed district was presented to the City Council on May 2, 2023, at which time the Council instructed Planning Staff to proceed with processing the request. Protection of Historic Resources: Although the homes within the proposed district have retained a high degree of architectural integrity, some property owners fear that the existing zoning and the National Register Designation of the Yalecrest Neighborhood do not provide sufficient protection of the historic architecture found in the proposed district. They are of the opinion that local historic district designation is the appropriate tool to ensure historic resource protection and management. In 2005, Salt Lake City created the Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay (YCI) district to establish standards for new construction, additions, and alterations of principal and accessory residential structures within the Yalecrest community. The goal is to encourage compatibility between new construction, additions, or alterations and the existing character and scale of the surrounding neighborhood. The standards allow for flexibility of design, while providing compatibility with existing development patterns within the Yalecrest community. Some property owners are concerned that the YCI does not include design standards that address appropriate exterior alterations in the context of maintaining the historic integrity or structures in the area. Adopted Policy: Several Salt Lake City policy documents generally support historic preservation efforts. The Community Preservation Plan (2012) and the East Bench Master Plan (2017) specifically address preservation and the protection of architectural and character defining features found in Yalecrest. The Community Preservation Plan (2012) places a high priority on providing additional regulations to control demolitions and teardowns within the Yalecrest neighborhood. Additionally, the East Bench Master Plan (2017) also acknowledges that the Yalecrest Neighborhood contains some of the oldest structures on the East Bench within Salt Lake City and encourages communities to pursue additional overlay zoning, if it is a desire of the community. Other adopted Salt Lake City documents contain policies that support historic preservation and can be found in: • Plan Salt Lake (2015) • Creating Tomorrow Together: Final Report of the Salt Lake City Futures Commission (1998) • City Vision and Strategic Plan (1993) • Salt Lake City Urban Design Element (1990) Updated Survey: In regards to the homes in the proposed Yalecrest – Laird Heights local historic district, the Yalecrest Reconnaissance Level Survey conducted in 2005, indicates that of the 66 structures, 63 are rated as contributing (95%). Planning Staff, along with State Historic Preservation Office Staff, re-evaluated the rating of all the homes in the proposed district. Since the last RLS was conducted in 2005, physical changes have occurred to several of the homes in the proposed district. Three properties changed from “contributing” to “noncontributing” as noted below. 1200 South 1500 East 2005 RLS Photo 2015 The Yalecrest 2005 Reconnaissance Level Survey rated this house as a “B”, contributing structure. The subject home has been significantly modified since 2005. Windows have been replaced and window openings have been modified on the front façade. Most significantly, the roof line has been altered with a large, highly visible, dormer on the south façade. This dormer meets the roof peak at its highest point as opposed to being constructed below the main roof line. Because of the changes, Planning, in consultation with SHPO Staff, recommends that this home receive a “C” rating, a non-contributing status. 1418 E. Laird Avenue 2005 RLS Photo 2015 The Yalecrest 2005 Reconnaissance Level Survey rated this house as a “B”, contributing structure. The subject home has been significantly modified since 2005 with the extension of the front porch roof across the entire front façade of the home. Because of the changes, Planning, in consultation with SHPO Staff, recommends that this home receive a “C” rating, a non- contributing status. 1451 E. Uintah Circle 2005 RLS Photo 2015 The original house at this address was demolished. While the new home is stylistically compatible with the neighborhood, it is in fact new construction and therefore is rated “Out of Period”, which is non-contributing. The H – Historic Preservation Overlay district that would be applied to the proposed district, if the local historic district were approved, would add an additional layer of regulation that requires design review for exterior alterations and imposes stringent regulations on demolition of contributing buildings. The Yalecrest neighborhood was designated to the National Register of Historic Places in 2007. Being listed on the National Register is an honorary designation that provides property owners with the ability to seek state and/or federal tax credits for appropriate repairs or restoration work on contributing buildings. The National Register designation provides incentives for appropriate alterations but provides no protection from demolition or additions that may not be compatible with the historic character of the area. Commission Recommendations: The Historic Landmark Commission reviewed this application on September 7, 2023, and found that it meets the local historic district designation criteria, and voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to designate Yalecrest – Laird Heights as a local historic district. The Planning Commission considered this application on September 13, 2023, and found that the proposed Zoning Map Amendment to add the Historic Preservation Overlay district to this area does not meet the general zoning amendment criteria, and therefore voted (5-4) to forward a negative recommendation to the City Council to designate Yalecrest – Laird Heights as a local historic district. The Planning Commission’s rationale for the negative recommendation were based on the findings that the proposed district did not meet the policies/goals found in the following adopted City documents: • Chapters 3-5 of Plan Salt Lake (2015) addressing Housing, Transportation & Mobility, and Air Quality. • Housing SLC • Thriving in Place Property Owner Opinion Ballot Results: On October 13, 2023, the Property Owners Opinion Ballot (Support Survey) was mailed to property owners within the proposed local historic district. Property owners were given thirty days to submit a ballot indicating whether they support or oppose the designation of the Yalecrest – Laird Heights Local Historic District. On November 20, 2023, the City Recorder issued the Official Canvass of the Property Owner Opinion Ballot, which contained the following results: Ballots in Support…………………………….…49 Ballots Opposed……………….………………...9 Did not Vote……………………………………..10 Undeliverable or Did Not Receive……………....0 Returned After Due Date………………………...0 Total Ballots Returned………………………......58 of 68 Since the Property Owner Opinion Ballots returned equals at least two-thirds (2/3) of the total number of returned property owner support ballots, and represents more than fifty percent (50%) of the parcels within the proposed local historic district, the City Council may designate a local historic district by a simple majority vote. It is noted that the City Council is not bound by the results of the Property Owner Opinion Ballot. PUBLIC PROCESS: • Initial Notification of Affected Property Owners: Section 21A.34.020(C)(4) requires Staff to notify affected property owners by sending a neutral informational pamphlet to each property affected by the potential application. The informational pamphlet was mailed to property owners within the proposed district on January 5, 2023. The informational pamphlet contained a description of the process to create a local historic district, as well as a list of the pros and cons of a local historic district. The pamphlet was mailed after the applicant submitted and finalized the proposed boundary for the Yalecrest – Laird Heights Local Historic District. • Application Notification to Affected Property Owners: The application was submitted on February 1, 2023, and the subsequent Notice of Designation Application Letter was mailed to affected property owners within the proposed Yalecrest – Laird Height Local Historic District on February 9, 2023. Property owners were sent the notice of application and “Local Historic District Pros and Cons” informational letter indicating that the Planning Division had received an application, including the required number of signatures to initiate the designation, of a new local historic district. • Planning Director Report to the City Council: Staff prepared and transmitted the Planning Director Report to the City Council. The Planning Director Report included the requirements found in 21A.32.020(C)(7)(A-F). The City Council adopted the Planning Director Report on May 2, 2023, instructing Planning Staff to move forward with the proposal. • Property Owner Meeting: On June 20, 2023, the Planning Division met with owners of property located within the proposed boundaries of the Yalecrest – Laird Heights Local Historic District. The purpose of the meeting was to inform the property owners about the designation process and to discuss how local historic district designation would impact the property owners. The meeting included discussions regarding the process for obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness, the adopted historic preservation standards and design guidelines. There was also a discussion on common over-the-counter approvals and the process of applying for approval. Approximately 16 property owners attended this meeting. • Open House: On June 29, 2023, the Planning Division established an on-line Open House to solicit public comment regarding the proposed designation. All property owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposed local historic district, as well as those individuals on the Planning Division e-mail listserve were notified of the open house. An email was also sent out to the Yalecrest Neighborhood Council, East Liberty Park Community Organization, Wasatch Hollow Community Council, and KEEPYalecrest with notification of the on-line open house. • Historic Landmark Commission Meeting: On September 7, 2023, the Historic Landmark Commission held a public hearing regarding the proposed Yalecrest – Laird Heights Local Historic District. Following the public hearing, the Historic Landmark Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance to create the proposed local historic district. The agenda, minutes, and staff report of the September 7, 2023, Historic Landmark Commission meeting are bookmarked below for reference. • Planning Commission Meeting: On September 13, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the proposed Zoning Map Amendment, which would add the H – Historic Preservation Overlay zoning district to the properties within the proposed local historic district. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted (5-4) to forward a negative recommendation to the City Council regarding the designation of the proposed local historic district. The agenda, minutes, and staff report of the September 13, 2023, Planning Commission meeting are bookmarked below for reference. • Property Owner Opinion Ballot: On October 13, 2023, the Property Owners Opinion Ballot (Support Survey) was mailed to property owners within the proposed local historic district. Property owners were given thirty days to submit a ballot indicating whether they support or oppose the designation of the Yalecrest – Laird Heights Local Historic District. On November 20, 2023, the City Recorder issued the Official Canvass of the Property Owner Opinion Ballot (Support Survey) which proved favorable to the proposed district. Of the 58 ballots returned, 49 were in support of the proposed district and 9 were opposed. HISTORIC LANDMARK & PLANNING COMMISSION RECORDS: a) HLC Agenda of September 7, 2023 (Click Here) b) HLC Minutes of September 7, 2023 (Click Here) c) HLC Staff Report of September 7, 2023 (Click Here) d) PC Agenda of September 13, 2023 (Click Here) e) PC Minutes of September 13, 2023 (Click Here) f) PC Staff Report of September 13, 2023 (Click Here) EXHIBITS: 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3. ORIGINAL PETITION 4. MAILING LIST 5. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT (RECEIVED AFTER STAFF REPORT PUBLICATION) 6. OFFICIAL CANVASS RESULTS SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2024 (Amending the Zoning Map to establish the Yalecrest-Laird Heights Local Historic District) An ordinance amending the Zoning Map to establish the Yalecrest-Laird Heights Local Historic District pursuant to Petition No. PLNHLC2023-00074. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission (“Historic Landmark Commission”) held a public hearing on September 7, 2023 on an application submitted by the Kelly McAleer (“Applicant”) to amend the city’s zoning map (Petition No. PLNHLC2023- 00074) to apply the H Historic Preservation Overlay District to properties located on Laird Avenue, Laird Circle, and Uintah Circle between 1300 East Street and 1500 East Street, along with properties located at 1185, 1193, 1221, and 1227 South 1300 East Street, and 1174, 1180, 1184, 1194, 1200, and 1202 South 1500 East Street, which area shall be known as the Yalecrest- Laird Heights Local Historic District; and WHEREAS, at its September 7, 2023 public hearing, the Historic Landmark Commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) and Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said application. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 13, 2023 on said application; and WHEREAS, at its September 13, 2023 meeting, by a 5-4 vote the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a negative recommendation to the City Council on said application; and WHEREAS, it was noted in the planning division staff report that the dwellings at 1200 South 1500 East Street, 1418 East Laird Avenue, and 1451 East Uintah Circle should be classified as non-contributing structures due to significant modifications to two of the structures and the third being a complete replacement structure; 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 apply the H Historic Preservation Overlay District to all buildings, structures and real property within the boundaries described and depicted on Exhibit “A”. The areas described and depicted on Exhibit “A” shall be known as the Yalecrest-Laird Heights Local Historic District. The dwellings within the Yalecrest-Laird Heights Local Historic District shall be and hereby are classified as contributing structures as defined in Section 21A.34.020 of the Salt Lake City Code except that the structures at 1200 South 1500 East Street, 1418 East Laird Avenue, and 1451 East Uintah Circle shall be and hereby are classified as non-contributing structures. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 2023. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2023. Published: ______________. Ordinance adopting Yalecrest Laird Heights LHD APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney November 30, 2023 Exhibit “A” Yalecrest – Laird Heights Local Historic District Description of the Area Subject to a Zoning Map Amendment to add the H – Historic Preservation Overlay District Beginning at the Northwest Corner of Lot 3, Block 3, Normandie Heights Subdivision, as recorded in Book 'H', Page 128, Salt Lake County Recorders Office, and running thence N89°59'00"E 118.86 feet to the Northeast Corner of said Lot 3; thence S15°24'23"E 57.05 feet to the Southeast Corner of said Lot 3; thence N68°23'00"E 49.04 feet to the Northeast Corner of Lot 27, said Block 3; thence S08°30'00"E 124.64 feet to the Southeast Corner of said Lot 27; thence S00°01'00"E 64.78 feet to a point on the south line of Laird Ave; thence along said south line the following 3 courses: 1) N89°59'00"E 12.52 feet to a 1,634.83 foot radius curve to the right; 2) 176.43 feet along said curve (chord bears S86°55'30"E 176.34 feet) to a 1,056.57 foot radius curve to the left; 3) 11.95 feet along said curve (chord bears S84°09'27"E 11.95 feet); thence N13°10'18"E 128.67 feet to the Northwest Corner of Lot 20, Block 2, said Normandie Heights Subdivision; thence N80°00'00"E 57.80 feet to the Northeast Corner of said Lot 20; thence S06°15'00"W 13.44 feet; thence N65°08'25"E 50.31 feet; thence N80°00'00"E 253.91 feet to the Northeast Corner of Lot 25, said Block 2 and the westerly subdivision line of the Uintah Heights Addition Subdivision, as recorded in Book 'I', Page 6, Salt Lake County Recorders Office; thence along said westerly line N00°01'00"W 67.18 feet; thence N30°02'16"E 52.17 feet; thence N22°40'48"E 35.66 feet to the north line of said Uintah Heights Addition Subdivision; thence N89°57'20"E 523.06 feet along said north line; thence S82°22'06"E 91.82 feet; thence N38°26'50"E 15.67 feet to the Northeast Corner of Lot 20, Block 2, said Uintah Heights Addition Subdivision; thence N89°57'20"E 110.00 feet to the Northeast Corner of Parcel # 16-09-353-050 and the west line of 1500 East Street; thence S00°01'00"E 375.00 feet along said west line to the Southeast Corner of Parcel # 16-09- 354-055; thence S89°57'20"W 110.00 feet along the south line of said Parcel to the Southwest Corner of said Parcel; thence S00°01'00"E 78.00 feet to the Southeast Corner of Lot 14, Block 1, said Uintah Heights Addition Subdivision; thence S89°57'20"W 663.70 feet to the Southwest Corner of Lot 2, said Block 1 of Uintah Heights Addition Subdivision; thence S00°01'00"E 2.65 feet to the Southeast Corner of Lot 33, Block 1, said Normandie Heights Subdivision; thence S89°57'22"W 645.00 feet to the Southwest Corner of Lot 21, said Block 1 of Normandie Heights Subdivision; thence S00°01'00"E 53.62 feet to the Southeast Corner of Parcel # 16-08-483-003; thence S89°59'00"W 134.00 feet to the Southwest Corner of said Parcel and the east line of 1300 East Street; thence N00°01'00"W 413.00 feet to the point of beginning. 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Yalecrest – Laird Heights – Local Historic District Petition PLNHLC2023-00074 January 5, 2023 Property owners were sent a notice and Local Historic District Pros and Cons informational letter indicating that the Planning Division had been notified by a property owner of interest in creating a new local historic district. February 1, 2023 Application submitted to the City by property owner, Kelly McAleer. February 1, 2023 Petition assigned to Lex Traughber. February 9, 2023 Application Notification - Property owners were sent a notice of application and “Local Historic District Pros and Cons” informational letter indicating that the Planning Division had received an application, including the required number of signatures to initiate the designation of a new local historic district. May 2, 2023 Planning Director’s Report to the City Council for a new proposed local historic district. The City Council directed Planning Staff to move forward processing the proposed local historic district. May 10, 2023 Property Owner Meeting Notification – Property owners were sent a notice for the required “Neighborhood Information” meeting to be held on June 20, 2023. June 20, 2023 Property Owner Meeting held at the Carmen B. Pingree School. Owners of approximately 16 properties attended the meeting. June 27, 2023 Open House Notification to Recognized Organizations – An email was sent out to the Yalecrest Neighborhood Council, East Liberty Park Community Organization, Wasatch Hollow Community Council, and KEEPYalecrest with notification of the on-line open house. June 29, 2023 Open House Notification – Property owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposed local historic district boundaries were mailed notification of an on-line open house. The on-line Open House ran from June 29, 2023 to August 9, 2023. August 25, 2023 Notice of the Historic Landmark Commission September 7, 2023 Public Hearing mailed to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the subject property. Listserve notification of the Historic Lanmark Commission’s agenda emailed. Agenda posted on the Planning Division and State websites. September 7, 2023 The Historic Landmark Commission heard the proposal in a public hearing and voted to forward a positive recommendation on to the City Council for consideration. August 30, 2023 Notice of the Planning Commission’s September 13, 2023 Public Hearing mailed to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the subject property. Listserve notification of Planning Commission agenda emailed. Agenda posted on the Planning Division and State websites. September 13, 2023 Planning Commission Public Hearing. The Planning Commission voted to forward a negative recommendation regarding the request on to the City Council for a decision. October 13, 2023 A “Property Owners Opinion Ballot (Support Survey)” was mailed to all property owners asking if owners were in support, or if they were opposed, to the designation. Ballots were required to be submitted to the City Recorder’s Office or postmarked by November 15, 2023. November 15, 2023 The “Property Owners Opinion Ballot (Support Survey)” period ended at 5:00 p.m. November 15, 2023 Planning Staff requested an ordinance from the City Attorney’s Office. November 20, 2023 The City Recorder’s Office issued the “Official Canvass”, or official results of the support survey. 49 property owners were in support, 9 opposed, and 10 did not vote. November 30, 2023 Ordinance received from the City Attorney. November 30, 2023 Transmittal was submitted to the Community & Neighborhoods Office. 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNHLC2023-00074 – Yalecrest – Laird Heights – Local Historic District – Kelly McAleer, a property owner, submitted a petition to designate a new local historic district within the Yalecrest neighborhood of the City. The proposed boundaries of the Yalecrest – Laird Heights Local Historic District are on Laird Avenue from 1300 East to 1500 East including the homes on Laird Circle and Uintah Circle. The subject property is located in Council District 6 represented by Dan Dugan. As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During this hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance on the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held: DATE: TIME: 7:00 p.m. 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 relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Lex Traughber at (801) 535-6184 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at lex.traughber@slcgov.com The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “Planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNHLC2023-00074. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to participate in this hearing. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com , 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. 3. ORIGINAL PETITION // LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT OR THEMATIC DESIGNATION PLANNING DIVISION // v12.19.22 6 NAME OF OWNER EMAIL PHONEMAILING ADDRESS MAILING ADDRESS APPLICATION TYPE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY LEGAL PROPERTY OWNER CONSENT NAME OF APPLICANT LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY EMAIL SIGNATURE SIGNATURE DATE DATE 1. 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. 2. By signing the application, I am acknowledging that I have read and understood the instructions provided 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. If the applicant is not the legal owner of the property, a consent from property owner must be provided. Properties with a single fee title owner may show consent by filling out the information below or by providing an affidavit. 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. 1. If a corporation is fee titleholder, attach copy of the resolution of the Board of Directors authorizing the action. 2. If a joint venture or partnership is the fee owner, attach copy of agreement authorizing action on behalf of the joint venture or partnership. 3. If a Home Owner’s Association is the applicant then 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. DISCLAIMER: 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. .elly 0cAleer 3 ( /aird Avenue, 6alt /ake City, 8T 0 /ocal +istoric Designation ..03 +ome .elly 0cAleer .elly 6lone 5evocable Trust 3 ( /aird Avenue, 6alt /ake City, 8tah 0..03 Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 1 of 34 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A. Project Description 1. Written Description of the Proposal ..................................... 3 Significance of Area in Local, Regional, State or National History Physical Integrity of houses in the area Commercial Properties Developers, Builders, Architects Properties Recommended for National Register Level Research Significant Persons in the Area Distinctive characteristics of the type/period/method of construction Importance to Salt Lake City history 2. Physical Integrity .................................................................... 11 Location, Design, Setting, Materials, Workmanship, Feeling and Association 3. Eligibility Listing on the National Register of Historic Places 15 4. Notable Examples of Elements in Salt Lake City’s History 15 5. Consistent Designation Of Proposed LHD Designation With Adopted City Planning Policies ............................................ 22 6. Public Interest in Proposed LHD Designation .................... 25 B. Photographs (attached separately) ........................................... 27 C. Research Materials ...................................................................... 27 D. Landmark Sites ............................................................................. 27 E. Boundary Adjustment .................................................................. 27 Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 2 of 34 Page APPENDICES A. Maps 1. Original Plat Normandie Heights Subdivision within Yalecrest . 29 2. Laird Heights LHD within other establish LHDs in Yalecrest Neighborhood ............................................................ 30 3. Expanded view of Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD ....................... 31 B. Contrary Documentation in 2005 RLS ........................................... 32 C. Photographs of houses in Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD (original vs. 2023) ............................................................................ 33 See photos in a separate attached document 1185-1227 S 1300 East ............................................................ 1305-1480 E Laird Ave ............................................................. 1407-1425 E Laird Circle .......................................................... 1447-1465 E Uintah Circle........................................................ 1174-1200 S 1500 E ................................................................. D. Research Materials (References) .................................................... 34 Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 3 of 34 1. Project Description Significance of Area in Local, Regional or State History In the mid 1800’s, Salt Lake City was platted and developed with public buildings in the center of Salt Lake City surrounded by residential lots and farmland to the south and west. The Big Field Survey in 1848 divided the land to the south of the Salt Lake City settlement (900 South today) into five and ten acre plots to be used for farming for the “mechanics and artisans” of the city.1 The Yalecrest survey area is located on the northeastern section of land that was initially set apart as Five -Acre Plat “C” of the Big Field Survey1 The land was divided into 100-acre blocks, each of which was again divided into 20 lots of 5 acres each. Yalecrest occupies Blocks 28, 29, and 30. The original blocks are bordered by the major north-south streets of the survey area: 1300, 1500, 1700 and 1900 East and the east-west streets of 900 and 1300 South. (The Utah Historic Sites Database). The area north of 2100 South was a Five -Acre Plat “A” and the area south was a Ten-Acre Plat. The majority of Yalecrest with the exception of strips along the north and west sides are part of Five Acre Plat “C”.1 Property within the area was distributed by the LDS church authorities, by lot, for use in raising crops and farming.1 Dividing the plots for land speculation was discouraged: 1875 maps of Salt Lake City show no development in the southeast section of the city beyond 1000 East or 900 South. The earliest identified residents in the Yalecrest area begin to appear in the 1870s1. Yalecrest boundaries are represented by 840 South (Sunnyside Ave) to 1300 South and 1300 East to 1900 East. The 1920s were a period of tremendous growth in Yalecrest with 22 subdivisions platted by a variety of developers from 1911 to 1938. The Bowers Investment Company, a branch of the Bowers Building Company, filed the subdivision papers for Normandie Heights in 1926 with 140 lots, and its houses were built primarily from 1926-35. It is distinctive because of its picturesque rolling topography with landscaped serpentine streets, regular promotions, prominent homeowners, deep setbacks, and large irregularly shaped lots. In August 1928, the Uintah Heights Addition located in Block 30 of the 5 - Acre Plat C of the Big Field Survey of 1848 and consists of 35 lots. The area was developed by Uintah Realty Co. and other builders and houses were constructed primarily in the late 1920s and early 1930s, many by Herrick Bros. and the Gaddis Investment Company. N.L. Herrick was a partner in the Gaddis Investment Co mpany as well as an individual builder. Herrick and Company provided both design and construction services. The Gaddis Investment Company was founded in 1922 to deal in real estate, investments and insurance. Both of its partners lived in Yalecrest; N.L. Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 4 of 34 Herrick at 1603 Harvard Avenue and Thomas E. Gaddis at 1465 Laird Avenue in a French Norman house built in 1929. Thomas Gaddis was involved in real estate and investments in Salt Lake City from 1909 to his death in 1967. The initial street names of Princeton, Laird and Harvard Aves were Kelsey, Edith, and Hampton, respectively. View of Laird Ave 1933 A number of factors contributed to the Yalecrest development in the early twentieth century; 1) the population of Salt Lake City almost doubling from 1900 to 1910, 2) air pollution in the valley from coal burning furnaces led residents to seek higher elevations East of 1300 East for cleaner air to breathe for their residences recently developed by in- state and out-of-state land developers. Transportation options made the Yalecrest area easily accessible to the downtown area. The primary means of transportation in the early part of this era was the streetcar line along 1500 East.1 The streetcars serving the Yalecrest area traveled from downtown to 1300 East in front of East High, traveling East along 900 South to 1500 East, then south on 1500 East to the State Prison located at 2100 S. The former State Prison on 2100 South is the current site of Sugar House Park. 1960’s and Beyond (1960-2005) The Yalecrest neighborhood, in general and Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD specifically, avoided the blight common in many urban residential neighborhoods during this era. Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 5 of 34 There was no population pressure as the population of Salt Lake City slightly decreased during this time period.12 No major roads were built through the neighborhood although traffic increased on the border streets of 1300 South, 1300 East and Sunnyside Ave. Zoning ordinances restricted commercial building to a few spots on the major streets. While there are 51 original duplexes in the Yalecrest neighborhood, there are 4 in the proposed Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD. The original Uintah Elementary School located on 1300 S (outside the proposed Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD boundaries) was demolished and replaced by a new structure in 1993. The attractive neighborhoods of Yalecrest have mature street trees, single-family owner-occupied, well-maintained houses with landscaped yards and continue to be a desirable residential area .1 The current practice of razing an existing small historic structure and replacing it with a residence 3-4 times the size of the original house in established neighborhoods galvanized some residents into action in the years 2000 -2005. A zoning overlay ordinance was created called the Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay ordinance was passed by the Salt Lake City Council in 2005. The purpose of the ordinance is: to encourage compatibility between new construction, additions or alterations and the existing character and scale of the surrounding neighborhood. That infill overlay zoning regulated building height, minimum front yard size, and several aspects of garages or accessory structures. Due to liberal interpretation of the current City and State demolition ordinances, houses in Yalecrest continue to be demolished above ground and replaced with out-of-size, mass and architectural incompatibility. The currently proposed SLC “Affordable Housing Incentive” (AHI) City (2022) aims to increase multifamily housing within ¼ mile of high frequency (every 15 minutes) transportation corridors. UTA has recently changed the frequency of bus route #220 on 1300 E to a 15-minute frequency. All 1300-1500 Blocks of Yalecrest are impacted by this zoning overlay. The AHI zoning overlay allows demolition of single -family housing to create this new multifamily hou sing construction thus making historic single-family houses in the proposed Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD endangered to demolition. The listing of Yalecrest on the National Register of Historic Places does not protect against this local zoning. This application seeking a Local Historic District designation is the only current legal option to minimize demolition of historic single -family houses in this established, mature and historic neighborhood. The proposed Yalecrest-Laird Heights Local Historic District (LHD) is located on Block 30 and encompasses the following properties; 6 properties on the west side of 1500 East (1174, 1180, 1184, 1188, 1194, and 1200 S 1500 East) between the proposed Princeton Heights LHD and the current proposed Laird Heights LHD as the East boundary, Four properties on the East side of 1300 East (1185-1227 S 1300 East) represent the West Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 6 of 34 boundary and all Laird Ave properties on the north and south sides of Laird Ave street face from 1305-1480 E Laird as the North and South boundaries, respectively. Both the Laird Circle and Uintah Circles are located within the North side of Laird Ave. (see APPENDIX A). Thus, 61 single- family houses and 4 duplex houses are contained within the 65 property parcels proposed Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD. The name “Laird Ave first appears in 1908 in the Polk directory and is associated with development of Laird Ave near 900 and 1000 East by Edward Laird (1852 -1925), who migrated at the age of 4 into Utah as part of the infamous Willie Handcart Company of 1856. As an adult he homesteaded in Mountain Dell of Parley’s Canyon. After selling water rights to Salt Lake City in 1900, he relocated to Salt Lake City bought a lot of land and developed a number of lumber and real estate and development companies in Salt Lake City (see Significant persons in the area section below). Physical Integrity of Houses in the Area There is a very high degree of retained historic integrity in the proposed Yalecrest -Laird An Architectural and Historic Reconnaissance Level Survey (RLS) of Yalecrest was conducted in 20051, by Beatrice Lufkin of the Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for Salt Lake City in preparation for the National Register of Historic Places application for the Yalecrest neighborhood. Much of the information in this document comes from that reconnaissance level survey (RLS). The proposed Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD area contains houses constructed over the time period from 1923 (1480 E Laird Ave) and extending through 1950 (1185 S 1300 East) in the historic era. All of the houses in the proposed Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD were contributing in 2005 (100%), either /significant and eligible contributing (100.0%): 60.0% (39/65) were considered eligible and significant (A) and 40.0% (26/65) were considered eligible and contributing (B). Only one house, since 2005, has been demolished with new construction replacement, (1451 E Uintah Circle). The contributory status of other properties in Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD may have changed since the last assessment in 2005. Houses that may no longer have contributory status are listed in APPENDIX C. Commercial Properties There are no commercial properties in the proposed Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD. Developers, Builders and Architects The original name for Laird Ave was actually Edith Ave . “Laird Ave first appears in the 1908 Polk directory and is associated with development of that street later in Normandie Heights subdivision (see Significant persons in the area section below). Normandie Heights subdivision was platted for 140 properties in 1926 by the Bowers Investment Co. Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 7 of 34 Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD contains 65 property parcels of the 140 platted parcels in the greater Normandie Height subdivision. A number of notable Salt Lake builders were responsible for building exceptional houses in the proposed Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD. Notable Builders in Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Builder Laird Ave Laird Circle Uintah Circle 1300 East 1500 East TOTAL JA Shaffer 11 11 LJ Bowers Invest. Co 2 2 4 Carl Buehner 2 1 1 4 Gaddis Invest. Co 6 6 N Myrtle Bratt 6 6 Layton Construction Co 1 1 George L Biesinger 1 1 Herrick Building Co 2 2 Gaskell Romney 1 1 AE Jorgenson 1 1 Sugarhouse Lumber Co 1 1 An advertisement for the Spanish Colonial Revival at 1360 E Laird Ave built by JA Shaffer (left) and Lower Laird Ave (right) Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 8 of 34 Gaskell Romney was extensively involved in developing Normandie Heights subdivision. He built 9 homes in the Princeton Heights LHD (1404, 1410, 1426, 1442, 1445,1449, 1450, 1458 and 465 E Princeton Ave. He built 1 house in the proposed Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD at 1332 E Laird Ave. The proposed boundaries of the Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD are outlined in red (APPENDIX A-1). It will join 6 other LHDs created in Yalecrest: Harvard Park, Laird Park, Yale Plat A/Upper Harvard, Harvard Heights, Normandie Circle and Douglas Park- I, outlined in blue. It will join another proposed Princeton Heights LHD previously submitted for local historic designation which is located immediately North of the currently proposed Laird Heights LHD. Properties Recommended for National Register Level Research 1308 E Laird Ave (built 1939) a brick 2 story Art Modern style. 1227 S 1300 East (built 1940) is a Spanish Colonial Revival type duplex. 1362 S Laird Ave (built 1927) Spanish Colon ial Revival 1374 S Laird Ave (built 1927) French Norman style with two turrets 1465 E Laird Ave (Built 1929) the long-term residence of builder/Investor Thomas E Gaddis. This property is listed as 1465 E Uintah Circle in the 2005 RLS, but as 1465 E Laired Ave by the Salt Lake County Assessor. 1451 E Uintah Circle (built 1939) representative of several Colonial Revival architecture style houses In Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD. Significant Persons in the Area The Naming of Laird Ave The name “Laird Ave first appears in 1908 in the Polk directory and is associated with development of Laird Ave near 900 and 1000 East by Edward Laird (1852 -1925), who migrated at the age of 4 into Utah as part of the infamous Willie Handcart Company of 1856. As an adult he homesteaded in Mountain Dell of Parley’s Canyon. After selling water rights to Salt Lake City in 1900, he relocated to Salt Lake City bought a lot of land and developed a number of lumber and real estate and development companies in Salt Lake City. Originally, Laird Ave was listed as Edith Ave. Land records and personal history accounts lend credence to Edward Laird (1852 -1925) as the source of the current street name, Laird Avenue. According to the local paper, he was involved in a numb er of real estate transfers in 1907 and 1908 in a subdivision named, “Laird”. Those lots were located at what is Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 9 of 34 now Laird Avenue between 9th and 10th East. All these land transfers occurred immediately before the street named "Laird Avenue" first appeared in the city directory in 1908. Therefore, there is credence that the street was named after Edward Laird. A relative, William Naylor, was likely also invested in that land, as the name of one of the dead-end courts that runs north off of 13th South just east of 9th East is named "Naylor Court." Edward Laird was born in Scotland in 1852 and died in Salt Lake in 1925. Edward was a child of four when his family immigrated as handcart pioneers in the infamous Willie Handcart Company of 1856 where more than a hundred of the pioneers perished in frigid Wyoming. Edward Laird's family however arrived unscathed. Living first in Spanish Fork, then Heber City, Edward grew up accustomed to hard work on his father's farm but never attended school. While camping in Park City, Edward found some silver ore. Edward and his brother had their camp ground assayed and sold their claim (which is now Silver King) for $1500. With this money, Edward purchased land in Parley’s Canyon (now Mountain Dell), began raising sheep and hauling silver ore from Park City to Salt Lake. A little farther down the canyon was the Hardy Station, a halfway house run by the Hardy family. It was in the Hardy home that Edward met Valeria Ann Flint. When grown, Laird homesteaded land in Parley's Canyon at Mountain Dell and became a successful sheep farmer. He owned water rights of Parley's Canyon Creek and sold some of them to Salt Lake City in 1900 during a severe water drought. Thereafter, he relocated to Salt Lake City and started buying real estate in Salt Lake City. He bought a property near 1st South and 5th West and eventually started Rio Grande Lumber Company there. He also had ownership in Sugarhouse Lumber Company, which was located on 21st South near 12th East. Later, he joined with Misters Ashton and Jenkins of the Ashton-Jenkins Company, who developed much of Yalecrest. He later became a vice-president of the Ashton- Jenkins Company. The family moved to 840 East Twelfth South (later becoming 840 East 2100 South), after selling their property in Mountain Dell in Parley’s Canyon. He and his wife, Valeria Ann Flint Laird had eight children, five daughters and three sons. The sons continued with the sheep farming part of the family business and moved to Dubois, Idaho. Edward also owned much of the block around his house and that's why there are other family members showing in the Polk directories living at the other addresses, 817 and 820 East Twelfth South. (compiled by Kim Childs, KEEPYalecrest) Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 10 of 34 Edward Laird (1852-1925) 1922 50th Wedding Anniversary of Edward Laird and Valeria Laird with their children. Back row left is Fidella Laird Snelgrove, wife of Charles Rich Snelgrove Laird and Snelgrove Families Edward's youngest daughter, Fidella married Charles Rich Snelgrove, who in 1929 created Snelgrove's Ice Cream Company. After the deaths of Edward and Valeria in 1925 and 1930 respectively, Charles and Fidella lived in his parents’ house at 840 E. 1200 South (changed later to 840 E 2100 South) in Sugarhouse. The year before Valeria died, she allowed Charles and Fidella to open their ice cream business up the street at one of their properties at 1055 E. 2100 South. Eventually, sometime after 1940, the houses at 820 and 840 E. 2100 South were razed to make room for the Snelgrove factory and main store with the iconic giant spinning ice-cream cone sign at 850 E. 2100 South. The oldest son of Charles Rich Snelgrove (husband to Fidella Laird, the youngest daughter of Edward Laird) was Charles Laird Snelgrove. He worked with his father and later ultimately took over ownership and expanded the business throughout Salt Lake City (compiled by Kim Childs, KEEPYalecrest) Distinctive Characteristics of the Type/Period/Method Of Construction Houses within the proposed Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD are primarily English Cottages (50.8%) and English Tudors (14.4%) constructed mainly in brick; either striated (50.8%) or regular (30.8%) over the time period 1920-30. These houses contain unique exterior and interior architectural attributes built by notable City builders and serve as outstanding historical examples of great domiciles for future generations. Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 11 of 34 Importance to Salt Lake City History Yalecrest and specifically the proposed Laird Heights LHD contains many fine example s of English Cottages and English Tudors (Historically, Yalecrest has been home to many professional residents who have shaped the city’s development and economic base. There has been a diversity of professional occupations amongst past and current property owners in Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD; business persons, lawyers, physicians, and builders. A number of notable professional people lived in Yalecrest-Laird Heights, who advanced the economic base of Salt Lake City. Those individuals are listed as a function of the street address at which they reside in the Notable Persons section below. 2. Physical Integrity The proposed Laird Height LHD is located on the southwest side of the greater Yalecrest neighborhood on a mature tree-line rolling hill. It contains notable examples of English Cottages English Tudors, Spanish Colonial Revival and Colonial Revival archite cture by many famous builders in 1920-30’s of Salt Lake City. Contributing Status of houses in Yalecrest-Laird Heights The proposed Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD retains a very high degree of historic and physical integrity. The vast majority of houses (%) are eligible/significant (39/65= 60%) and eligible contributing (26/65= 40%)1. There were no “C” nor D”’ structures in Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD boundaries listed in the 2005 Reconnaissance Level Survey. To our knowledge, 1 house in the Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD was demolished with new construction replacement, 1451 E Uintah Circle. Two other houses may have been altered sufficiently becoming noncontributing (1453 and 1455 E Uintah Circle). The number of contributing and noncontributing houses and their eligibility status on each street in the Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD is tabulated below. Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 12 of 34 Contributing Structure Status of Single-Family Residential Properties in Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHDa,c Street Ab Bb Cb Db Xb Total Laird Ave 29 13 0 0 0 42 Laird Circle 4 3 0 0 0 7 Uintah Circle 0 5 0 1 0 6 1300 East 4 0 0 0 0 4 1500 East 2 4 0 0 0 6 TOTAL % Total 39 (60.0%) 25 (38.5%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (1.5%) 0 (0.0%) 65a (100%) aaccording to the 2005 RLS, there are 65 single family residential structures included in this analysis. The contributing status listed reflects assessment in 2005, except 1 house in Uintah Circle that was demolished in 2009 and replaced with new construction (D) bA= eligible significant, B= eligible/contributing, C= ineligible/noncontributing, D=out of period, X=demolished c1926 plat of Normandie Heights lists 104 properties. Yalecrest -Laird Heights LHD contains 65 of those 104 parcels. The number of currently (2023) eligible significant (A) plus eligible contributing structures (B) may have changed due to remodeling projects that alter the street face including; windows, porches, dormers, stories, roofing materials and/or exterior materials. The number of contributing structures in 2023 remain to be verified by the City Planning Department / Preservation Office and Historic Landmarks Commission. It is interesting to note that Yalecrest in general, and Normandie Heights subdivision in particular, attracts home buyers that stay in residence for extended periods of time. Many property owners have lived in the same residence for more than 20 years. This continuity lends consistency, character and stewardship to the area. The mature (75 yr old) and Ash, Elm, Sycamore, Norwegian Maple and other newer specie tree-lined streets with streetlights provide shade, shelter and safety in the neighborhood. Driving access to major interstates I-15 and I-80, and walkability to integrated infrastructure necessary for successful residential living: commercial neighborhood zoning districts (grocery, pharmacy, restaurants, library and public parks and schools) and contributes to making Yalecrest in general, and Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD specifically, one of the safest neighborhoods and most sought real estate property in Salt Lake City. Houses are well-maintained, and appropriately updated for modern living, while maintaining their original architectural charm. Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 13 of 34 Building dates Houses in the proposed Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD were built from 1919 through 1953 in the current historic era. The majority of single-family residences in Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD according to the Salt Lake County Assessor website were built in the late 1920’s (67.4%) and 1930’s (25.6%). The distribution of houses built in different decades from 1910 to 1950’s as a function of street with the proposed LHD are shown in the table below. Construction Yearsa of Original Single-Family Residences in Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHDa Street 1920’s 1930’s 1940’s 1950’s >2005 Total Laird Ave 22 20 0 0 0 42 Laird Circle 3 4 0 0 0 7 Uintah Circle 0 4 0 0 2 6 1300 East 0 3 0 1 0 4 1500 East 6 0 0 0 0 6 TOTAL 31 31 0 1 2 65 % Total 47.7% 47.7% 0.% 1.5% 3.1% 100% aaccording to Salt Lake County Assessor website (www.slco.org/assessor) Architectural Types Houses of the Laird Heights LHD contain a variety of architectural style types including English Cottage (50.8%), English Tudor (15.4%), Colonial Revival (9.2%), French Bungalow (7.7%), French Norman (6.2%), Spanish Colonial Revival (4.6%), Minimal Traditional/Ranch (4.6%), Art Moderne (1.5%) Tabulation of the house styles as a function of street within the Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD is shown below. Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 14 of 34 Architectural Types in Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Residential Structuresa Type Laird Ave Laird Circle Uintah Circle 1300 East 1500 East TOTAL %TOTAL English Cottage / Period Revival 28 2 0 0 3 33 50.8% English Tudor 4 2 2 2 0 10 15.4% Colonial Revival 0 2 4 0 0 6 9.2% Bungalow 2 0 0 0 3 5 7.7% French Norman 4 0 0 0 0 4 6.2% Spanish Colonial Revival 2 0 0 1 0 3 4.6% Minimal Tradition/ Early Ranch 1 1 0 1 0 3 4.6% Art Moderne 1 0 0 0 0 1 1.5% TOTAL 42 7 6 4 6 65 100% aaccording to RLS 2005. Exterior House Materials Exterior construction materials of houses in Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD are primarily striated brick (50.8%), regular brick (30.8%), stucco/paster (10.8%) and stone (4.6%), Terra Cotta (1.5%), aluminum/vinyl siding (1.5%) with various accompanying materials including half timbering, clapboard, stucco/paster, wood and aluminum/vinyl siding. The distribution of the various exterior construction materials is tabulated below. Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 15 of 34 Exterior Construction Materials of Residential Structures in Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHDa a2005 RLS assessment 3. Eligibility Listing on the National Register of Historic Places As previously stated, the proposed Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD is located within the boundary of the existing Yalecrest National Register Historic District established in 2007 (#07001168) and thus is eligible for Local Historic District designation. 4. Notable Examples of Elements in Salt Lake City’s History The proposed area described by the proposed Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD contains a diverse collection of historically contributing architecture styles; English Cottage, English Tudor, Colonial Revival, Spanish Colonial Revival, Minimal Tradition and Early Ranch, Type Laird Ave Laird Circle Uintah Circle 1300 East 1500 East Total %Total Striated Brick 8 2 2 0 0 12 +Half Timbering 5 2 1 1 0 9 + Stucco/plaster 3 0 0 0 3 6 +Alum/vinyl/wood 2 0 0 0 0 2 +stone 1 0 0 0 0 1 +shiplap/stone 1 0 0 0 0 1 +shingles 1 0 1 0 0 2 subtotal 21 4 4 1 3 33 50.8% Regular Brick 8 0 0 1 0 9 +Half timber 2 1 1 2 0 6 +stone or plaster 3 0 0 0 1 4 +wood 0 1 0 0 0 1 subtotal 13 2 1 3 1 20 30.8% Stucco/Plaster 3 0 0 0 1 4 +Half timbering 2 0 0 0 1 3 subtotal 5 0 0 0 2 7 10.8% Stone 0 1 0 0 0 1 +Plaster 1 0 0 0 0 1 +alum siding 1 0 0 0 0 1 subtotal 2 1 0 0 0 3 4.6% Terra Cotta 0 0 1 0 0 1 1.5% Aluminum/vinyl 0 0 1 0 0 1 1.5% TOTAL 42 7 6 4 6 65 100% Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 16 of 34 French Norman and Bungalow. In addition, these homes were developed, designed, built and owned by renowned individuals who contributed to the cultural, defense, business, medical, education and legal aspects of the city, state and country. An Intensive Level Survey was completed of Yalecrest by Beatrice Lufkin, of the Utah State Historic Office (SHPO) in 2005. Exterior and interior photographs, a title search, genealogical and other information are on file at the Utah State Preservation Of fice. Notable Houses and Their Owners in Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD (from The State Historic Preservation Office files) 1227-1229 S 1300 East (16-09-483-003) This masonry/stucco Spanish Colonial Revival house built in 1930 is considered architecturally significant example of Spanish Colonial Revival style in the form of a duplex. It was originally owned by William O Carbis. William O Carbis was president of K & A Heating. After his death in 1938, his son Wayne inherited the property. I t is a 1 ½ story stucco house with a T-shaped form with a gable roof with a single ridge parallel to the street. It also other unique attributes including a red ceramic tile roof with narrow eaves, a low relief ornamentation, a wall chimney, a front wall dormer with shed roof, an entry at intersection of stem and cross wings, wrought iron balconet on gable end of the stem wing. Is believed to have been a duplex rental property throughout the Historic period. 1308 E Laird Ave (16-08-453-001) Built in 1937, this Art Moderne striated brick house is thought to have been built and owned by Dal A Siegel, co-owner of the Salt Lake Loan Office in 1939. He resided here until 1941 then sold it to Henry and Helen Pullman, who resided here through the end of the historic period. 1319 E Laird Avenue (16-08-182-008) The 1929 English Cottage was built and owned by Edward F Richards, who was an attorney with the firm Richards & Richards. He resided here through the end of the historic period. It’s a 1 ½ story stucco Tudor cottage with a steep gable wing protruding from the gable roof. Important features include half-timbering in the apex of the gable, framing 3 square “flower petal windows. Half-timbering is repeated in the gable dormer directly above a shed dormer entry. 1328 E Laird Ave (16-09-354-001) This masonry English Cottage was built in 1926 for the first owned by Milton and Florence Beckman. Milton Beckman practiced with the law firm GH Backman & sons. The Backman’s resided here through 1936. After renting the house out in 1937, the Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 17 of 34 Beckmans sold it later to Leslie Kidman, a county supervisor, who lived here through the end of the historic period. This “T-shaped” 1 ½ story house has a pent gable end to the street. The right side of the pent gable roof extends down and out to include the off- center door framed by a round brick area. A Palladian window pierces the upper wall surface of the pent gable. 1361 E Laird Ave (16-09-353-033) This French Norman house was designed and built on speculation by architect/builder J A Shaffer in 1927-8. JA Shaffer built a number of houses on Laird Ave. The first owner was Ray H and Frances Petersen, Officer Manager for Pacific National Life Insuranc e Co. The Petersens resided here from 1930 through the end of the historic period. 1362 E Laird Ave (16-09-354-007) This masonry 1 story stucco Spanish Colonial Revival house was built by JA Shaffer and the original owner in 1927. It has a parapet-roofed central projection with joins the asymmetrical façade. Important features include a rounded opening, unusual massing and curvilinear gable. The house was a rental property through 1939 when the Builders Finance Corporation sold it to Ray Done and his wife. Soon after the Dones sold it to Cecil and Donna Cooly, an engineer with Safeway Stores. The Cooly’s resided here though the end of the historic period. 1373 E Laird Ave (16-09-353-005) The house is a significant example of English Tudor Revival Style built in 1927 by JA Shaffer. It was purchased in 1929 by Charles W Child a contractor and his wife, Alvarette. In 1934, they sold the house to Antoine and Vilate Ivins. Mr Ivins was the Director of Layton Sugar Company and the Hotel Utah. Ivins and his wife operated a livestock ranch near Enterprise for several year. From 1921-31 Mr Ivins managed an LDS-owned sugar plantation in Hawaii. IN 1931, he was named to the LDS First Council of 70, then headed the Mexican Mission until 1934. In 1940, the Ivins sold the house to Homer S Tucker, a Division Manager for Safeway Stores. Tucker and his wife, Ruby resided in the house resided there from 1940 through the end of the historic period. The English Tudor has a 1 ½ story brick English Tudor having a half -timbered gable facing the street and an overlapping gabled entry porch of half-timbering with brick basket weave patterned infill. The porch roof is supported by square and turned posts on brick piers. The major gable is preceded by a patio wit wrought iron railing. Alterations to the historic house include metal awnings and possible window replacement with plate gl ass windows Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 18 of 34 1374 E Laird Ave (16-09-354-009) This 1927 built masonry French Norman styled house was built and owned by builder JA Shaffer. It is considered to be an architecturally significant example of a small house in the French Norman style. In 1928 Shaffer deeded the property to Sugar House Lumbar and Hardwood Company, which then sold 1 week later to Walter Hamilton (a salesman) and his wife Kathryn. The Hamilton’s resided here until 1944 when they sold to Samuel Bernstein, lawyer and partner in the law firm Metos, Bernstein and Cramer. The Bernstein’s resided here from 1944 through the end of the historic period. 1413 E Laird Circle (16-09-353-xxx) Originally owned by Construction Securities Company, this brick English Tudor was a rental property from 1931-38 and vacant until 1934 before being sold to dentist Dr William S Paine and his wife Minnie. The Paines resided here until the Death of Dr. Paines after which widow Minnie Paines rented out the house 1942 -43 then sold the property to Arnold E Burgeners and wife. Burgener was co -owner of the Transportation Insurance Agency. They rented out the property through the end of the historic period. This 2-story brick and stucco Tudor house with wide overlapping half-timbered gables set against a pent abled roof. On the right side, there is a steeply-pitched entry gable with a painter brick, arched opening, resembling a lancet window whi ch proceeds the front door. The shed dormer windows with leaded and stained glass that project from the first-floor façade may be alteration of the original. Other a lterations include a brick addition to the left of the front façade supporting a 2nd story balcony and a 2nd story window of façade. 1417 E Laird Circle (16-09-353-023) Built in 1931, Siegfried P Harter was the first owner of this Colonial Revival with a gambrel roof and a full width second story dormer has a symmetrical façade is highlighted by a shallow central Pavillion with a front door framed by two classical columns. The exterior is masonry with a terracotta appearance. The house is considered architecturally significant. It was built by Carl Buehner on speculation. The first owner was Siegfried and Helen Harter in 1932. Harter was president of Clover Leaf- Harris Dairy and the Colville Ice Cream Company. They sold the house in 1936 to Helen A Taylor for 3 mos. Thereafter, it was sold to Leon D and Lois Cuddeback, Leon D was a division superintendent with United Airlines. The Cuddebacks resided there until 1938 . Henry C and Mary Boonstra were occupants until 1942. Boonstra was Vice President of WG Goodart, bond brokers. From 1943 till the end of the historic period, Otto and Ruth Buehner, resided here. Buehner was president of Otto Buehner and Company, building products and influential in Salt Lake City building activity. Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 19 of 34 1428 E Laird Ave (16-09-354-07) This 1 ½ story English Tudor was built in 1937 by the by the Gaddis Investment Company. The brick and half-timber construction with stone or concrete surround at front entry is especially lovely. Edwin Jacob ‘Jake’ Garn grew up at 1626 E Yale Ave in Yalecrest, attending Uintah Elementary, Clayton Middles School and East High School. He graduated from the University of Utah in 1955 with a BS in Business and Finance , and served as a Navy pilot stationed at Whitby Island, WA. He married Hazel Rhae in 1957. The Garns lived at 1428 E Laird Ave from 1963-1974. He was employed in the insurance industry until becoming a Salt Lake Commissioner in 1970, Salt Lake Mayor in 1972, and Utah Senator in Congress 1976-1993. He flew a mission with NASA as an astronaut in 1985. 1436 E Laird Ave (16-09-354-018) The one-story brick English Tudor with a gable roof parallel to the street and a gable half-timbered cross wind and overlapping gabled bay with stone chimney on the left façade is considered to be architecturally significant of the English Tudor style with an exposed rock chimney. It is believed to have been built by Gaddis Investment Company in 1935-7. Pannell and Myrtle Black purchase the house in 1939. MR Black was an attorney and partner with the Firm Rawlings, Wallace and Black. Black was active in Democratic party politics. The Blacks resided at 1436 E Liard Ave throughout the end of the historic period. 1458 E Laird Ave (16-09-354-022) Built in 1934, this brick 1½ story English Cottage with a main gable roof parallel to the street with two steeply pitched cross gables. The left gable contains a round arch entry and the right gable contains two arch windows with accentuated keystones. The Brick masonry of each gable is ornamented with rubble masonry near the apex. The house was built for Stanley and Myrtle Gamette. Gamette was a salesman for General Foods. They resided here through the end of the historic period. The house is considered an architecturally significant example of the English Cottage style Period Revival house combining brick masonry with stone highlights. 1465 E Laird Ave (16-09-353-046) The 1 ½ story brick architecturally significant example of the French Norman style house originally owned by Thomas Eugene Gaddis, a prominent real estate and investment executive. He and his wife Lucille were residents through the end of the historic period Mr Gaddis was born in Texas 1886 and moved to Salt Lake City in 1909 and was involved in real estate. He married Lucile Laughler in 1921 and died in Salt Lake City in 1967. He was president of Gaddis Investment Company, a real estate, investment and insurance firm he founded with NC Herrick in 1922. Mr. Gaddis was also emeritus Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 20 of 34 member of the Board of Directors of American Savings and Loan Association. H e was a member of the First Congregational Church on 1300 E and active in various civic and fraternal organizations. The house is constructed with a steeply pitched, wood shingle gable roof, with a ridge parallel to the street and has a hip roofed front bay window and an overlapping gable bay on the left façade was built in 1925 Additional features include a round arched doorway, floor to ceiling French leaded glass windows, gabled half- timbered dormer, french doors recessed into round arched openings on the front gable with a bracketed iron balconet. 1474-78 E Laird Ave (16-09-354-024) This 1 story symmetrical brick English Cottage is a duplex. Created by joining two identical L-shaped English Cottage designs. Notable features include the round arched windows in the façade of each cross wind and the arched opening leading to a small porch. It was probably built for John E Davis, assistant superintendent of the Oregon Short Line Railroad and his wife Sarah. The Davis’s were residents from 1930-37. In late 1937, Westminster College president Rev Herbert W Reherd and wife, Louise bought the house and were owner occupants through the end of the historic period. Both the Davis’ and Reherds’ rented out 1 side of the duplex. 1413 E Laird Circle (16-09-352-021) This 1 ½ story brick and stucco English Tudor was built in 1930 by Construction Securities Company and is considered architecturally significant with its wide, overlapping half covered gables set against a pint gabled roof. On the right is a steeply- pitched entry gable with a pointed brick, arched opening resembling a lancet window, which precedes the front door. Shed dormer windows with leaded and stained-glass windows project from the first-floor façade. Alterations include: brick addition to the left of front façade supporting a 2nd story balcony, 2nd story window of façade. The house built by Construction Securities Company seems to have been a rental from 1931-1933 and vacant in 1934 before being purchased later that year by Dr William S and Minnie Paine. They resided here until 1940 upon the death of Dr. Paines. They rented house from 1942-43, then sold to Arnold E and Margaret Burgener in 1943. Mr Burgener was co-owner of the Transportation Insurance Agency. The Burgeners rented out the property through the end of the historic period. 1417 E Laird Circle (16-09-353-023) The 2-story terra-cotta/stone exterior Colonial Revival house a gambrel roof and a full- width second story dormer built by Carl Buchner in 1931 on speculation is considered architecturally significant by SHPO. The symmetrical facade is highlighted by a shallow central pavilion framed by two classical columns and containing the front door. The door Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 21 of 34 is surrounded by sidelights and a fan light. The house was purchased by Siegfried P and Helen Harter House in 1932. Harter was president of the Clover Leaf - Harris Dairy and of the Colville Ice Cream Company . They resided here until June, 1936. Helen A. Taylor owned the house for three months in the summer of 1936 before selling in September to Leon D. Cuddeback, a division superintendent with United Air Lines and wife, Lois. The Cubbebacks' were occupants through 1938. They sold the house in 1938 to Henry G. and Mary Boonstra. Vice President of W. G. Goodart, bond brokers. The Boonstra’s through 1942. From 1943 through the end of the historic period, the house was owned by Otto and Ruth Buehner. Otto Buehner, was president of Otto Buehner Company and Building Products and was influential in Salt Lake City building activity. 1449 E Uintah Circle (16-09-353-025) A 2-story brick Georgian Colonial Revival built 1936 for John S and Orpha S Boyden. It has a steeply pitched hip roof with a two -story front supported by classical columns. The entry is framed by wooden pilasters supporting a segmental pediment. On the left of the façade is an attached one-story room covered by a flat roof. The concrete tile roof is an alteration. John Boyden served as Assistant District Attorney 1933-46. Later he continued as a private attorney, rancher and Chairman of the Ideal National Life Insurance Company. The Boydens were residents until the end of the historic period, 1936 -2005, 69 years. 1453 E Uintah Circle (16-09-353-066) This 2-story clapboard exterior, Colonial Revival-styled house was built in 1936 was originally owned by John O Simonsen. It has a notable Central portico of classical columns and pediment framing a fan top window with sidelights at the front door entry. John O Simonsen was vice president of Intermountain Lumbee. He and wife Velma were residents through the historic period of research (1936 -2005). 1457 E Uintah Circle (16-09-353-029) This 2-story colonial revival house built under a gable with a center ridge parallel to the street was built in 1931/32 by Carl Buhner for George and Myrna Bisbee. It is considered an architecturally significant colonial revival style with an unusual exterior material of terra cotta tile block. The exterior is claimed to be made by Cast-Stone & Concrete Products Manufacturing Company in a 1936 Shipler photo (Univeristy of Utah digital Collections). The house has a balconet overhang projecting above the central entry which is surrounded by lovely transom and side lights. Alterations to the original house include a concrete tile roof. Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 22 of 34 Carl Bisbee was an agent for the Union Pacific Railroad, and wife were residents sold to D. W. Nielson and wife Vena. Little can be found about the Nielson's, other than that they were residents in 1934 and 1935. In August, 1935, they sold the house to David Abbot ‘Ab” & Evelyn Jenkins. ‘Ab’ Jenkins (1883-1956) was an auto designer and racer and house building contractor (for more information, also see SHPO case file1540 Westmoreland). Ab Jenkins, as well as the 24th Mayor of Salt Lake City (1940-1944) a home building contractor, and notable race car driver is the “father of Bonneville Salt Flats’. He is often referred to as “the world’s safest speedster’ and noted for setting of a 24-hour average land speed record of 135 mile per hour in 1935 driving the Duesenberg SJ ‘Mormon Meteor’ on the Bonneville Salt Flats (Wikipedia). Later, in 1940 he set a new 24-hour average land speed record of 161.18 miles per hour that lasted 50 years. In 1960, the mountain north of Bonneville Speedway was named ‘Jenkins Peak’ in his honor. The Mormon Meteor III can be seen at the Price Museum of Speed, 165 E 600 South in Salt Lake City, UT. The Dusendorf SJ ‘Mormon Meteor’ 1957 Pontiac Bonneville sedan (Wikipedia) named in earned honor of Ab Jenkins achievements (Wikipedia) The Jenkins were resident in 1936 after which they sold the house to Prudential Insurance Company, which treated it as a rental property through the end of the historic period. 5. Consistent Designation Of The Proposed LHD Designation With Adopted Planning City Policies and Master Plans Historic Preservation Overlay 21A.34.020.A (click here for a link to the Historic Preservation Overay zoning provisions) A. Purpose Statement: In order to contribute to the welfare, prosperity and education of the people of Salt Lake City, the purpose of the H historic preservation overlay district is to: Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 23 of 34 1. Provide the means to protect and preserve areas of the city and individual structures and sites having historic, architectural or cultural significance; 2. Encourage new development, redevelopment and the subdivision of lots in historic districts that is compatible with the character of existing development of historic districts or individual landmarks; 3. Abate the destruction and demolition of historic structures; 4. Implement adopted plans of the city related to historic preservation; 5. Foster civic pride in the history of Salt Lake City; 6. Protect and enhance the attraction of the city's historic landmarks and districts for tourists and visitors; 7. Foster economic development consistent with historic preservation; and 8. Encourage social, economic and environmental sustainability. Adopted Master Plans and City Policies Community Preservation Plan: The City Council adopted the Community Preservation Plan in October 2012. The Plan is the key strategic document that will guide Salt Lake City’s preservation efforts into the future. The purpose of the plan is to address the important goals of historic preservation and community character preservation to ensure the continued preservation of the City’s neighborhoods. The Plan provides vision and established policies that will help preserve those areas of the City that are uniquely historic and tell the story of the City’s historic past. (Click this link to view the Community Preservation Plan) Relevant Community Preservation Plan Policies Policy 3.1a: Identify historic resources in the City through the use of surveys that are consistent with the adopted State Historic Preservation Office survey criteria. Policy 3.2a: Local designation of historic resources should occur where the primary purpose is to protect the historic resources for the public interest and not where the primary purpose is something other than that such as to stabilize a neighborhood or preserve neighborhood character. Policy 3.2b: The pursuance of new locally designated historic resources should focus on protecting the best examples of an element of the City’s history, development patterns and architecture. Local historic districts should have logical boundaries based on subdivision plats, physical and / or cultural features and significant character defining features where possible. Policy 3.2c: Protect exemplary groupings of historic properties as local historic districts. Policy 3.2d: Local designation should only occur after the City has an understanding of the degree of property owner and public support for the proposed designation. Policy 3.2e: Local designation of historic properties should only occur, after the City expends resources to inform property owners of the reasons for the proposed designation and what regulations will be included and the incentives offered for local designation. Policy 3.2h: Prior to local designation, national designation should be pursued to ensure financial incentives are in place for those historic resources that are regulated locally. Policy 3.2i: Professional reconnaissance level survey work should be completed prior to designating a local historic district because it identifies the number and type of Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 24 of 34 historic resources in an area and provides the information needed when determining the appropriateness for change to a specific historic resource. Other Adopted City Policy documents addressing the role of Historic Preservation East Bench Community Master Plan (2017): (click this link to view the East Bench Master Plan) The proposed Yalecrest –Laird Height Local Historic District is located within the area covered by the East Bench Community Master Plan. A stated goal of the Urban Design section of the plan is to “enhance the visual and aesthetic qualities and create a sense of visual unity within the community.” The Plan identifies the following elements which detract from the residential character: - Building remodeling or additions that are not compatible with the design of the original structure or neighboring homes, and - New structures that are not compatible with the design of surrounding homes. In the1987 East Bench Master Plan, Yalecrest is specifically identified for preservation. “The older Harvard-Yale area contains many buildings of architectural and historic significance. Conditions may warrant creating a conservation or historic district in this area where the city would review all new buildings, additions, or alterations for compatibility with established neighborhood character. The city is in the process of conducting a survey of the community to document sites of architectural and histo ric significance and to evaluate the potential for establishing a historic district.” IN the 2017 version of the East Bench Master Plan, Yalecrest is noted for being the oldest historically contributing neighborhood on the East Bench and encourages residents to find a common voice to preserve it using either Local Historic Districts or Con servation Districts. Urban Design Element (1990): The Urban Design Element includes statements that emphasize preserving the City’s image, neighborhood character and mai ntaining livability while being sensitive to social and economic realities. The Plan includes the following concepts: -Allow individual districts to develop in response to their unique characteristics within the overall urban design scheme for the City. - Ensure that land uses make a positive contribution to neighborhood improvements and stability. - Ensure that building restoration and new construction enhance district character. - Require private development efforts to be compatible with urban design pol icies of the city, regardless of whether city financial assistance is provided. - Treat building height, scale and character as significant features of a district’s image. - Ensure that features of building design such as color, detail, materials and scal e are responsive to district character, neighboring buildings and the pedestrian. Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 25 of 34 Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan (2000): Provide historic preservation education to developers and property owners, including information on technical and financial assistance and incentives. City Vision and Strategic Plan (1993) - Restore and adaptively reuse historic resources. - Develop programs to enhance and preserve the City’s cultural history and character as expressed in the built environment. - Offer strong economic incentives to stop housing unit deterioration. Together: Final Report of the Salt Lake City Futures Commission (1998) - Enforce preservation strategies for buildings and neighborhoods. - Rehabilitate historic buildings for cultural uses where ver possible. The proposed Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD is currently zoned under the Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay (YCIO) zoning ordinance adopted by the City in 20073. The purpose of the ordinance is to “encourage compatibility between new construction, additions or alterations and the existing character and scale of the surrounding neighborhood”. The YCIO regulates building height, minimum front yard size, and several aspects of garages or accessory structures, but does not protect against demolitions or out-of-mass, scale and architecture character of additions or new structures. The City's Preservation Policy was adopted in 2011 4. The Salt Lake City Community Preservation Plan was adopted Oct. 23, 2012. Yalecrest was suggested for protection in both plans. The proposed boundaries of Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD (Appendix A) represents the South East corner in Normandie Heights subdivision and the greater Yalecrest neighborhood that is nationally recognized for its historic value (National Register of Historic Places 2007). Recognizing this resource and protecting it via a Local Historic District designation i s consistent with the City's preservation goals. 6. Public Interest in the Proposed LHD Designation The Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD is part of the large Normandie subdivision. It is located in the South East corner of Yalecrest neighborhood. It contains 43 single-family property parcels generally zoned R1-7000. The attractive neighborhood of Yalecrest have mature street trees, single-family owner-occupied well-maintained houses with landscaped yards and continue to be a desirable residential area. No major roads have been built through the general Yalecrest neighborhood, although traffic has increased on the border streets of 1300 South, 1300 East and Sunnyside Ave (840 S). Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 26 of 34 To date, 44/65 or 67.7% of the single-family and duplex home owners within the proposed area of Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD have signed an application petition in support of opening the process to create a Local History District. The overall support on the application is 67.7%, which greatly exceeds the minimum support of 33% required by the LHD designation ordinance guidelines. Property Owner Petition Signature to Open the Local Historic District Designation in Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Street # Property Parcels # Petition Signaturesa % Support Laird Ave 42a 29 69.0% Laird Circle 7 5 71.4% Uintah Circle 6 4 66.7% 1300 East 4 4 100.0% 1500 East 6 4 66.7% TOTAL 65 44 67.7% aone signature was collected on the application signature form for property parcels that have Joint tenants (JT) and the appropriate trustee signature was obtained for Trusts on associated property parcels. Designating the Yalecrest-Laird Heights as Local Historic District (LHD) zoning overlay would minimize the frequent teardowns and demolitions (56 permit filings over the past 27 years) that have plagued Yalecrest in recent years. In addition, the recent Affordable Housing Overlay/Incentive (AHO) which allows demolition of historic houses for new multi-family housing installation within ¼ mile of high frequency bus transportation on 1300 East) has concerned this quiet street. Designation of Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD would maintain the historic character, mass and scale of the street face architecture by while providing homeowners and district residents the only legal method to minimize demolition and dismantling of intact historic structures that result in loss of neighborhood character. These services are not offered from Salt Lake City to the National Register of Historic Place designation, nor the local City Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay (YCIO) zoning ordinance. A Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD designation will also provide the citizens of Salt Lake City and the state of Utah with an additional protected heritage resource for future generations from which to learn and appreciate the cultural and City History of notable residents and fine, well-maintained, diverse architectural examples of English Cottage, English Tudor, and French Norman, Spanish Colonial architectural styles. In addition, Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 27 of 34 the area will teach future urban developers/builders the value and sustainability of smaller well-built homes with quality materials that have stood the test of time (100 yrs), the successful layout design of new neighborhoods that include different housing options for singles, empty-nesters, couples and families that include both small and medium sized single family and multi-family duplexes at various prices. It will aid in the education of designing new successful neighborhoods that include such elements as sidewalks, green space, streetlights, mature shade trees and proximity to infrastructure necessities such as libraries, grocery stores, restaurants, schools, child care that encourage walkability and enhance safety from crime. These are the elements that have made Yalecrest a successful and highly desirable neighborhood. B. Photographs Original and current photographs of the individual homes in the proposed Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD are listed with addresses and listed separately in APPENDIX C. The original photographs were downloaded from the Salt Lake County Tax Assessor site. Current photographs were collected by the street property owners, residing on Laird Ave and Uintah Circle, using an iPhone camera. C. Research Material The Reconnaissance Level Survey was completed by Salt Lake City in 2005 in preparation for the Yalecrest National Register of Historic Places designation, which was awarded in 2007. Much of the information in this document about the area’s architecture, history, builders and building dates comes from that survey and the Salt Lake County Assessor website. Additional information is on file at the Utah State Historic Preservation Office, Family Search website, Polk Directories, Wikipedia, and newspaper archives (Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News) and the KEEPYalecrest website blog (keepyalecrest.org). Research material used to prepare this application are listed in APPENDIX C. See (http://utahhistory.sdlhost.com/#/item/000000011019963/view/1 46 D. Landmark Sites Not applicable E. Boundary Adjustment: Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD is located to the immediate south of Yalecrest-Harvard Heights LHD. The new Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD is parallel to Yalecrest-Harvard Heights LHD and both traverse the 1300-1500 blocks of their respective streets, while also including 4 properties along 1300 E (1185, 1193, 122123, 1227-29 E) and 6 properties on 1500 East (1174, 1180, 1184, 1188, 1194 and 1200 E) that lie between the 1300-1500 Princeton Ave and Laird Ave streets. Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 28 of 34 The boundaries of the Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD containing 65 property parcels are listed below: West boundary is 1300 East East boundary is 1480 E Laird Ave and 1174 S, 1180 S, 1184 S, 1188 S, 1194 S, 1200 S 1500 East. North boundary contains the north side of Laird Ave containing the odd numbered houses (1305 E to 1465 E Laird Ave) and Laird and Uintah Circles. South Boundary contains the south side of Laird Ave with the even numbered houses from 1308-1480 E Laird Ave. Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 29 of 34 APPENDIX A-1 Original plat of Normandie Heights Subdivision July 1, 1926, Pr. Lots 2-3, Block 28 Bowers Investment Company The Normandie Subdivision lies in the southwestern most corner of. The Normandie subdivision is outlined in purple. Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 30 of 34 APPENDIX A-2 All LHDs in Yalecrest Existing Yalecrest LHDs Douglas Park-I Normandie Circle Harvard Heights Upper Harvard Yale Park Plat A Harvard Park Princeton Park Princeton Heights (pending) outlined in red Laird Heights (proposed) outlined in blue Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 31 of 34 APPENDIX A-3 Expanded street map view of the proposed Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD boundary adjustment (red outline) within the East Bench Yalecrest Neighborhood Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD (65 parcels) includes the following property addresses Laird Ave (42 parcels): 1305-1480 E Laird Circle (7 parcels): 1407-1425 E Uintah Circle (6 parcels): 1447-1457 E 1300 East (4 parcels): 1185-1227/29 S 1500 East (6 parcels): 1174-1200 S Ya l e c r e s t L D S W a r d LAIRD PARK Uintah E l eme nt ar y Sc h ool Bonneville L D S Ward and Sta ke Gilmer L DS Ward MILLER PARKSUNNYSIDE 1300 S O UTH 13 0 0 E A ST 19 0 0 E A ST 15 0 0 E A ST 17 0 0 E A ST 18 0 0 E A ST 900 S O UTHMICHIGAN MICHIGANHUBBARDYALECREST HARVARD HARVARD PRINCETON YALE HERBERT YALE PRINCETON HARVARD LAIRD LAIRDLAIRD PRINCETON HARVARD GILMER THORNTON MICHIGAN B O N N E V I E W HUBBARD MI L I T A R Y LE GRAND GREENWOOD1400 E AST900 S OUTH A M A N D A FAIRVIEW GREENWOOD PARK ROW YALE N O R M A N D I E LA I R D UI N T A H MA Y F A I R WA S A T C H CORNELL M I L I T A R YDIESTEL LAIRD PRINCETON Yalecrest R econnai ssance Le v el Sur v ey 2005Salt L ake Ci ty , Sa l t Lak e Cou nt y , Utah Contributing -- A & B site sNon--c ont ribut ing / Alte red -- C sitesNon--c ont ribut ing / Out of period -- D sites1422 1428 1434 1440 1446 1452 1458 1512 1518 1524 1532 1540 1546 1552 1558 1566 1580 1616 1624 1630 1638 1644 1652 1656 1664 1670 1676 1684 1740 1756 1762 1772 1778 1842 1856 1862 1870 189618361468142114271433143914451453146114651473882149515111517152315271537 1543 1549 1555 1563 1575 1579 1605 1609 1617 1621 1627 1633 1639 1647 16511655 1661 1667 1671 1675 1687 1707 1731 1741 1757 1763 1771 1777 1781 1791 1797 1801 1811 1815 875 1829 1835 1841 1847 1857 1863 1869 1875 18851836 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx1762 1768 1776 1786 1790 18001710170216581636163215781304 1310 1326 1330 1336 1344 1354 1370 1382 13981400 1404 1408 14121420 1434 1440 1446 1448 1458 1466 1470 1474 1482 1498 1512 1529 1533 15371516 1759 1765 1773 1783 1789 1795 1801 1807 18151740 1750 1756 1764 1770 1774 1778 1788 1796 1802 18101732 18261825 1832 1842 1848 1854 1860 1864 1872 18881833 1841 1849 1857 1863 1871 18811520 1526 1530 1534 1538 1544 15501504 1510 1516 1522 1528 1532 1540 1548 1552 1558 156215031509 1513 1519 1527 1531 1537 1543 1551 1555 1561 1571 1574 1600 1608 987 1714 1720 1726 1732 1740 1746 1752 1758 1762 1768 1774 1780 1784 1804 1810 1816 1822 1830 1836 1842 1846 1848 1862 1868 1874 1880 18861709 1719 1725 1731 1737 1743 1749 1755 1761 1767 1773 1779 1785 1791 1797 1803 1809 1823 1829 1835 1841 1847 1855 1861 1869 1877 18811309 1317 1327 1337 1341 1347 1353 1359 1365 1389 1395 1403 1411 1417 1423 1429 1435 1441 1445 1453 1461 1471 1475 1483 1489 14861476146814641458145214441438143214281418141214061398139613841380137613621356135013401334132813241320 1575 1583 1589 1601 1607 1615 1619 1627 1635 1604 1612 1620 1624 1630 1600 1669 1677 1658 1703 1711 1717 1725 1735 1745 1751 1759 1761 1775 1781 1785 1027 1712 1720 1726 1732 1740 1746 1754? 1760 1766 1772 1776 1784 1788 1803 1838 1846 1852 1860 1866 1872 1878 1028 1809 1815 1821 1827 1835 1841 1845 1857 1863 1871 1877 1008 1832 1831 1835 1845 1851 1861 1865 1875 1883 1806 1812 1820 18321826 1840 1848 1856 1862 1870 1876 18841704 1710 1718 1722 1728 1734 1740 1746 1752 1760 1764 1768 1774 1780 1784 1703 1709 1715 1721 1727 1733 1739 1745 1751 1757 1763 1769 1775 1779 1785 1352 1356 1360 1364 1368 1372 1374 1378 1384 1390 13551335 1357 1359 1361 1363 1367 1373 1383 1387 1393 13461344 13 3 2 13281320 13 3 6 13 3 8 1334 1340 1344 13501354 1358 1364 1370 1374 138013171327 1335 13371343 1347 1353 1359 1369 1371 1375 1379 1385 1391 1431 1437 1445 1455 1459 1463 1467 147113861420 1426 1432 1438 1446 1448 1452 1462 1466 1470 1303 1311 1321 1327 1337 1343 1349 1357 1361 1367 1371 1381 1385 1302 1405 1411 1419 1429 1433 1435 1441 1451 1459 1467 1475 1454 1444 1436143014201412 1408 14001390 1462 1466 1480 1484 1384137213601358135213441340133013141308 1505 1521 1529 1537 1547 1553 1561 1510 1520 1530 1534 1544 1550 1558 1564 1576 1582 1588 1600 1606 1610 1618 1626 1630 1636 1640 1646 1652 1660 1668 1674 1682 1615 1623 1629 1635 1086 1663 1673 1677 1703 1713 1719 1725 1731 1737 1743 1749 1755 1761 1767 1773 1779 1785 1702 1714 1720 1726 1732 1738 1744 1750 1756 1762 1768 1774 1780 1784 1803 1813 1821 1827 1833 1841 1847 1855 1863 1869 1875 1885 1802 1814 1820 1828 1836 1842 1850 1854 1866 1872 1880 1884 1804 1814 1820 1826 1834 1842 1848 1856 1862 1870 1878 1821 1829 1837 1843 1849 1857 1865 1871 1877 18851135 1710 1716 1722 1730 1734 1742 1748 1754 1760 1766 1772 1778 1784 1747 1753 1759 1765 1771 1777 178317411733172917231715170917031503 1511 1517 1521 1527 1535 1539 1547 1553 1559 1565 1571 1579 1585 1591 1603 1611 1615 1621 1627 1631 1635 1643 1649 1655 1659 1665 1671 1677 1506 1510 1516 1522 1528 1536 1542 1548 1554 1560 1566 1572 1578 1584 1590 1604 1612 1616 1622 1628 1632 1638 1644 1650 1656 1660 1666 1672 1678 1309 1321 1327 1339 1341 1343 1345 1347 1349 1351 1355 1359 1365 1373 1389 1407 1419 1425 1433 1437 1445 1449 1455 1465 1469 1477 1485 1487 1306 1316 1326 1332 1340 1346 1356 1362 1370 1380 1133 1412 1426 1436 1444 1450 1454 1468 1474 1484 1488 1495 882 8 7 4 8 6 8 1403 8 7 5 8 7 1 8 6 1 8 5 1 1406 10 3 1 1 0 1 5 1 0 0 9 11 5 0 1340 1347 1320 1328 1332 1338 1342 1346 1348 1362 1368 1374 1348 1360 1362 1370 1376 1380 1388 1400 1404 1410 1418 1422 1426 1442 1450 1458 1466 1319 1323 1 3 33 1343 1345 1349 1353 1361 1369 1377 1387 1401 1405 1411 1419 1429 1439 1445 1449 1457 1465 1469 1475 1380 1386 1392 1402 1408 1412 1418 1428 1436 1440 1450 1456 1458 1470 1474 1411 1413 1415 1417 1419 1449 1451 1453 1455 1457 146514471355 1361 1369 1373 1383 1393 1397 1401 1407 1425 1429 1439 1443 915910 917934918 1308 1480 1305 1515 1521 1527 1531 1537 1543 1547 1553 1557 1563 1567 1573 1579 1583 1589 1593 1599 1605 1611 1617 1621 1629 1637 1643 1651 1655 1661 1665 1669 1675 1516 15221528 1532 1538 1544 1548 1554 1558 1564 1568 1574 1580 1584 1592 1594 1600 1606 1612 1618 1624 1632 1636 1644 1650 1660 1666 1670 1678 1703 1709 1715 1723 1729 1735 1741 1747 1755 1761 1769 1777 1785 1191 1712 1718 1726 1732 1740 1746 1754 1764 1770 1774 1786 1820 1828 1836 1844 1854 1862 1872 1880 1892 1835 1847 1855 1861 1869 1877 1887 1601 1603 1605 1607 1609 1611 1613 1615 1617 1637 1639 1641 1643 1645 1647 1649 1651 878 869 865 855 851856866868 1305 1319 1325 1329 1335 1339 1345 1349 1355 1361 1365 13711375 1381 1387 1391 1397 140914131417 1421 1429 1433 1435 1437 1447 1457 1463 1465 1467 1475 1595 1623 1633 1305 1661 1675 1719 1725 1728 1743 1747 1766 1767 1773 1819 1825 1833 1837 1843 1849 1865 1871 18771857 1729 1733 1737 1741 1745 1749 1753 1757 1761 1765 17541738 1571 860852906916924950 11 0 6 11 1 4 11 5 2 12 3 4 12 2 2 11 4 2 1180 1516 1522 1528 1532 1538 1542 1548 1554 1558 1564 1568 1574 1578 1584 1588 1604 1606 1608 1612 1618 1620 1632 1636 1644 1652 1658 1662 1666 1672 1704 1712 1716 1724 1730 1736 1740 1748 1754 1760 1766 1774 1780 1786 178517791775176517551747174317371729172317151709170311481516151615161516151615161516151615161516151615161516151615161516151615161516151615161516151615161516151615161516 1819 1827 1837 1845 1853 1859 1867 1875 1891 1832 1848 1856 1864 1872 1882 12 2 2 12 3 4 12 1 2 1 2 0 4 12 1 3 11 6 1 11 2 1 10 3 5 959960925905910861853852 12 1 9 12 2 3 12 3 1 12 3 5 11 5 7 1 1 4 9 11 1 7 11 0 9 1 1 0 5 1545 986990996 977967 10 6 8 1 0 6 4 1 0 5 8 1 0 5 2 1 0 4 2 1 0 3 6 1 0 3 2 1 0 2 4 11 0 8 11 0 2 1144 1140 1134 1262 1256 1208 1202 1170 1709 1215 1209 1205 940 962903907919925929935 939 945 949 955 961 965 980 966 948 939 940 936 904 911913915923927935939951953957963965971973931907 866 864 862 852867861 855 851 96384587792192593394194596797597998310011013 10 2 1 10 2 7 10 3 9 10 4 7 10 8 1 10 8 7 11 1 1 11 2 1 11 3 1 11 3 7 11 8 5 11 9 3 12 2 1 12 2 7 1147 847849904903910915 921 9239299339189229269309349389429099159199239109289329369389469489479579659769829969981004999 10 1 0 10 1 6 10 2 0 10 2 4 10 6 2 10 6 6 10 8 0 11 0 0 10 9 7 11 3 6 11 4 5 11 4 9 14 9 0 11 7 4 11 8 0 1 1 8 4 11 8 8 11 9 4 1 2 0 0 12 1 8 12 2 4 12 3 2 1 2 3 8 12 0 7 1 2 0 1 11 8 7 1 1 8 3 1 1 7 9 1 1 7 5 11 6 5 10 3 5 1 0 2 3 1 0 1 7 1 0 1 3 1 0 0 5 90390591191792590491091692292893293894495496494795396596696896997598999710011009 10 2 1 10 3 0 1020 10161000 994 986 980 976 972 10 4 1 10 4 9 10 5 5 10 5 9 10 6 5 10 7 3 10 8 6 10 7 4 10 8 5 Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 32 of 34 APPENDIX B Contrary documentation between RLS 2005 text and existing house photographs 1. Missing photographs: Original house photographs were not available from the State Historic Preservation Office, nor the SLCounty Assessor website (www.slco.org/assessor) 1. 1332 E Laird Ave 2. 1368 E Laird Ave 3. 1373 E Laird Ave 4. 1374 E Laird Ave 5. 1386 E Laird Ave 6. 1393 E Laird Ave 7. 1412 E Laird Ave 8. 1418 E Laird Ave 9. 1411 E Laird Circle 10. 1413 E Larid Circle 11. 1451 E Uintah Circle 12. 1453 E Uintah Circle 13. 1188 S 1500 East 14. 1200 S 1500 East 2. Possible changes in house contributing status 1418 E Laird Ave 1451 E Uintah Circle 1453 E Uintah Circle 1455 E Uintah Circle Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 33 of 34 APPENDIX C Photographs of Laird Heights LHD See separate attached document 1305-1480 E Laird Ave 1185-1227/28 S 1300 East 1407-1425 E Laird Circle 1447-1457 E Uintah Circle 1174-1200 S 1500 East Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 34 of 34 APPENDIX D Research Materials (References) 1. Lufkin, Beatrice. Yalecrest Reconnaissance Level Survey 2005. Utah State Historic Preservation Office. 2. Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay. Sterling Codifier 21A.34.120. December 2005. http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/getBookData.php?id=&chapter_id=49078&k eywords=#s928586 3. Salt Lake City Community Preservation Plan. October 2012 4. Polk directories 1925-1976, State Historic Preservation Office, www.ushpo.utah.gov 5. Family Search app online 6. Salt Lake County Assessor: House information: parcel number, build date, exterior materials , original house photos, www.slco.org/assessor. Yalecrest: Laird Heights LHD House Photographs 1 Yalecrest-Laird Heights Local Historic District embodies 65 houses from contiguous areas 42 houses: E Laird Ave 4 houses: 1300 East 6 houses: 1500 East NOTE: Code for each house: address, (contributing status): property parcel number, original date and style description. 1NA= original photo not available on SLCounty Assessor nor Salt Lake County Archives 1300 EAST (4) 1185 South 1300 East (A) 16-08-482-002 1950 Early Ranch/Minimal Traditional 2023 1193 South 1300 East (A) 16-08-482-003 1930 English Tudor 2023 1221-23 South 1300 East (A) 16-09-483-002 1931 English Tudor 2023 Yalecrest: Laird Heights LHD House Photographs 2 1277-29 South 1300 East (A) 16-09-483-003 1930 Spanish Revival 2023 1500 East (6) 1174 S 1500 E (B):16-09-353-050 2023 1927 English Cottage 1180 S 1500 East (B): 16-09-353-051 1929 Bungalow 2023 1184 S 1500 East (A): 16-09-353-052 1926 Bungalow 2023 Yalecrest: Laird Heights LHD House Photographs 3 1188 S 1300 East (A): 16-09-353-030 1928 English Cottage 2023 No original photo available 1194 S 1500 East (B): 16-09-353-054 1925 English Cottage 2023 1200 S 1500 East (B): 16-09-353-061 1926 Bungalow 2023 No original photo available Yalecrest: Laird Heights LHD House Photographs 1 Yalecrest-Laird Heights Local Historic District embodies 65 houses from contiguous areas 7 houses: E Laird Circle 6 houses: E Uintah Circle NOTE: Code for each house: address, (contributing status): property parcel number, original date and style description. 1NA= original photo not available on SLCounty Assessor nor Salt Lake County Archives Laird Circle (7) 1407 E Laird Circle (A): 16-09-353-040 1935 Minimal Traditional 2023 1411 E Laird Circle (B): 16-09-353-034 1929/35 English Tudor 2023 No original photo available 1413 E Laird Circle (A): 16-09-353-021 1931/30 English Tudor 2023 No original photo available Yalecrest: Laird Heights LHD House Photographs 2 1415 E Laird Circle (B): 16-09-353-022 1929/30 English Cottage 2023 1417 E Laird Circle (B): 16-09-353-023 1931 Colonial Revival 2023 1419 E Laird Circle (A): 16-09-353-024 1925/26 English Cottage 2023 1425 E Laird Circle (A): 16-09-353-041 1939/35 Colonial Revival 2023 Yalecrest: Laird Heights LHD House Photographs 3 Uintah Circle (7) 1447 E Uintah Circle (B): 16-09-353-045 1930 English Tudor 2023 1449 E Uintah Circle (B): 16-09-353-025 1936 Colonial Revival 2023 1451 E Uintah Circle (B): 16-09-353-026 1939 Colonial Revival 2023 No original photo available new construction 2009 1453 E Uintah Circle (B): 16-09-353-027 1936 Colonial Revival 2023 No original photo available Yalecrest: Laird Heights LHD House Photographs 4 1455 E Uintah Circle (B): 16-09-353-028 1931 English Tudor 2023 1457 E Uintah Circle (B): 16-09-353-029 1931 Colonial Revival 2023 Yalecrest: Laird Heights LHD House Photographs 1 Yalecrest-Laird Heights Local Historic District embodies 65 houses from contiguous areas 42 houses: E Laird Ave NOTE: Code for each house: address, (contributing status): property parcel number, original date and style description. 1NA= original photo not available on SLCounty Assessor nor Salt Lake County Archives Laird Ave (42) 1305 E Laird Ave (B) 16-09-482-004 1932 English Cottage 2023 1308 E Laird Ave (A) 16-09-483-001 1939 Art Moderne 2023 1319 E Laird Ave (B) 16-09-482-006 1929 English Cottage/Tudor 2023 Yalecrest: Laird Heights LHD House Photographs 2 1320 E Laird Ave (B) 16-09-483-005 1937 English Cottage 2023 1328 E Laird Ave (A) 16-09-354-001 1927 English Cottage 2023 1332 E Laird Ave (A) 16-09-354-002 1927 Bungalow/English Cottage 2023 Original photo not available 1338 E Laird Ave (B) 16-09-354-003 1927 English Cottage 2023 Yalecrest: Laird Heights LHD House Photographs 3 1342 E Laird Ave (A) 16-09-354-004 1927 Period Revival Other 2023 1346 E Laird Ave (B) 16-09-354-005 1927 Spanish Revival 2023 1347 E Laird Ave (B) 16-09-353-031 1926 English Cottage 2023 1348 E Laird Ave (B) 16-09-354-006 1927 English Cottage 2023 Yalecrest: Laird Heights LHD House Photographs 4 1355 E Laird Ave (A): 16-09-353-032 1933 English Cottage 2023 1361 E Laird Ave (A): 16-09-353-033 1927/28 French Norman 2023 1362 E Laird Ave (A): 16-09-354-007 1927 Spanish Colonial Revival 2023 1368 E Laird Ave (A): 16-09-354-008 1927 Period Revival Cottage 2023 No original photo available Yalecrest: Laird Heights LHD House Photographs 5 1369 E Laird Ave (A): 16-09-353-034 1930 English Cottage 2023 1373 E Laird Ave (A): 16-09-353-035 1929 English Tudor 2023 No original photo available 1374 E Laird Ave (A): 16-09-354-009 1927 French Norman 2023 No original photo available 1380 E Laird Ave (B): 16-09-354-010 1927 Period Revival Cottage 2023 Yalecrest: Laird Heights LHD House Photographs 6 1383 E Laird Ave (A): 16-09-353-036 1930/31 English Cottage 2023 1386 E Laird Ave (B): 16-09-353-011 1927 French Norman 2023 No original photo available 1392 E Laird Ave (B): 16-09-354-012 1925/27 Neoclassical English Cottage 2023 1393 E Laird Ave (A): 16-09-354-016 1929 English Cottage 2023 No original photo available Yalecrest: Laird Heights LHD House Photographs 7 1397 E Laird Ave (A): 16-09-353-008 1930/27 English Cottage 2023 1401 E Laird Ave (A): 16-09-353-039 1930 English Cottage 2023 1402 E Laird Ave (A): 16-09-354-013 2023 1936/29 English Cottage 1408 E Laird Ave (A): 16-09-354-014 1932/33 English Cottage 2023 Yalecrest: Laird Heights LHD House Photographs 8 1412 E Laird Ave (A): 16-09-354-062 1931/37 English Cottage 2023 1418 E Laird Ave (B): 16-09- 354-016 1926/55 Minimal Traditional 2023 No original photo available 1428 E Laird Ave (A): 16-09-354-017 1937 English Tudor 2023 1429 E Laird Ave (A): 16-09-353-042 1929 English Cottage 2023 Yalecrest: Laird Heights LHD House Photographs 9 1436 E Laird Ave (A): 16-09-354-018 1937 English Tudor 2023 1437-39 E Laird Ave (A): 16-09-353-043 1932 English Cottage 2023 1440 E Laird Ave (B): 16-09-354-019 1935 English Cottage 2023 1443 E Laird Ave (A): 16-9-353-044 1929 English Tudor 2023 Yalecrest: Laird Heights LHD House Photographs 10 1450 E Laird Ave (A): 16-09-354-020 1935 English Cottage 2023 1456 E Laird Ave (A): 16-09-354-021 1936 English Cottage 2023 1458 E Laird Ave (A): 16-09-354-022 1934 English Cottage 2023 1465 E Laird Ave (16-09-353) 1929 French Norman 2023 Yalecrest: Laird Heights LHD House Photographs 11 1470 E Laird Ave (A): 16-09-354-022 1931/30 English Cottage 2023 1474-78 E Laird Ave (A): 16-09-354-024 1930 English Cottage 2023 1480 E Laird Ave (B): 16-09-354-055 1923 Bungalow Original photo house side facing 1500 East 2023 4. MAILING LIST OWN_FULL_NAME OWN_ADDR OWN_CITY OWN_STATOWN_ZIP HANSEN, BONNIE Q 1 LIBERTA CT DANVILLE CA 94526 GREENWOOD, KENNETH C &GREENWO 1193 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 VANDENBOOMEN, RICHARD S 1 S CIRCLE OAKS SANDY UT 84092 MAYHEW, ROBERT J &JULIE E; TRS 1319 E LAIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 BABALIS, MAXINE C; TR 1308 E LAIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 PETERSON, LIBBY H 1221 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 GUNNISON, BRENDA 1229 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 HOTCHKIN, MICHAEL &JENNIFER; JT 1320 E LAIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 OLIVER, RICHARD R & MARIA J(JT) 1411 E LAIRD CIR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SHANE THORESON REV TRET AL 1413 E LAIRD CIR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 ECKHAUSER, AARON W; JTECKHAUSER, 1415 E LAIRD CIR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 WEBLEY, STEPHEN C; JTWEBLEY, JENNIF 1417 E LAIRD CIR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 GUST, SUSANNAH; JTHOLMBERG, TODD 1419 E LAIRD CIR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 INGHAM, SCOTT W &HEIDI M; JT 1449 E UINTAH CIR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 STEPHANI C WIDMER REV TRET AL 1455 E UINTAH CIR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 ROLLINS, DOUGLAS E &CUNNINGHAM, 1457 E UINTAH CIR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 PAIGE ELIZABETH RAUSCHREVOCABLE T 1188 S 1500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 KELLY C SLONE REV TRMCALEER, KELLY; 1347 E LAIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 BUNKER, HUGH C; JTBUNKER, CARIN D; 1355 E LAIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 LAMPRECHT, MARSHA 1361 E LAIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 WIRTHLIN, KIM; TR(KW TRUST) 1369 E LAIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 KLETTING, GENEAL L 1373 E LAIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 ODEKIRK, SHARON 1383 E LAIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 NICHOLAOU, LORNA J; TR(LJN FAM LIV T 1393 E LAIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 POSER, FLORIAN JTHUWENDIEK POSER, 1397 E LAIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 GREEN, NICHOLAS; JTZAVODNI, SUZANN 1401 E LAIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 POK, JACQUELYNN M; TC 50%DURAN, C 5281 S HOLLADAY BLVD HOLLADAY UT 84117 BENSON, PATTI 1425 E LAIRD CIR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 VETTER, E RUSSELL &PHYLLIS J; TR (ER& 1429 E LAIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SANDERS, THOMAS L &CAROL E; TRS (T 1439 E LAIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 WILKES, RYAN W; JTWILKES, CATHLEEN 1443 E LAIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 ADAMSON, KIM T 1447 E LAIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 WOODS, BECKY E; JTWOODS, DOLPH A; 1465 E LAIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 BECKY E WOODS FAM LIV TRET AL 1465 E LAIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 GATHERS, DAVID D &WILMA L; JT 1174 S 1500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 WARREN, KEVIN D &CHRISTINE L; JT 1180 S 1500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 KIRK & DANALEE SIMON REV TRET AL 1184 S 1500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 CRATIN, ROBERT; JTCRATIN, SESIL; JT 1194 S 1500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT LAKE COUNTY PO BOX 144575 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 ORCHARD, NICHOLAS E; JTCRENSHAW, 1200 S 1500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 PAIGE ELIZABETH RAUSCHREVOCABLE T 1188 S 1500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 TARA ROSS LIVING TRUST 04/11/2019 1451 E UINTAH CIR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 ERIC W TOWNSEND REVOCABLE TRUST 5990 S 2300 E HOLLADAY UT 84121 LEWIS, PATRICK; JTFAIRFAX, ELIZABETH 1328 E LAIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 MELISSA J BENTLY TRBENTLEY, MELISSA 1332 E LAIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RICHARDS, CHRISTINA G; TR(CGR REV T 1338 E LAIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 JENSEN, THOMAS S & LISA M (JT)1342 E LAIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SVENDSEN, JAMES T &PETERSON, STEP 1346 E LAIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 PETER T HU & RACHEL E HULIVING TRU 1348 E LAIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RICH, KATHLEEN; TR(KR FAM TRUST) 1362 E LAIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 ROMNEY, CLEONE W; JTROMNEY, ANTO 1368 E LAIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 DURHAM, JOHN C; JTLAWLOR, CHRISTIN 1374 E LAIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 HOLLEN, MARK S &JANICE L; TC 1380 E LAIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 CECILLIA M ROMERO REV TRET AL 1386 E LAIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 JOLEEN S P MANTAS TRMANTAS, JOLEE 1392 E LAIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 PEARSON, JOELHUMAN, CHRISTINE 1402 E LAIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 HOWE, JODY L 1408 E LAIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 MARTIN, SCOTT H 1418 E LAIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 POVILUS, ERIC W &KIMBERLY A; JT 1428 E LAIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 HANSEEN, PAUL D 1436 E LAIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RUCKEL, GEOFFREY M JTRUCKEL, JENNI 1440 E LAIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 AVERY, JOHN A &MARILYN J; TRS 1450 E LAIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 DURKEE, DAVID L &VALERIE P; TRS (DFL 1456 E LAIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 UINTAH INVESTMENT 2885 S MAIN ST SOUTH SALT LAKE UT 84115 BRECKENRIDGE, WILLIAM H &JULIE ANN 1470 E LAIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 NIELSON 1474 E LAIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 NIELSON 1478 E LAIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 REID, COLIN L 1480 E LAIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 TAYLOR, RICHARD 2209 S BROADMOOR ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109 5. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT (RECEIVED AFTER STAFF REPORT PUBLICATION) From:Katharine Biele To:Traughber, Lex Subject:(EXTERNAL) Laird Heights Date:Tuesday, September 5, 2023 4:50:10 PM Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Mr. Traughber, I am writing to express total support for the Laird Heights local historic district. I currently reside in the Normandie Heights district, whose approval process was both exhaustive and instructive. We have been happy with the results, and continue to support LHDs. Salt Lake City's process is quite flexible and allows homeowners to renovate and upgrade their existing properties, while retaining the historic nature of the neighborhoods. If I may add to my support, I just received a notice of the proposed Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD. I am fully supportive and believe these approvals will help prevent further tear-downs of historic structures. Thank you for your time. -- Katharine Biele Planning Commission Laird Heights LHD September 13, 2023 Commissioners: The planning staff recommends that this Commission approve the Laird Heights Local Historic District. I also urge your approval. These homes – the majority from the 1920s and 30s -- have stood the test of �me and represent rare architectural styles. They are beau�ful, well-kept, with structural integrity and exquisite workmanship. Approval of the Laird Heights LHD applica�on will give future genera�ons an apprecia�on of Salt Lake’s cultural past. Sustainability is today’s new buzzword. Nothing speaks to that beter than the historic homes of Laird Heights. This LHD request comes with urgency. More demoli�ons have occurred in Yalecrest than any other established neighborhood in the state of Utah – 56 in the last 27 years. So much of our historical heritage is being lost. We need protec�ve measures. One last important point. This is truly a grass roots effort. The residents and homeowners in Laird Heights want to live in a local historic district. The applica�on was originally submited at the end of 2022 and had to go through an arduous 12-step process with: • pre-submital mee�ngs • a no�ce to property owners • the submission of a formal applica�on • a signature gathering threshold • a review by the planning division • another no�ce to property owners • property owner mee�ngs and open houses • Commission mee�ngs and approval • a final vote by residents and homeowners before it finally reaches the City Council. At every step along the way, homeowners have been suppor�ve. This is the essence of the democra�c process. I ask you to honor their opinions. Thank you. Jan Hemming Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From:Jonathan McGregor To:Traughber, Lex Subject:(EXTERNAL) Yalecrest-Laird Heights historical district proposal Date:Friday, September 8, 2023 7:43:27 AM Hello Lex, I hope this Email finds you well. I've been following the proposal to expand the Yalecrest since late June, and feel compelled to share my opinion. I believe expanding the historical district would ultimately do more harm than good to the wellbeing of Salt Lake City. Page 5 of the original proposal cites the recent "Affordable Housing Incentives" as one of the neighborhood's reasons for expanding the LHD. This proposal is what I believe to be more of a reactionary action than that of a preservative one. The AHI would only be beneficial, especially in the Yalecrest area. Providing more affordable housing in the area would not only have the obvious benefit of making more homes available to the members of our community who need it most, it would also bring greater wealth and opportunity to the neighborhood of 9th & 9th, which sits adjacent to Yalecrest. A larger LHD only serves to bar people of varied incomes from living in one of the city's most desirable neighborhoods, and artificially protect or raise property values of Yalecrest residents. In a rapidly expanding city, it's unfair to reap the benefits of urban living while trying to deny those same benefits to those who need them most. While I cannot deny the importance of preserving historically significant buildings, I also cannot deny the importance of providing housing in greater quantities to those in need. Thank you for your time, Jonathan McGregor From:LYNN Pershing To:Planning Public Comments Subject:(EXTERNAL) Support for PLNHLC2023-00074 Laird Heights LHD Date:Tuesday, September 12, 2023 8:16:30 PM Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Planning Commissioners I strongly support the designation of Laird Heights as a Local Historic District. Real estate agents refers to this area as “Lovely Laird” for good reason. Exquisite, well-maintained, historic contributing houses (95%) of unique architecture, amidst towering 80+ yr old street lined mature trees. There is remarkable support among the property owners of this area, 66%+ signed the initiation petition which only requires 33% Original Property owners included entertainment, politicians, builders, attorneys, and many other commercial businesses. They were the builders of our great City and influenced the broader economy of the Intermountain West I strongly support the designation of Laird Heights as a Local Historic District Lynn K Pershing Yalecrest 84108 Sent from my iPhone 6. OFFICIAL CANVASS RESULTS 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:February 6, 2024 RE: 2445 South 500 East Zoning Map and General Plan Amendments PLNPCM2023-00462/00538 The Council will be briefed about a proposal to amend the zoning map for property located at 2445 South 500 East in City Council District Seven from R-1/7,000 (single-family residential) to RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential). Additionally, the proposal would amend the Sugar House Master Plan Future Land Use Map for the approximately one-third-acre property from Low-Density Residential (5-10 dwelling units/acre) to Medium-Density Residential (8-20 dwelling units/acre). The applicant stated these amendment requests are to allow future development of eight townhomes for sale at market rate in two buildings on the subject property which is located just south of Interstate-80 at 500 East as shown in the zoning map below. Townhomes are not permitted in the R-1/7,000 zoning district. A vacant single-family home on the property was damaged by fire and has been torn down. The proposal calls for a private road through the development that would connect 500 East on the west and Warnock Avenue on the east. Some Council Members may recall a similar rezone and master plan amendment for an abutting parcel to the north at 2435 South 500 East adopted by the Council in 2022. That was phase one of the development and will include 20 for sale townhomes in five buildings. The current proposal is phase two of the development and zoning would match the RMF-35 zoning of 2435 South. These proposed amendments were reviewed by the Planning Commission at its October 25, 2023 meeting and a public hearing was held at which no one spoke. Planning staff recommended and the Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for both requests. In addition, a planned development for the subject site was unanimously approved by the Planning Commission, subject to the City Council adopting the zoning map and master plan amendments. Item Schedule: Briefing: February 6, 2024 Set Date: February 20, 2024 Public Hearing: March 5, 2024 Potential Action: March 19, 2024 Page | 2 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 QUESTIONS 1. The Council may wish to ask the petitioner about the range of prices the proposed units are anticipated to sell for. Area zoning map with the previously rezoned (Phase 1) and subject (Phase 2) parcels outlined in green. Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property and amend the future land use map. As noted above, a planned development was approved by the Planning Commission subject to City Council adoption of the requested zoning map and future land use map amendments. 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. KEY CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff identified three key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 7-10 of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. It is worth noting that considerations 1 and 2 were addressed by the planned development for this site and approved by the Planning Commission subject to Council approval of the zoning map and future land use map amendments. For the complete analysis, please see the staff report. Consideration 1-Requested Zoning Modifications (Addressed with planned development) Page | 3 The subject phase two requires the following zoning modifications which are similar to those approved for phase one: •Creation of lots that would not meet dimensional zoning regulations. o Planning staff analyzed zoning conformance for the project as a single site and found it aligns with the RMF-35 purpose statement as it relates to providing a suitable site for a variety of moderate density housing types. •Lots without frontage on a public street. o The approved planned development includes a private street and sidewalks through the development to accommodate pedestrians and vehicles. •Reduced front yard setback. •Reduced rear yard setback. Consideration 2-Achievable Density (Addressed with planned development) The planned development process allows for lot area modifications provided they do not exceed the zoning district’s density limitations. The combined area of the two lots in phases one and two is 1.29 acres. That total would allow up to 37 multi-family units within RMF-35 zoning. The proposal calls for a total of 28 single-family attached units. Consideration 3-Compliance With Adopted Plans Planning staff reviewed the proposed zoning map and future land use map amendments, and the planned development to determine how they align with the Sugar House Master Plan, Housing SLC, and Plan Salt Lake. They found the proposals generally meet considerations within these plans for location of medium- density residential land use, increasing density near transit, and providing additional housing types. DEVELOPMENT COMPARISON The following table found in Attachment E (page 54 of the Planning Commission staff report) compares development standards of the R-1/7,000 and RMF-35 zoning designations. R-1/7,000 (Existing)RMF-35 (Proposed) Building Height 28 feet for pitched roofs or 20 feet for flat roofs 35 feet Front Setback Equal to the average setback on block face or 20 feet 20 feet Corner Side Yard Setback Equal to the average setback on block face or 20 feet 10 feet Interior Side Yard Setback, corner lot 6 feet 4 feet Interior Side Yard Setback, interior lot 6 feet on one side and 10 feet on the other side None required for single-family attached uses, but if provided not less than 4 feet. A ten-foot- wide landscape buffer is required when abutting single-family zones. Rear Setback 25 feet 25% of lot depth, not less than 20 feet but not more than 25 feet Maximum Building Coverage 40%60% Maximum Lot Size 10,500 square feet None listed Page | 4 Parking Two spaces/dwelling unit Two spaces/dwelling for single- family attached. One space/dwelling unit for multi-family. The following uses are not allowed in the R-1/7,000 zoning district but are permitted or conditional uses within the proposed RMF-35 zoning district. This is included in Attachment E of the Planning Commission staff report. The tables are also included here for convenience. New Permitted New Conditional Dwelling, Assisted living facility (small)Community recreation center Dwelling, multi-family Dwelling, assisted living facility (large) Dwelling, single-family (attached)Dwelling, congregate care facility (large) Dwelling, twin home and two-family Dwelling, group home (large) Dwelling, residential support (small) Change from Permitted to Not Allowed Change from Conditional to Not Allowed None None Changing from Permitted to Conditional Changing from Conditional to Permitted None Community garden Dwelling, accessory unit Dwelling, assisted living facility (limited capacity) Dwelling, congregate care facility (small) ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS Attachment D (pages 51-53) 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. Complies Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Complies The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties 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 (not within any Page | 5 zoning overlays) 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 PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • June 13, 2023 – Applications submitted. • July 10, 2023 – Petition assigned to Planning staff. • August 3, 2023 – 45-day notice sent to Sugar House Community Council and early notice sent to surrounding neighbors and property owners. • September 18, 2023 – 45-day public comment period for recognized organizations (Sugar House Community Council) ended. • October 12, 2023 – Public hearing notice mailed, posted on City and State websites, and posted on Planning Division listserv. • October 16, 2023 – Public hearing sign posted on subject property. • October 25, 2023 – Planning Commission public hearing. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted to unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for both the zoning map and master plan amendments. • October 31, 2023 – Draft ordinance requested from Attorney’s Office. • November 30, 2023 – Draft ordinance received by Planning Division from the Attorney’s Office. • December 12, 2023 – Transmittal received in City Council Office. City Council Briefing // February 6, 2024 WOODLAND COMMONS PHASE 2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT & ZONING MAP AMENDMENT PLNPCM2023-00538, PLNPCM2023-00462, PLNPCM2023-00461 Salt Lake City // Planning Division •Zoning Map Amendment: •R-1/7,000 to RMF-35 •General Plan Amendment: •“Low Density Residential” to “Medium Density Residential” REQUESTS Phase 2 Phase 1 Salt Lake City // Planning Division SUGAR HOUSE MASTER PLAN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Salt Lake City // Planning Division SITE CONTEXT 400 South 2 0 0 W e s t Salt Lake City // Planning Division Salt Lake City // Planning Division •Permitted Uses •Additional housing types such as duplexes, townhomes, multifamily, assisted living facilities •Building Height •28’ allowed in R-1/7,000 •35’ allowed in RMF-35 •Development Standards •More permissive side yard and lot coverage requirements •10' wide landscape buffer required when abutting a single -family district WHAT WOULD RMF-35 CHANGE? Salt Lake City // Planning Division •Sugar House Master Plan (2005) •Provides location criteria for medium-density land uses •Plan Salt Lake (2015) •Encourages infill development of underutilized land •Housing SLC (2023) •Encourages additional density near transit investment corridors Salt Lake City // Planning Division GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE •Public Hearing held on October 25, 2023 •5 emailed comments •3 in opposition •2 in support •PC Voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation Salt Lake City // Planning Division PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING Trevor Ovenden // Principal Planner Trevor.ovenden@slcgov.com Salt Lake City // Planning Division ZONING COMPARISON R-1/7,000 (EXISTING)RMF-35 (PROPOSED) PERMITTED USES Single-family detached dwellings, parks, home occupations, dormitories. Same uses as R-1/7,000, as well as duplexes, townhomes, multifamily dwellings, assisted living facilities BUILDING HEIGHT 28’ max 35’ max PARKING 2 parking spaces for each single-family dwelling unit 2 parking spaces for each single-family dwelling unit 1 space/dwelling unit for multifamily. FRONT SETBACK Average of block face or 20’ 20’ SIDE SETBACK 6’ on one side and 10’ on the other side Single-Family Detached: 4' on one side and ten feet 10' on the other side Single-Family Attached None required, but if a setback is provided it must be at least 4’. All other permitted and conditional uses: 10’ REAR SETBACK 25 feet 25% of lot depth, not less than 20 feet but not more than 25 feet MAXIMUM BUILDING COVERAGE 40%45% for Single-Family Detached, 50% for Two-Family And Twin Home Dwellings, and 60% for Single-Family Attached and Multi- Family. 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: December 5, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods _______________________ SUBJECT: Woodland Commons Phase 2 Zoning Map and General Plan Amendments 2445 S 500 E (PLNPCM2023-00538 & PLNPCM2023-00462) STAFF CONTACT: Trevor Ovenden, Principal Planner, 801-535-7168 or trevor.ovenden@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: The City Council follows the Planning Commission’s recommendation and approve the requested Zoning Map and General Plan amendment. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Jason Foster with Atlas Architects representing the property owner initiated the following amendment requests to facilitate the construction of 8 townhomes at approximately 2445 South 500 East: 1.General Plan Amendment (PLNPCM2023-00538) The applicant is requesting to amend the property’s future land use designation from the Sugar House Master Plan future land use map from “Low Density Residential” (5-10 units/acre) to “Medium Density Residential” (8-20 dwelling units/acre) to facilitate the Zoning Map amendment request. 2.Zoning Map Amendment (PLNPCM2023-00462) The applicant is requesting to rezone the property from R-1/7,000 Single-family residential to RMF-35, Moderate Density Multi-Family. The zoning map amendment is necessary because townhomes are not permitted in the R-1/7,000 zone, but they are permitted in RMF-35. J@ DGLLGҗ рсѶспстррѷуч12Ҙ рсҝрсҝспст рсҝрсҝспст For additional information regarding this proposal, please refer to the Planning Commission Staff Report. This is the second phase of the project. The first phase has already received planning approval and includes 20 townhomes at 2435 South. The City Council approved General Plan and Zoning Map amendment requests applicable to the Phase 1 property in 2022 with petitions PLNPCM2021-01041 and PLNPCM2021-01042. The area to be rezoned in this phase is approximately 0.34 acres or 14,810.4 sq ft. Planning Commission Hearing and Recommendation On October 25, 2023 the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal and held a public hearing. The hearing can be viewed here beginning at 2:48:17. The only topic that was discussed regarded the removal of several mature trees that is necessary for this project. The landscape plan provided by the applicant includes several new evergreen trees to replace the trees that will be removed. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a recommendation of approval as proposed. PUBLIC PROCESS: • August 3, 2023 – The Sugar House Community Council was sent the 45-day required notice for recognized community organizations. A letter in support of the request was received from the First Vice Chair of the Sugar House Community Council • August 3, 2023 – Residents within 300 feet of the development were provided early notification of the proposal. • August 21, 2023 – Applicant presented project to Sugar House Community Council. • October 16, 2023 – Public hearing notice sign posted on the property. • October 12, 2023 – Public hearing notice mailed, posted on City and State websites, and posted on Planning Division list serve. Comments from the Sugar House Community Council were received after publication of the Planning Commission staff report and can be found in Exhibit 3. Planning Commission (PC) Records a) PC Agenda of October 25, 2023 (Click to Access) b) PC Minutes of October 25, 2023 (Click to Access) c) Planning Commission Staff Report of October 25, 2023 (Click to Access Report) EXHIBITS: 1) Project Chronology 2) Notice of City Council Public Hearing 3) Comments Not Included With Planning Commission Staff Report 4) Mailing List 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 202__ (Amending the zoning map pertaining to a parcel of property located at 2445 South 500 East to rezone the parcel from R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential to RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi- Family Residential, and amending the Sugar House Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map) An ordinance pertaining to property located at 2445 South 500 East (the “Property”), amending the zoning map from R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential to RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00462; and amending the Sugar House Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00538. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on October 25, 2023, regarding applications submitted by Jason Foster of Atlas Architects to rezone the Property from R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential to RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00462, and amend the Sugar House Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential Ave pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00538. WHEREAS, at its October 25, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said applications. 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 2 hereby is amended to reflect that the parcel located at 2445 South 500 East (Tax ID No. 16-19- 428-002-0000) as more particularly described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto, is rezoned from R- 1/7,000 Single-Family Residential to RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential. SECTION 2. Amending the Sugar House Community Master Plan. The Future Land Use Map of the Sugar House Community Master Plan shall be and hereby is amended to change the future land use designation of the Property from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. SECTION 3. 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. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ___ day of ____________, 202__. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 202__ Published: ______________. Ordinance rezoning 2445 S 500 E to RMF-35 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: _________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Katherine Pasker, Senior City Attorney November 30, 2023 3 EXHIBIT “A” COM 507.62 FT S OF NW COR LOT 5 BLK 43 10 AC PLAT A BF SUR E 197.4 FT S 75 FT W 197.4 FT N 75 FT TO BEG 0.34 AC 6040-1821 6797-1263,1264 Tax ID No. 16-19-428-002-0000 Contains 0.34 acres, more or less. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1) PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2) NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING 3) COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF PC STAFF REPORT 4) MAILING LIST 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Project Chronology Petitions: PLNPCM2023-00538 & PLNPCM2023-00462 June 13, 2023 Application submitted July 10, 2023 Petitions assigned to staff. Staff worked with applicant to provide all necessary information and submittal materials. August 3, 2023 Staff sent the 45-day required notice for recognized community organizations to the Sugar House Community Council. August 3, 2023 Neighbors within 300 feet of the development were provided early notification of the proposal. September 14, 2023 Petitions routed for Department Review Comments. September 18, 2023 The 45-day public comment period for recognized organizations ended. October 12, 2023 Public hearing notice mailed, posted on City and State websites, and posted on Planning Division list serve. October 16, 2023 Public hearing notice sign posted on the property. October 25, 2023 Planning Commission Public Hearing and recommendation. October 31, 2023 Draft ordinance requested from City Attorney’s office. November 30, 2023 Draft ordinance received from City Attorney’s office. 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petitions PLNPCM2023-00538 & PLNPCM2023-00462– Woodland Commons Phase 2 General Plan and Zoning Map Amendments – 2445 S 500 E Salt Lake City has received these amendment requests, specified below, from Jason Foster with Atlas Architects representing the property owner. The intent of these amendment requests is to facilitate the construction of eight townhomes at this property . The project is located within Council District 7, represented by Sarah Young. A. General Plan Amendment (Case number PLNPCM2023-00538) The applicant is requesting to amend the Sugar House Future Land Use designation of this property from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential to facilitate the Zoning Map amendment request. B. Zoning Map Amendment (Case number PLNPCM2023-00462) The applicant is requesting to rezone the property from R -1/7,000 Single-family residential to RMF-35, Moderate Density Multi-Family. As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding these petitions. During this hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held: DATE: PLACE: Electronic and in-person options. 451 South State Street, 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 Trevor Ovenden at 801-535-7168 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at trevor.ovenden@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com, by selecting the “Planning” tab and entering the petition numbers PLNPCM2023-00538 and PLNPCM2023-00462. The City & County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. 3. COMMENTS NOT INCLUDED WITH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT COMMENTS 2445 SOUTH 500 EAST REZONE AND TOWNHOMES Erica Oliver <erica.d.oliver35@gmail.com> 12:01 PM (7 minutes ago) to Judi.Short@gmail.com To whom it may concern, I understand that there's a plan to build additional new townhouses on the lot adjacent to the current project, but I have a few concerns about it. While I appreciate the need for growth and development, I believe it should be done in a way that preserves the unique character and charm of our neighborhood. Firstly, the dense nature of townhouses might lead to increased traffic congestion in the area. Adding an additional subset of townhomes will dramatically increase this. We already face challenges with parking, and adding more households into the mix without addressing this issue could exacerbate the problem. It's important for the developers to consider the impact their project will have on the existing infrastructure and come up with viable solutions. Finally, the potential impact on property values is a valid concern for many homeowners in the neighborhood. The addition of new townhouses could potentially lead to increased supply, which may affect property prices negatively. This could be particularly concerning for those who have invested in their homes as a long-term asset and are reliant on property appreciation for their financial future. While the idea of new townhouses can bring benefits like increased housing options, it's essential to address these concerns to ensure that the development aligns with the interests and needs of the existing community. As a homeowner I am highly opposed to adding an additional subset of townhouses on the lot of 2445 S 500 E but would be open to hearing alternative uses to add value to the current townhouse project. Sincerely, Erica Oliver 2435 S 500 E. Zoning from private family to multi-family. I think SLC needs more condos and support this change. The area is appropriate for condos though why anyone would pay 600,000+ to live right next to the freeway I don’t know. I do know 4. MAILING LIST OWN_FULL_NAME OWN_ADDR own_unit OWN_CITY OWN_STATOWN_ZIP GUENTHER, COREY &LAUREN; JT 470 E ROBERT AVE SALT LAKE UT 84115 PANDO, ERNESTO &HULENE; JT 465 E WARNOCK AVE SALT LAKE UT 84115 ADAIR, PATRICK Q 478-486 E ROBERT AVE SALT LAKE UT 84115 OLIVER, ERICA D 2446 S 500 E SALT LAKE UT 84106 BERNSTEIN, HUNTER; JTBERNSTEIN, LEONARD E; JT 2458 S 500 E SALT LAKE UT 84106 BOURDOS, EVANGELINE 2460 S 500 E SALT LAKE UT 84106 WYMAN, CAROLYN V &ROBISON, LARAINE F; JT 470 E WARNOCK AVE SALT LAKE UT 84115 MARTISKA, VLADIMIR F 2480 S 500 E SALT LAKE UT 84106 LAZALDE, GERONIMO &LAURA I; TRS 4163 S WILLIAMSBURG DR WEST VALL UT 84128 LONG, ESTHER J 2445 S 500 E SALT LAKE UT 84106 MICHAEL F HOLLAND TRET AL 1128 KAINUI DR KAILUA HI 96734 STARK, RYAN; JTSTARK, DON; JT 2467 S 500 E SALT LAKE UT 84106 SCHILD, MORGAN; JTSMITH, EMERSON; JT 529 E DIVISION LN SALT LAKE UT 84106 MARK & PATRICIA BEEKHUIZENLIVING TRUST; ET AL 535 E DIVISION LN SALT LAKE UT 84106 GRAY WILLOW, LLC 257 E 200 S SALT LAKE UT 84111 SALT LAKE CITY CORP.PO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE UT 84114 TUCKER, DAVID C 549 E DIVISION LN SALT LAKE UT 84106 BANCROFT, RUSSELL C 557 E DIVISION LN SALT LAKE UT 84106 CORP OF PB OF CH JC OF LDS 50 E NORTHTEMPLE ST #2225 SALT LAKE UT 84150 1996 WALSH FAM TRET AL 2475 S 500 E SALT LAKE UT 84106 SANDOVAL, RAFAEL C; JTBLACK, AMANDA L; JT 2479 S 500 E SALT LAKE UT 84106 SWIDERSKI, JASON E &BARRETT, KELLY J E; JT 2487 S 500 E SALT LAKE UT 84106 PURKEY, TODD G; JTPURKEY, ANNA R; JT 2478 S PARK ST SALT LAKE UT 84106 QUESTAR GAS COMPANY(STATE TAX COMMISSION) PO BOX 27026 RICHMONDVA 23216 PATEL, RAJENDRAKUMAR &JAISWAL, NALANDABEN R; TC 2484 S PARK ST SALT LAKE UT 84106 MACOMBER, CATHERINE D 2477 S PARK ST SALT LAKE UT 84106 EARLES, EDWARD E & MARLENE 1397 W 6020 S TAYLORSVI UT 84123 Current Occupant 478 E ROBERT AVE Salt Lake C UT 84115 Current Occupant 2490 S 500 E Salt Lake C UT 84106 Current Occupant 2455 S 500 E Salt Lake C UT 84106 Current Occupant 2435 S 500 E Salt Lake C UT 84106 Current Occupant 543 E DIVISION LN Salt Lake C UT 84106 Current Occupant 531 E DIVISION LN Salt Lake C UT 84106 Current Occupant 2450 S 600 E Salt Lake C UT 84106 Current Occupant 2482 S PARK ST #NFF1 Salt Lake C UT 84106 Current Occupant 2479 S PARK ST Salt Lake C UT 84106 44 North Apartments Executive Summary v.4 Project Highlights: Unit Mix: Total Units: 67 1 Bed Units: 63 2 Bed Units: 4 Fully Accessible Units: 9 AMI Targeting: 100% Deeply Affordable Project 25% AMI Units: 5 30% AMI Units: 55 35% AMI Units: 7 Set Asides: 100% of Units Set Aside for disabled individuals, experiencing homelessness or chronic homelessness Amenity Highlights: On-site Case Management Services TOD Development- 0.25 miles from Trax, 0.1 miles from frequent bus stop 100% Landlord Paid Utilities Free Tenant Internet Community Room with Kitchen Computer Room Gym On-Site Laundry Bike Parking Separate Storage Lockers for Each Unit Adjacency to Madsen Park Executive Summary: First Step House (FSH) and Housing Connect (HC) are proposing a new permanent supportive housing (PSH) complex, 44 North Apartments, that will create 67 units of deeply affordable, low barrier, housing for disabled individuals experiencing homelessness and chronic homelessness. Tenants will have incomes at or below 35% AMI and will meet the criteria for disability, including behavioral health conditions. A subset of residents will be medically frail. First Step House will provide optional case management and supportive services to the residents on site. The project sits on a 0.33 acre site that has by-right, high density zoning. The project has received TSA zoning approval and is eligible to proceed with the building permit process. The property is located at 44 and 48 North 1000 West in Salt Lake City. Project Owner and all members of the development team The project will be jointly owned and developed by First Step House and Housing Connect. First Step House will staff and operate the case management and supportive services that will be offered on site. Housing Connect’s property management arm, Property Choice Solutions, will act as the property manager. Description of the unique merits of the project The project is located near two Trax stops, and a frequent bus stop, along North Temple. This location will allow for convenient and easy access to SLC’s downtown. The project is in the North Temple RDA and will benefit from the ample public and private investment in the area. The project will be fully electric, and the landlord will pay for all utilities, including internet. The project will be built to a high-quality standard and will be Enterprise Green Communities certified. The appliances will all be energy star rated. Residents will enjoy the immediate adjacency of Madsen Park, which is the project’s neighbor to the south. On-site case management staff will assist with the unique behavior and mental health needs of the residents. General description of units, the common spaces and project amenities The project will include 63 one-bedroom and 4 two-bedroom units. Of the 67 units, 9 will be fully accessible. The units are designed to be comparable to market-rate apartments in the area, but with accessibility enhancements that exceed minimum requirements. The proposed design includes a ground floor with 1,900 square feet of social services offices and meeting rooms, 900 square feet of building services, and 2,000 square feet of communal space for residents and staff. The second floor contains sixteen dwelling units, a communal kitchen and “living room”, and shared computer, laundry, storage and trash disposal. Floors three, four, and five contain seventeen dwelling units each, as well as shared social spaces, laundry, storage, and trash disposal. The building is served by two elevators and a covered parking garage for sixteen vehicles. Building amenities include on-site social services, a gym, two large communal gathering spaces, a communal kitchen, a computer room, and laundry, personal storage, shared storage, and trash collection on each residential floor. Project Funding Awards •$11,876,590 Federal Tax Credits from Utah Housing Corporation •$3,500,000 State Tax Credits from Utah Housing Corporation •$5,000,000 from the Office of Homeless Services •$2,000,000 from the Olene Walker Housing Trust Fund •$15,000,000/$2,750,000 Construction to Permanent Loan LOI from Zions Bank •Awarded $408,816 in annual operating support from the Office of Homeless Services The project is fully capitalized and has no outstanding sourcing gap. Estimated development timeline The 44 North Apartments’ project is on track to commence construction in the Q4 of 2024. Construction is anticipated to take 16 months and will end in the Spring of 2026. Lease up is anticipated to take only 3 months, given the considerable backlog and un-met need in the community for deeply affordable units. Stabilization is anticipated to occur in Summer of 2026. Level 1 44 N Apartments Level 2 44 N Apartments Level 3 44 N Apartments Level 4 44 N Apartments Level 5 44 N Apartments Elevations 44 N Apartments Front Elevation Side Elevation 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: December 12, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: Resolution allowing the Housing Authority of the County of Salt Lake, dba Housing Connect, to exercise its powers within the boundaries of Salt Lake City. STAFF CONTACT: Tony Milner, Director, Housing Stability Division, 801-535-6168 DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution declaring a need for the Housing Authority of the County of Salt Lake, dba Housing Connect, to exercise its powers within the boundaries of Salt Lake City. The Resolution would allow Housing Connect, in partnership with First Step House, to develop an affordable housing project, 44 North Apartments, located at 44 and 48 North 1000 West, Salt Lake City, Utah 84116. BUDGET IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines housing authority jurisdiction as the area in which a Public Housing Authority (PHA) has authority under state and local law to administer programs. The same regulations also apply to project-based voucher programs and other housing authority activities (24 C.F.R. § 982.4(b) and 24 C.F.R. § 983.2). Housing Connect requires the authorization of the governing body of Salt Lake City to prepare, carry out, and operate projects and provide for the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, J9# D*LL*җ рсѶспстррѷуч+12Ҙ рсҝрсҝспст рсҝрсҝспст rehabilitation, improvement, extension, alteration, or repair of any project within Salt Lake City boundaries (see Exhibit 1 in the Resolution). The last occurrence of the City authorizing Housing Connect to exercise its powers within the boundaries of the city was the Bodhi Apartments affordable housing project, through Resolution 8 of 2016. It is the City’s understanding that the developers, Housing Connect and First Step House, are proposing a new permanent supportive housing (PSH) complex, referred to as 44 North Apartments, located at 44 and 48 North 1000 West. The project intends to create 67 new units of deeply affordable, low barrier housing for disabled individuals experiencing homelessness and chronic homelessness. Tenants will have incomes at or below 35% Area Median Income (AMI) and will meet the criteria for disability, including behavioral health conditions. A subset of residents will be medically frail. First Step House will provide optional case management and supportive services to the residents on site. The project sits on a 0.33-acre site that has by-right, high density zoning. Unit Mix: •Total Units: 67 •1 Bed Units: 63 •2 Bed Units: 4 •Fully Accessible Units: 9 AMI Targeting: •100% Deeply Affordable Project •25% AMI Units: 5 •30% AMI Units: 55 •35% AMI Units: 7 This project aligns with the goals of the City’s Moderate Income Housing Plan, referred to as Housing SLC: 2023-2027, to increase deeply affordable housing. The 44 North Apartments would help advance the housing affordability goals of Salt Lake City and provide increased housing options to residents of the Fairpark neighborhood. Allowing Housing Connect to exercise its powers within the boundaries of the city would provide additional affordable housing options, in addition to the affordable housing resources provided by the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City. PUBLIC PROCESS: Hold a public comment opportunity to collect feedback. EXHIBITS: 1) Resolution RESOLUTION NO. ____ OF 2023 A resolution declaring there is a need for the Housing Connect to exercise its powers within the boundaries of Salt Lake City. WHEREAS, the Housing Authority of the County of Salt Lake dba Housing Connect (“Housing Connect”) was created pursuant to the provisions of Title 35A, Chapter 8, Part 4, Utah Code Annotated (the “Act”); and WHEREAS, the Act authorizes Housing Connect to prepare, carry out, and operate projects and provide for the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, improvement, extension, alteration or repair of any project within its area of operation; and WHEREAS, the Act provides that Housing Connect’s area of operation shall include Salt Lake City only if a resolution has been adopted by the governing body of Salt Lake City Corporation (the “City”) declaring that there is need for Housing Connect to exercise its powers within the boundaries of the City; and WHEREAS, there is a presently a need for Housing Connect to exercise its powers at a specific location also known as the 44 North Apartments located at 44 and 48 North 1000 West, Salt Lake City (the “Project”). NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: Section 1. The City Council hereby declares that there is a need for Housing Connect to exercise its powers within the boundaries of Salt Lake City for Housing Connect to prepare, carry out, and operate projects and provide for the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, improvement, extension, alteration or repair of the Project, including the provision of rental assistance. Section 2. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption. [Remainder of the page intentionally left blank.] Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of _____________, 2023. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By _____________________________ CHAIR Approved as to form: __________________________ Kimberly Chytraus Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: ___________________________ ATTEST: _________________________________ CITY RECORDER December 8, 2023 ERIN MENDENHALL MARY BETH THOMPSON Mayor Chief Financial Officer CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Date Received: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: January 5, 2024 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Information Officer SUBJECT: Annual Comprehensive Financial Report FY 2023 STAFF CONTACT: Mary Beth Thompson and Russ Sundquist DOCUMENT TYPE: Informative Item RECOMMENDATION: Review the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report as part of the City’s financial audit presentation. BUDGET IMPACT: N/A BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The financial statements for the year ending June 30, 2023, have been prepared by the Salt Lake City Department of Finance and have been audited by Eide Bailly, LLP an independent firm of Certified Public Accountants. The accuracy of the presented data and the completeness, and fairness of the presentations, including all disclosures, are the responsibility of the management of the City; while the goal of the independent audit is to provide reasonable assurance that the financial statement will be free from material misstatement. PUBLIC PROCESS: N/A EXHIBITS: Annual Comprehensive Financial Report packet DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE 451 South State Street SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TEL 801-535-6403 J9# D*LL*җ(9FчѶспсупшѷфх+12Ҙ прҝпчҝспсу прҝпчҝспсу SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2023 With INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT Prepared by Department of Finance Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer i INTRODUCTORY SECTION: Title Page .......................................................................................................................................................................................i Table of Contents ...........................................................................................................................................................................ii Transmittal Letter ..........................................................................................................................................................................v Organizational Structure ................................................................................................................................................................xii Certificate of Achievement ............................................................................................................................................................xiii FINANCIAL SECTION: Independent Auditor’s Report .............................................................................................................................................................2 Management’s Discussion and Analysis .............................................................................................................................................6 Basic Financial Statements Government-wide Financial Statements Statement of Net Position .......................................................................................................................................................19 Statement of Activities ............................................................................................................................................................21 Governmental Fund Financial Statements Balance Sheet ..........................................................................................................................................................................24 Reconciliation of the Governmental Funds Balance Sheet to the Statement of Net Position .................................................25 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances .................................................................................26 Reconciliation of the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances to the Statement of Activities ........................................................................................................................................................................27 Proprietary Fund Financial Statements Statement of Net Position .......................................................................................................................................................29 Reconciliation of Proprietary Fund Statement of Net Position to the Primary Government Business-type Statement of Net Position ....................................................................................................................................................................33 Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Fund Net Position ..................................................................................35 Reconciliation of Proprietary Fund changes in Net Position to the Primary Government Business-type Changes in Net Position ...........................................................................................................................................................................37 Statement of Cash Flows .........................................................................................................................................................39 Fiduciary Fund Financial Statements Statement of Fiduciary Net Position .......................................................................................................................................44 Statement of Changes in Fiduciary Net Position ....................................................................................................................45 Notes to the Financial Statements .................................................................................................................................................. Note 1. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies .................................................................................................47 Note 2. Cash, Cash Equivalents and Investments ........................................................................................................59 Note 3. Loans Receivable ............................................................................................................................................63 Note 4. Restricted Assets .............................................................................................................................................64 Note 5. Capital Assets ..................................................................................................................................................65 Note 6. Long-term Obligations ....................................................................................................................................68 Note 7. Leases ..............................................................................................................................................................81 Note 8. Subscription Asset ...........................................................................................................................................92 Note 9. Subscription Liability ......................................................................................................................................93 Note 10. Fund Equity ...................................................................................................................................................95 Note 11. General Fund Interfund Service Charges ......................................................................................................96 Note 12. Transfers ..........................................................................................................................................................97 Note 13. Risk Management ............................................................................................................................................98 Note 14. Pension Plans ...................................................................................................................................................100 Note 15. Deferred Compensation Plans .........................................................................................................................116 Note 16. Other Post-employment Benefits ....................................................................................................................117 TABLE OF CONTENTS Pages ii Note 17. Commitments and Contingencies ....................................................................................................................119 Note 18. Related Party Transactions ..............................................................................................................................127 Note 19. Joint Venture ...................................................................................................................................................127 Note 20. Recent Accounting Pronouncements ..............................................................................................................129 Note 21. Subsequent Events ...........................................................................................................................................130 Required Supplementary Information Budgetary Comparison Schedule – General Fund .........................................................................................................................132 Schedule of the Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability ................................................................................................133 Schedule of Contributions - Last Ten Fiscal Years .......................................................................................................................136 Schedule of Changes in Net Pension Liability - Last Ten Fiscal Years ........................................................................................140 Schedule of Changes in Total OPEB Liability - Library - Last Ten Fiscal Years ........................................................................142 Notes to Required Supplementary Information Budgetary - GAAP Reporting Reconciliation ...............................................................................................................................144 Post Employment Benefits other than Pensions ............................................................................................................................145 Supplementary Information – Combining Statements and Individual Fund Statements and Schedules Governmental Funds Nonmajor Governmental Funds Combining Balance Sheet .................................................................................................................................................150 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance ...........................................................151 Combining Balance Sheet – Nonmajor Special Revenue Funds ......................................................................................152 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance – Nonmajor Special Revenue Funds .154 Budgetary Comparison Schedules Arts Council .................................................................................................................................................................156 Downtown Economic Development ...........................................................................................................................157 Community Development Operating Fund ..................................................................................................................158 Grants Operating Fund ................................................................................................................................................159 Street Lighting ............................................................................................................................................................160 Demolition, Weed and Forfeiture ................................................................................................................................161 Emergency 911 Dispatch .............................................................................................................................................162 Salt Lake City Donation Fund .....................................................................................................................................163 Salt Lake City Transportation Fund .............................................................................................................................164 Combining Balance Sheet – Nonmajor Debt Service Funds .............................................................................................166 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance ...........................................................167 Budgetary Comparison Schedules Special Improvement Fund ........................................................................................168 Major Governmental Funds Budgetary Comparison Schedules Capital Projects Fund ...................................................................................................................................................170 Other Improvement Fund .............................................................................................................................................171 Enterprise Funds Nonmajor Proprietary Funds Combining Statement of Net Position .........................................................................................................................174 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund Net Position .....................................................178 Combining Statement of Cash Flows ..........................................................................................................................180 Budgetary Comparison Schedules Street Lighting .......................................................................................................................................................182 Refuse Collection Fund ........................................................................................................................................183 Housing and Loan Fund .......................................................................................................................................184 Golf Fund ..............................................................................................................................................................185 TABLE OF CONTENTS Pages iii Major Proprietary Funds Budgetary Comparison Schedules Supplementary Information – Combining Statements and Individual Fund Statements And Schedules (continued) Department of Airports .........................................................................................................................................187 Water Utility Fund ................................................................................................................................................188 Sewer Utility Fund ................................................................................................................................................189 Stormwater Utility Fund .......................................................................................................................................190 Redevelopment Agency Fund ..............................................................................................................................191 Internal Service Funds Combining Statement of Net Position .........................................................................................................................194 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund Net Position .....................................................196 Combining Statement of Cash Flows ..........................................................................................................................198 Budgetary Comparison Schedules Fleet Management Fund ........................................................................................................................................200 Information Management Services Fund ..............................................................................................................201 Risk Management Fund ........................................................................................................................................202 Governmental Immunity Fund ..............................................................................................................................203 Local Building Authority Fund .............................................................................................................................204 STATISTICAL SECTION: (unaudited) Net Position by component – Last Ten Fiscal Years ....................................................................................................................207 Change in Net Position – Last Ten Fiscal Years ..........................................................................................................................208 Fund Balance of Governmental Funds – Last Ten Fiscal Years ...................................................................................................210 Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds – Last Ten Fiscal Years ..............................................................................212 Governmental Activities Tax Revenues by Source – Last Ten Fiscal Years ................................................................................214 Business Type Activities Revenues by Source - Last Ten Fiscal Years .......................................................................................215 Assessed and Estimated Actual Value of Taxable Property – Last Ten Fiscal Years ...................................................................216 Direct and Overlapping Property Tax Rates - Last Ten Fiscal Years ...........................................................................................217 Principal Property Tax Payers - Current Year and Ten Years Ago ...............................................................................................218 Property Tax Levies and Collections – Last Ten Fiscal Years ......................................................................................................219 Ratios of Outstanding Debt by Type - Last Ten Fiscal Years .......................................................................................................220 Ratios of General Bonded Debt Outstanding – Last Ten Fiscal Years .........................................................................................221 Computation of Direct and Overlapping Bonded Debt ................................................................................................................222 Legal Debt Margin Information – Last Ten Fiscal Years ..............................................................................................................223 Pledged-Revenue Coverage – Last Ten Fiscal Years ....................................................................................................................224 Demographic and Economic Statistics - Last Ten Fiscal Years ....................................................................................................225 Full-time Equivalent City Government by Functions – Last Ten Fiscal Years .............................................................................226 Principal Employers - Current Year and Ten Years Ago ..............................................................................................................227 Operating Indicators by Function - Last Ten Fiscal Years ............................................................................................................228 Capital Asset Statistics by Function - Last Ten Fiscal Years ........................................................................................................229 TABLE OF CONTENTS Pages iv DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE December 29, 2023 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Salt Lake City Corporation Overview The Annual Comprehensive Financial Report of Salt Lake City Corporation (“the City”) for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023, is submitted herewith. These financial statements have been prepared by the Salt Lake City Department of Finance in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) for local governments as prescribed by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). The accuracy of the presented data and the completeness and fairness of the presentations, including all disclosures, are the responsibility of the management of the City. We believe the data, as presented, is accurate in all material respects and is presented in a manner that fairly sets forth the following aspects of the City: (1) the financial position of the governmental activities; (2) the business- type activities; (3) the discretely presented component units; (4) each major fund; (5) the aggregate remaining fund information; (6) the respective changes in financial position and (7) applicable cash flows. In order to provide a reasonable basis for making these representations, the management of Salt Lake City has established a comprehensive internal control framework that is designed both to protect the government’s assets from loss, theft, or misuse and to compile sufficient reliable information for the preparation of the Salt Lake City Corporation’s financial statements in conformity with GAAP. Because the cost of internal controls should not outweigh their benefits, Salt Lake City Corporation’s comprehensive framework of internal controls has been designed to provide reasonable, rather than absolute assurance that the financial statements will be free from material misstatement. As management, we assert that to the best of our knowledge and belief, this report is complete and reliable in all material respects. Eide Bailly, LLP an independent firm of Certified Public Accountants, has audited these basic financial statements and related notes. Their report is included herein. The goal of the independent audit is to provide reasonable assurance that the financial statements of Salt Lake City Corporation for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 are free of material misstatements. This independent audit involved examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used, and significant estimates made by management. Additionally, Eide Bailly, LLP audited the compliance requirements of the City’s federal grant programs for the year ended June 30, 2023 as part of the federally mandated “Single Audit” designed to meet the special needs of federal grantor agencies. That report is available under a separate cover. LOCATION: 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 248, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111-3102 MAILING ADDRESS: PO BOX 145452, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5452 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7676 FAX: 801-535-7682 v GAAP requires that management provide a narrative introduction, overview, and analysis to accompany the basic financial statements in the form of Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A). This letter of transmittal is designed to complement the MD&A and should be read in conjunction with it. The City’s MD&A can be found immediately following the report of the independent auditors. PROFILE OF SALT LAKE CITY Salt Lake City lies between the Wasatch Mountains and the Great Salt Lake at an altitude of 4,200 feet. Permanent settlement of the City began on July 24, 1847, when Brigham Young with a party of 148 Mormon pioneers entered the Salt Lake Valley after a 1,500-mile trek westward. Salt Lake City was incorporated on January 6, 1851 and soon became a major center for trade and commerce with the wagon trains carrying settlers and miners westward. Within a few years of the pioneers' arrival, other communities were settled throughout the Salt Lake Valley. Due to continuous economic and population growth, most of these cities in the valley survived and prospered and have grown into a single large metropolitan area of over 1,250,000 people according to the most recent population estimates. Salt Lake City is the commercial center of this metropolis and the most populous municipality in the state with a population over 202,000. Salt Lake City is also the center of the scenic intermountain west. Within a day's drive of the City, travelers can visit 70% of the officially designated national parks and monuments of America. The Wasatch Mountains, east of the City, are well known for their ski resorts, which are within a 45-minute drive from downtown Salt Lake City. During the 2022-23 ski season, Utah's resorts set a record for the number of combined visits at more than 7.1 million. The majority of these out-of-state skiers come to these resorts each year. The scenic Wasatch Front provided an excellent backdrop as the City hosted the 2002 Winter Olympics. The City will again be demonstrating its unparalleled hospitality, fantastic accommodations and access to its incredible recreational opportunities when it hosts the 2034 Winter Olympics. Salt Lake City also plays host to visitors who come to the area to enjoy a number of other outdoor recreational opportunities within a short drive from the City. Salt Lake City is the international headquarters of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. At Temple Square in downtown Salt Lake City, over 5 million visitors see the famous Salt Lake Temple, Tabernacle, and visitor centers each year. The church is currently undertaking an extensive reconstruction of Temple Square and the surrounding areas. Completion is expected in 2025. The Salt Palace Convention Center (located in downtown Salt Lake City) plays host to many different activities. This facility has a 45,000 square foot ballroom, over half a million square feet of exhibit space, and a total of 164,000 square feet of meeting space. This convention space provides its users with the most up-to-date technological capabilities available. It is wired with miles of wire and fiber optic cable for up-to-date computer and communications, including satellite uplink capability and includes a wireless network. The downtown area has close to 30 hotels where travelers and convention-goers can stay, with dozens more in close proximity to the City. A 26 story convention center hotel featuring over 700 rooms, and approximately 62,000 square feet of meeting space opened in October of 2022. Salt Lake City rose to the challenge COVID 19 posed beginning in 2020, as well as other setbacks such as a 5.7 magnitude earthquake and some civil unrest, and is now enjoying a continually improving economy, further growth, numerous cultural opportunities and an exciting night life. EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES Several universities and colleges are located in or near Salt Lake City. One of the strengths of the downtown economy is its young, highly educated workforce. The University of Utah is located on the east bench of Salt Lake City. This university was founded in 1850 and is the oldest mainland university west of the Missouri River. Over 33,000 full and part-time students are enrolled. vi The Utah Museum of Fine Arts and the Utah Museum of Natural History are located on the University of Utah campus. The University also includes a highly-ranked medical school and teaching hospital. Numerous additional institutions of higher education maintain campuses in the urban center, including Neumont University, Brigham Young University, Ensign College and Salt Lake Community College. Utah State University and Weber State University have campuses to the north and Brigham Young University and Utah Valley University are to the South. With educational opportunities so abundant, the Salt Lake area is plentiful with young, educated talent ready and able to join the workforce. CULTURE AND ENTERTAINMENT Salt Lake City is home to a thriving, vibrant, creative population supported by a larger community that values the arts in all forms. Salt Lake City has long placed significant value on the arts, starting one of the nation’s first publicly funded Arts Councils in 1899. Today, the Salt Lake City Arts Council puts on some of the city’s largest concerts and festivals, such as the Twilight Concerts and the Living Traditions Festival. These and other programs and partnerships help the City maintain a strong public art program making the arts accessible for everyone. Far from a sleepy perception that people might have of downtown SLC, evenings from Main Street and surrounding streets are hopping with bars and restaurants intermixed with performance venues, with some of the finest world-class entertainment and mixologists you’ll find anywhere. The Delta Center Arena, located three blocks directly west of Temple Square, is the home of the Utah Jazz of the National Basketball Association. There have also been efforts by Salt Lake City based organizations to entice a Major League Baseball team to make the City its home. Smith's Ballpark, just south of downtown, is the current home field of the Salt Lake Bees, a minor league baseball team. As the capital city of Utah, Salt Lake City provides an unparalleled quality of life. Residents and visitors enjoy an eclectic visual, musical and performing arts scene with hundreds of venues, galleries, museums and the popular state-of-the-art Broadway-style Eccles Theater, a 2,500-seat theater designed to suit traveling Broadway shows. Abravanel Hall, home of the Utah Symphony Orchestra, the Pioneer Memorial Theater, the Utah Civic Opera Company, Clark Planetarium and the Utah Heritage Foundation help round out the entertainment options available to area residents and visitors. Salt Lake City provides diverse and rich cultural and entertainment experiences that make living and working within the City more and more desirable. Additionally, family owned restaurants, friendly cafes, world-class microbreweries and craft cocktail establishments all help make Salt Lake City the foodie capital of the region. Over 90 lush parks and miles of protected open space and trails make Salt Lake City an urban outdoor paradise for hiking, biking and running, not to mention the city is surrounded by 10 world-class ski resorts within an hour's drive. SHOPPING AND OTHER ENTERTAINMENT The cultural aspects aren’t the only draw of the City’s downtown center. Salt Lake also hosts a number of high- quality stores for an enjoyable shopping experience. The City’s downtown has long been defined in part by its historically strong retail and restaurant economy. Downtown is home to two major shopping destinations, City Creek Center and the Gateway. City Creek Center maintains its role as the most popular shopping experience in downtown, accounting for a significant percentage of downtown’s sales in clothing and clothing accessories. Trolley Square, Brickyard Plaza and the 9th and 9th area of the City are other worthy inclusions in the list of the City's shopping destinations. Salt Lake City also has a well-developed system of municipal golf courses for the enjoyment of area residents. One of these golf courses in particular has been recognized for its excellence. Bonneville golf course was chosen by PGA professionals as one of six favorite classic golf courses (golf courses that have green fees less than $125 during peak season). vii COMMERCE, INDUSTRY, TRANSPORTATION AND FACTORS AFFECTING FINANCIAL CONDITION According to CBRE Location Intelligence, in 2020 there were over 2.5 million people – 27% of them in the 18- to-34 age demographic – live within 50 miles of downtown Salt Lake City, with a 9% projected growth rate over the next five years. Even during the pandemic it was apparent that housing construction was on the rise. The number of cranes above the city scape and the number of apartment complexes and new single family homes being built within the city and outlying areas proves this assessment to be correct. Salt Lake City is the population hub of Utah which, in the 2020 census, was listed as the fastest-growing state in the country. Since 2015, the state has gained nearly half a million people and that growth doesn’t seem to be slowing. The state’s population now stands at appropriately 3.45 million people. Salt Lake City is a major transportation crossroads in the intermountain west. Three major railroads, nine major airlines, two bus lines and many truck lines serve the area. The city is located at the convergence of four major highways and two interstate highway systems. The Salt Lake International Airport is a major intermountain air transportation hub and a principal hub and reservation center for Delta Air Lines. The Salt Lake International Airport has recently undergone a major terminal redevelopment program, substantially opened in 2020, with the final phases slated to be completed by 2024. This redevelopment effort is allowing the Airport to better cater to business as well as leisure travelers. The Utah Transit Authority operates an outstanding commuter bus, light rail, and heavy commuter rail system in Salt Lake City and throughout neighboring counties. The Frontrunner commuter rail system extends for nearly ninety miles from the Ogden area in the north to the Provo area in the south. Frontrunner provides an efficient and swift means of transportation all along the Wasatch Front with trains reaching 79 mph along their route. In recent years, over 1,000 new hotel rooms have been completed, are currently under construction or are planned, including a new convention center hotel located adjacent to the Salt Palace Convention Center. The City continues to receive accolades in the form of awards and recognition. The Milken Institute has ranked the City #4 on the list of Best-Performing Large Cities. As the economic hub of the State of Utah, the City deserves recognition when the state is ranked in areas such as #1 Best State for GDP Growth (Forbes), #1 Best State Economy (WalletHub), Best Economy (U.S. New & World Report) and Best Economic Outlook (Rich States Poor States). Other recent accolades include State Farm and BestPlaces’ rank of #1 on their list of Most Fiscally Fit Cities. The City was also ranked #1 on the Forbes list of Cities Poised to Become Tomorrow’s Tech Meccas. The City provides a full range of municipal services including police, fire, recreational activities including six municipal golf courses, libraries, water, sewer, storm water, airports, public improvements, highways and streets, planning and zoning, and general administrative services. The modern economy of Salt Lake City is rich in service-oriented businesses and continues to be recognized by economists and employers across the nation as the “Crossroads of the West” with major industries in government, trade, transportation, utilities, professional, business services and a growing alternative energy component. With Interstate 15 and Interstate 80 as major corridors for freight traffic, combined with numerous regional distribution centers, transportation is a significant portion of the employment base for the Salt Lake Valley. The Salt Lake City International Airport is also an important facet of this transportation corridor. As mentioned above, the burgeoning travel and transportation needs of the City and surrounding markets has necessitated the redevelopment of the Airport. The Airport Terminal Redevelopment Program has opened after many years of construction, with the new terminal being fully operational. The project, well in excess of $2 billion, has generated nearly 24,000 jobs and over $1 billion in wages since it began. viii Salt Lake City’s growing business prowess is further demonstrated by the increasing number of tech startups and business incubators. The Google Fiber fiber optic network is well under way and 1 gigabit speeds are now being offered to residents and businesses in the downtown area of the city. In addition to being a prime location for industrial development, Salt Lake City has a unique location and effective transportation infrastructure to help it stand out as a hub for the global distribution industry. A surge in demand for freight volume has attracted companies such as FedEx, DHS and UPS to open distribution centers that provide hundreds of jobs for Salt Lake City residents. Salt Lake City also acts as a full-service 'customs port-city' to the 1,600 trucking companies that utilize Utah's transportation network. Salt Lake City International Airport is 2.5 hours from half the nation's population and offers direct flights to both Europe and Asia. The COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on the economy of the city as well as the state. The city has now recovered, and much of the City's business, retail and industry have returned to normalcy. Nonfarm employment is anticipated to reach pre-pandemic levels soon. In recent years it has been demonstrated how different Utah, and Salt Lake City, is from the rest of the U.S. economy right now. The Economic Coincident Indicator Index, which takes several measures – unemployment, job growth, compensation, and manufacturing hours worked, and groups them into one indicator, has shown that while the entire U.S. dropped by 5.2%, and every single state, except Utah, also showing a decrease, Utah is showed an increase of 5.9%. “We are on an island, a different place,” says Natalie Gochnour, Associate Dean of the University of Utah Eccles School of Business. EMPLOYMENT ACTIVITY Salt Lake City is the central city to more than 2 million inhabitants residing in four counties within an hour’s drive from downtown. The majority of Utah’s 3+ million residents live in the Wasatch Front urban corridor stretching from Ogden to Provo. The City’s daytime population increases greatly as a significant portion of the state’s total work force commutes to jobs located within the city limits. Over the thirteen plus years since the Great Recession, and prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, downtown Salt Lake City saw notable increases in office and restaurant employment at 17% and 7% respectively, and significantly the city saw an 83.3% increase in retail employment. Following national trends, Salt Lake City experienced declining employment during the recession, but has seen employment numbers rebound remarkably. Utah's unemployment rate is now estimated to be 2.7% , considerably lower than the national average unemployment rate. Salt Lake City's unemployment rate is approximately the same as the State of Utah. While the pandemic had an impact on jobs in the State and the City, in terms of job change over time, the city has done better than the national average. At Utah’s lowest point following the beginning of the pandemic, it stood at the same level that the remainder of the U.S. is at today. Over the ensuing months, Utah has seen over 5% increase in job growth above the low point of the pandemic. TAXABLE SALES ACTIVITY Despite the impact of the pandemic on overall economy, sales taxes in the City performed extremely well during FY 2023 and is budgeted to increase by over $16 million in FY 2024, including the ½ percent funding for Funding Our Futures. SUMMARY OUTLOOK Salt Lake City endured the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and the attendant national economic downturn. There remains hope on the horizon amid evidence that there will be continued and significant investment in the downtown core, continued improvements in job growth, and that the city will remain vibrant with a very optimistic outlook. ix ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL PLANNING As part of an overall strategic planning process, Salt Lake City developed several goals and objectives designed to keep the City on a firm financial footing. These goals and objectives include the following: Attract and retain small businesses by increasing the number of small business loans issued by at least five a year. Increase the number of businesses relocating to the City or expanding by at least 10 a year. Ensure that each Salt Lake City fund is financially secure by building and then maintaining a fund balance of at least 13% in the General Fund, by adding at least 1% of revenues per year to retained earnings in the Internal Service funds, by maintaining cash reserves of 25% of the operating expenses in the Airport Enterprise fund, and by maintaining cash reserves of 9-10% in the Utilities Enterprise funds. Maintain Aaa and AAA Moody’s and Fitch general obligation bond ratings by maintaining modest debt levels. For the City’s fiscal year 2023, total general fund revenue budget increased by 15.36%. The increase is primarily associated with anticipated sales tax revenue and infusions of funding from the federal government’s American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA). INTERNAL CONTROL STRUCTURE The City utilizes a computerized financial accounting system, which includes a system of internal accounting controls. These controls are designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding: (1) the safeguarding of assets against loss from unauthorized use or disposition, and (2) the reliability of financial records for preparing financial statements and maintaining accountability for assets. The concept of reasonable assurance recognizes that: (1) the cost of a control should not exceed the benefits likely to be derived, and (2) the evaluation of costs and benefits requires estimates and judgments by management. The City adheres to the above framework for internal controls. We believe that the City's internal accounting controls adequately safeguard assets and provide reasonable assurance of proper recording of financial transactions. BUDGETARY CONTROL The City maintains budgetary controls. The objective of these budgetary controls is to ensure compliance with legal provisions embodied in the annual appropriated budget approved by the City Council. Activities of all funds used by the City are included in the annual appropriated budget. Project-length financial plans are adopted for the Capital Improvement Projects Fund. The level of budgetary control (that is, the level at which expenditures cannot legally exceed the appropriated amount) is established at the department level. For budgetary purposes, the City considers each enterprise fund to be a department. Management can move budgeted amounts from one line item to another within a department or decrease appropriations.The City also maintains an encumbrance accounting system as one technique of accomplishing budgetary control. Encumbered amounts lapse at year-end. However, encumbrances are generally re-appropriated as part of the following year's budget. The City Council can increase appropriations after holding a public hearing. During the year ended June 30, 2023, the City Council passed several supplementary appropriations. AWARDS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) awarded a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting to Salt Lake City Corporation for its Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2022. The City has now received this or an equivalent award for close to 30 years. In order to be awarded a Certificate of Achievement, the City must publish an easily readable and efficiently organized Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, the contents of which conform to program standards. Such reports must satisfy both Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and applicable legal requirements. x A Certificate of Achievement is valid for a period of one year only. We believe our current report continues to conform to Certificate of Achievement Program requirements and we are submitting it to the GFOA to determine its eligibility for another certificate. The preparation of this report on a timely basis could not have been accomplished without the efficient and dedicated services of the staff of the Department of Finance. We appreciate Eide Bailly, LLP, Certified Public Accountants, for the assistance and guidance they have given us. We also thank the members of the City Council and the Mayor for their interest and support in planning and conducting the financial operations of the City in a responsible and progressive manner. Sincerely, Mary Beth Thompson Chief Financial Officer xi xii xiii Financial Section 1 What inspires you, inspires us. | eidebailly.com 5 Triad Center, Ste. 600 | Salt Lake City, UT 84180-1106 | T 801.532.2200 | F 801.532.7944 | EOE 2 Independent Auditor’s Report To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Salt Lake City Corporation Report on the Audit of the Financial Statements Opinions We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, the discretely presented component units, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the Salt Lake City Corporation (the City), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2023, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the City’s basic financial statements as listed in the table of contents. In our opinion, the accompanying financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, the discretely presented component units, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the Salt Lake City Corporation, as of June 30, 2023, and the respective changes in financial position, and, where applicable, cash flows thereof for the year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Basis for Opinions We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAS) and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States (Government Auditing Standards). Our responsibilities under those standards are further described in the Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements section of our report. We are required to be independent of the City and to meet our other ethical responsibilities, in accordance with the relevant ethical requirements relating to our audit. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinions. Adoption of New Accounting Standard As discussed in Note 1 to the financial statements, the City has adopted the provisions of Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 96, Subscription-Based Information Technology Arrangements (SBITAs), for the year ended June 30, 2023. As a result of implementing the standard there was no effect on governmental activities, business-type activities, or proprietary funds beginning net position. Our opinions are not modified with respect to this matter. 3 Responsibilities of Management for the Financial Statements Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, and for the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error. In preparing the financial statements, management is required to evaluate whether there are conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about the City’s ability to continue as a going concern for twelve months beyond the financial statement date, including any currently known information that may raise substantial doubt shortly thereafter. Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements as a whole are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error, and to issue an auditor’s report that includes our opinions. Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance but is not absolute assurance and therefore is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with GAAS and Government Auditing Standards will always detect a material misstatement when it exists. The risk of not detecting a material misstatement resulting from fraud is higher than for one resulting from error, as fraud may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions, misrepresentations, or the override of internal control. Misstatements are considered material if there is a substantial likelihood that, individually or in the aggregate, they would influence the judgment made by a reasonable user based on the financial statements. In performing an audit in accordance with GAAS and Government Auditing Standards, we: •Exercise professional judgment and maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit. •Identify and assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error, and design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks. Such procedures include examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. •Obtain an understanding of internal control relevant to the audit in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed. •Evaluate the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluate the overall presentation of the financial statements. •Conclude whether, in our judgment, there are conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about the City’s ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time. We are required to communicate with those charged with governance regarding, among other matters, the planned scope and timing of the audit, significant audit findings, and certain internal control–related matters that we identified during the audit. 4 Required Supplementary Information Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that the management’s discussion and analysis, budgetary comparison schedule – General Fund, Schedule of Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability, Schedule of Contribution – Last Ten Fiscal Years, Schedule of Changes in Net Pension Liability –Last Ten Fiscal Years and Schedule of Changes in Total OPEB Liability – Library – Last Ten Fiscal Years, as listed in the table of contents, be presented to supplement the basic financial statements. Such information is the responsibility of management and, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. We have applied certain limited procedures to the required supplementary information in accordance with GAAS, which consisted of inquiries of management about the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management’s responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the information because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance. Supplementary Information Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that collectively comprise the City’s basic financial statements. The combining statements and individual funds statements and schedules, including the budgetary comparison schedules are presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not a required part of the basic financial statements. Such information is the responsibility of management and was derived from and relates directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements. The information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and certain additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements or to the basic financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with GAAS. In our opinion, the combining statements and individual funds statements and schedules, including the budgetary comparison schedules are fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the basic financial statements as a whole. Other Information Management is responsible for the other information included in the annual report. The other information comprises the introductory and statistical sections but does not include the basic financial statements and our auditor's report thereon. Our opinions on the basic financial statements do not cover the other information, and we do not express an opinion or any form of assurance thereon. In connection with our audit of the basic financial statements, our responsibility is to read the other information and consider whether a material inconsistency exists between the other information and the basic financial statements, or the other information otherwise appears to be materially misstated. If, based on the work performed, we conclude that an uncorrected material misstatement of the other information exists, we are required to describe it in our report. 5 Other Reporting Required by Government Auditing Standards In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated December 29, 2023, on our consideration of the City’s internal control over financial reporting and on our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements and other matters. The purpose of that report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the City’s internal control over financial reporting and compliance. Salt Lake City, Utah December 29, 2023 Salt Lake City Corporation's (the "City") management presents to the readers of its financial statements this narrative information. It contains an overview and analysis of the financial position and results of operations as of and for the year ended June 30, 2023. As management of the City, we encourage readers to consider information contained in this discussion along with the transmittal letter on page v. FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS The assets and deferred outflows of resources of the City exceeded its liabilities and deferred inflows of resources at the end of the current fiscal year by $3,793,605,361 (net position). Of this amount, $362,485,730 is unrestricted net position. Net position increased by $246,649,819. This included an increase in net position of $138,768,910 in the governmental activities and an increase of $107,880,909 in the business-type activities. The City's governmental funds reported a combined ending fund balance of $504,162,212, an increase of $162,016,885 compared to the prior years' ending amount. Of the combined total fund balance, $251,111,184 is available for spending at the discretion of the City (unassigned and assigned). The unassigned fund balance of the General Fund at June 30, 2023, which totaled $178,933,386, is 43 percent of the General Fund total revenues for the year and 71 percent of governmental assigned and unassigned fund balance. The General Fund has $2,484,423 of non-spendable fund balance. The City issued new bonded debt in fiscal year 2023. See Note 6. OVERVIEW OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS This discussion and analysis serves as an introduction to the City's basic financial statements: (1) Government-wide financial statements, (2) Fund financial statements and (3) Notes to the financial statements. This report also contains information in addition to the basic financial statements that will help the reader to gain a more in-depth understanding of the City. Government-wide financial statements give readers a broad overview of the entire City's financial position and changes in financial position, similar to consolidated financial statements in a private sector business. These statements consist of the Statement of Net position and the Statement of Activities. The Statement of Net Position shows the City's entire assets, deferred outflows of resources, liabilities and deferred inflows of resources with the difference shown as net position. Increases or decreases over time in net position gives an indicator as to whether the financial condition of the City is improving or declining. The Statement of Activities shows the changes to net position that occurred during the most recent fiscal year. These changes are recorded on an accrual basis when the underlying event that causes SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS June 30, 2023 6 the change occurs, regardless of when the cash transaction takes place. One example is the next debt interest payment when the fiscal year ends in between interest payments. The Statement of Changes in Net Position shows an additional interest expense for the time period between the last interest payment and the end of the fiscal year. Both of the government-wide financial statements distinguish between activities that are largely supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenues (governmental activities) and those whose operations are entirely or largely financed by user charges and fees (business type-activities). The governmental activities for the City include general governmental (Council, Mayor, Attorney, Finance and Non-departmental); public safety (Police, Fire and Central Dispatch); streets and recreation (Public Services); and other development (Community & Neighborhoods and Economic Development). The business-type activities include water, sewer, stormwater, street lighting, airport, housing, refuse collection, golf and redevelopment. The government-wide financial statements include not only the City itself (the primary government), but also those of the legally separate Salt Lake City Library (Library) and the Utah Performing Arts Center Agency (UPACA). These two entities (both component units) are financially accountable to the City and are presented separately from the primary government itself. Two other entities, the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (RDA) and the Local Building Authority (LBA) are also legally separate from the City, but for all practical purposes function as a part of the City and are therefore blended as an integral part of the primary government. The government-wide financial statements are found immediately following this discussion and analysis. FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS A fund is a set of closely related accounts that are used to maintain control over resources that have been segregated for specific activities or purposes. The City, like other state and local governments, uses fund accounting to demonstrate compliance with finance-related legal requirements. All of the City's funds can be categorized into one of three categories: governmental funds, proprietary funds and fiduciary funds. Governmental funds account for essentially the same activities as the governmental activities in the government-wide financial statements, but with a narrower focus. Governmental funds concentrate on near-term inflows and outflows of financial resources and the balances of spendable resources available to the government at the end of the fiscal year. This information can be useful in evaluating the government’s short term financing requirements. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS June 30, 2023 7 Comparing similar information presented in the government-wide statements for the governmental activities with that presented in governmental funds statements can provide useful information because of the different focus of the two approaches. With the long-term focus of the government-wide statements, a reader may be able to better understand the long-term effects of the near term financing decisions. Both the governmental fund balance sheet and the governmental fund statement of revenues, expenditures and changes in fund balance show reconciliation between the governmental funds statements to the governmental activities in the government-wide statements to aid in the comparison. The City uses fourteen different individual governmental funds. Of this number, information is shown separately for the General, Capital Projects and Other Improvement Funds, all of which are deemed major funds. Information from the other eleven funds is presented in a single combined column. Individual presentations for these non-major funds are contained in combining information shown after the notes to the financial statements as listed in the table of contents. The City adopts an annual appropriated budget for all its governmental funds. Budgetary comparison schedules have been provided to demonstrate compliance with these budgets. Within the Proprietary funds are two types that the City utilizes; enterprise and internal service funds. Enterprise funds report the same functions as the business-type activities in the government-wide financial statements. The Enterprise funds maintained by the City are: the water, sewer, stormwater and street lighting utilities; the Salt Lake City International Airport (Airport); housing and business loans, refuse collection, golf, and the RDA. Internal service funds are used as an accounting device to accumulate and allocate costs among the City's various governmental and enterprise activities. The City uses internal service funds to account for its vehicle fleet, information technology, risk management and employee benefits, tort liability, and the LBA. Because all of these activities support primarily governmental rather than business-type activities, they have been included within the governmental activities column of the government-wide financial statements. Proprietary funds present the same information as in the government-wide statements, except in more detail. The fund statements for proprietary funds provide separate information for the Department of Airports, Water Utility, Sewer Utility, Stormwater Utility, and the Redevelopment Agency, all of which are considered to be major funds of the City. Individual presentations for the remaining enterprise funds are contained in the combining information elsewhere in this report. All internal service funds are shown in one single column in the proprietary fund financial statements. Individual fund information can be found in the combining information elsewhere in this report. The City also adopts annual appropriated budgets for all of its proprietary funds. As with the governmental funds, budgetary comparison statements are included to show compliance with these budgets. The basic proprietary fund financial statements can be found as listed in the table of contents. Fiduciary funds are used to account for resources held by the City for the benefit of entities outside of the government. Since these resources cannot be used to support the operations of the City, they are not shown in the government-wide financial statements. The accounting for fiduciary funds is similar to that of proprietary funds. The fiduciary fund financial statements can be found as listed in the table of contents. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS June 30, 2023 8 Notes to the financial statements contain additional information important to a complete understanding of the information contained in the government-wide and fund financial statements. Notes to the financial statements are located after the statements for major funds as listed in the table of contents. GOVERNMENT-WIDE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Salt Lake City Corporation's Net Position (in thousands) Governmental Activities Business-type Activities Total 2023 2022*2023 2022*2023 2022* Current and other assets $ 766,273 $ 632,873 $ 735,841 $ 954,126 $ 1,502,113 $ 1,586,998 Capital Assets 877,091 851,184 5,399,425 4,911,284 6,276,516 5,762,468 Non-current assets 33,205 112,811 897,978 1,156,872 931,183 1,269,683 Total assets 1,676,569 1,596,867 7,033,244 7,022,282 8,709,813 8,619,149 Deferred outflow of resources 59,839 42,726 19,670 15,876 79,509 58,602 Current and other liabilities 103,848 89,395 252,835 265,191 356,682 354,587 Long-term liabilities 435,068 355,304 3,836,814 3,874,835 4,271,881 4,230,139 Total liabilities 538,915 444,699 4,089,648 4,140,027 4,628,564 4,584,726 Deferred inflow of resources 127,596 263,766 239,557 282,303 367,153 546,070 Net position: Invested in capital assets, net 692,661 639,083 2,168,322 2,186,081 2,860,983 2,825,164 Restricted 194,727 101,247 375,410 449,725 570,136 550,973 Unrestricted 182,509 190,799 179,977 (19,978) 362,486 170,821 Total net position $ 1,069,897 $ 931,129 $ 2,723,710 $ 2,615,829 $ 3,793,606 $ 3,546,956 * The assets, deferred outflow of resources, liabilities and deferred inflow of resources have not been restated to show the effects of GASB 96 for comparative purposes. Net Position percentage - Current Fiscal Year Invested in capital assets, net 75% Restricted 15% Unrestricted 10% The largest component of the City’s net position is its investment in capital assets. 75 percent of total net position represents the City’s investment in land and land improvements, buildings, machinery and equipment, roads, streetlights, signals and bridges, less any related outstanding debt that was used to acquire these assets. The City uses these capital assets to provide services to citizens who live, work, pass through or benefit in other ways from the City. By their nature, these assets are not available for future spending. Further, even though these capital assets are reported net of any related debt, resources needed to repay the debt must come from other sources, as the assets themselves cannot be used to satisfy the related obligations. Of the remainder of net position, 15 percent, is assets that are subject to external restrictions on how they may be expended (debt reserve funds or unexpended debt proceeds). SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS June 30, 2023 9 Salt Lake City Corporation's Changes in Net Position (in thousands) Governmental Activities Business-type Activities Total 2023 2022 2023 2022 2023 2022 Revenues Program revenues Charges for Services $ 104,788 $ 101,562 $ 567,371 $ 490,603 $ 672,159 $ 592,165 Operating grants and contributions 64,853 53,077 — — 64,853 53,077 Capital grants and contributions 32,331 29,545 105,643 113,960 137,974 143,505 General revenues Property taxes 146,170 136,635 — — 146,170 136,635 Other taxes 201,166 186,857 — — 201,166 186,857 Investment Earnings 18,237 (5,693) 51,668 13,947 69,905 8,254 Total revenues 567,545 501,982 724,682 618,510 1,292,227 1,120,493 Expenses General Government 41,232 17,266 — — 41,232 17,266 Council 4,333 3,785 — — 4,333 3,785 Mayor 5,569 3,953 — — 5,569 3,953 City Attorney 9,747 8,210 — — 9,747 8,210 Finance 11,052 9,452 — — 11,052 9,452 Fire 41,287 38,335 — — 41,287 38,335 Combined Emergency Services 8,600 7,424 — — 8,600 7,424 Human Resources 3,850 3,234 — — 3,850 3,234 Justice Courts 4,050 3,786 — — 4,050 3,786 Police 94,882 75,368 — — 94,882 75,368 Economic Development 8,170 4,853 — — 8,170 4,853 Community and Neighborhoods 64,180 62,242 — — 64,180 62,242 Public Services 78,920 66,913 — — 78,920 66,913 Infrastructure depreciation 13,143 11,484 — — 13,143 11,484 Interest on long-term debt 10,752 15,359 — — 10,752 15,359 Department of Airports — — 437,993 404,480 437,993 404,480 Water — — 82,228 71,131 82,228 71,131 Sewer — — 48,158 33,455 48,158 33,455 Storm Water Utility — — 11,020 9,543 11,020 9,543 Street lighting Utility — — 5,055 4,359 5,055 4,359 Refuse Collection — — 15,871 14,882 15,871 14,882 Golf — — 10,165 8,682 10,165 8,682 Housing and Loan — — 807 3,535 807 3,535 Redevelopment Agency 32,469 — 34,513 37,755 66,982 37,755 Total expenses 399,767 331,663 645,810 587,823 1,078,044 919,484 Change in net position before transfers 167,778 170,320 78,872 30,688 246,651 201,008 Transfers (29,009) (18,734) 29,009 18,734 — — Change in net position 138,769 151,586 107,881 49,422 246,651 201,008 Net position, beginning 931,128 779,542 2,615,828 2,566,405 3,546,956 3,345,947 Net position, ending $ 1,069,897 $ 931,128 $ 2,723,709 $ 2,615,828 $ 3,793,605 $ 3,546,956 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS June 30, 2023 10 Governmental Activities net position increased by $138,768,910 for the year ended June 30, 2023, which is 56 percent of the total increase in net position for the City as a whole. Property and sales tax revenue increased due to a strong economic recovery coming out of the pandemic. Several Congressional Legislative responses (like the CARES Act) gave substantial support to the local economy. Expenses increased by $68,104,297. Most of this increase is due to increased personnel costs. The Capital Improvement fund also benefited from the sales tax increase with an increase in spending on roads and other transportation projects. Governmental Activities - Expenses and Program Revenues (in Millions) Expenses Program Revenues Fire Police Community Develop. Public Svs. All Others 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 Governmental Revenues by Source Charges for Services 18.5% Operating grants and contributions 11.4% Capital grants and contributions 5.7% Property taxes 25.8% Other taxes 35.4% Other 3.2% SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS June 30, 2023 11 Business-type activities net position increased $107,880,909 or 44 percent of the total increase to net position. A healthy economy benefited all entities increasing revenue and expenditures. Airport, Water and Sewer Utilities continue to invest heavily in capital assets. During FY 2021, the Airport completed and opened Phase I of the TRP and NCP. This resulted in higher square footage for terminal rents and the debt service on the Airport’s revenue bonds being included in terminal rents. These factors caused the terminal rent rate to increase considerably. The Sewer Utility has planned major projects for the sewer collection system that will accommodate the current and planned development in the northwest area of the City. A new water reclamation facility is being constructed on the existing plant site that will cost in excess of $711 million and is anticipated to be in operation by 2027. Business-type Activities - Expense and Program Revenues (in Millions) Expenses Program Revenues Airport Water Sewer Storm Water Redevelopment All Others 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Business Type Revenues by Source Charges for Services: 84.3% Capital grants and contributions: 15.7% SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS June 30, 2023 12 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF CITY FUNDS The City’s governmental funds provide information on the short-term resource inflows and outflows and account balances at the end of the fiscal year. The total fund balance is a measure of total available resources and the unassigned portion of this total fund balance is a measure of the available spendable resources at June 30, 2023. For the period ended June 30, 2023, the City’s governmental funds reported a combined fund balance amount of $504,162,212, an increase of $162,016,885 compared to the prior fiscal year. Of the total balance at year-end, $178,933,386 is Unassigned and $72,177,798 is Assigned. Most of the Assigned fund balance is assigned to roads, parks, other capital improvements, grant activities, encumbrances and debt service. The Committed fund balance is $6,190,152. The majority of the restricted funds of $244,228,366 are for capital projects. The Non-spendable funds of $2,632,510 are receivables and prepaid items. The General Fund is the main operating fund for the City. At June 30, 2023, the General Fund’s unassigned fund balance was $178,933,386 while total fund balance equaled $202,575,741. A useful measure of liquidity is to compare the unassigned fund balance and the total fund balance to expenditures (including transfers out) for the year. Unassigned fund balance was 42 percent of total expenditures and transfers while total fund balance equaled 47 percent. The fund balance for the City’s General Fund increased by $42,452,059. Higher property values resulted in higher property taxes collect and an increase in economic activity resulted in higher sales tax in 2023. There was also a rebound in licensing and permits as economic activity begins to normalize. There were revenue decreases in innkeepers tax and airport parking tax that were impacted by travel restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Charges for services revenue decreased in the areas of field reservations and program fees, also due to the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. The Capital Projects Fund has a total fund balance of $257,580,265 at June 30, 2023, all of which is either restricted or assigned to unfinished projects. The largest restrictions are for road reconstruction and transportation projects. The City has received significant general obligation funding or roads several grants for transportation projects. A smaller portion is restricted for parks and trails. Council approved new funding for large maintenance projects. Increase revenue means is due to the funding of new projects through new grants, impact fees and bonding. The net increase in fund balance for the year amounted to $112,579,385. The Other Improvements Fund has a total fund balance of $13,449,360 at June 30, 2023, all of which is restricted. The Other Improvements Fund is a debt service fund established to provide for all debt payments. The fund balance increased $3,632,691 for the year. Additional information about debt can be found in Note 6. The City issued GO 2022 series bonds. The City’s proprietary funds provide the same type of information found in the government-wide financial statements, but in more detail. Unrestricted net position of the City’s Major proprietary funds totaled $(135,851,493) for the Department of Airports, $32,460,731 for the Water Fund, SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS June 30, 2023 13 $39,141,782 for the Sewer Fund, $17,462,501 for Stormwater Fund and $176,458,287 for the Redevelopment Agency Fund. Discussions about the finances of these five funds are addressed in the City’s business-type activities. GENERAL FUND BUDGETARY HIGHLIGHTS Differences between the original and final amended budgets amounted to a total increase in appropriations of $53,277,847. By department, the changes are: • $477,308 increase for City Council • $92,360 increase for Mayor • $141,763 increase for City Attorney • $801,330 increase for Finance • $654,201 increase for Fire • $46,699 increase for Human Resources • $130,367 increase for Combined Emergency Services • $5,421,985 increase for Police • $11,009,498 increase for Community & Neighborhoods • $346,343 increase in Economic Development • $46,369 increase in Justice Court • $6,930,085 increase for Public Services • $27,179,539 increase for Nondepartmental (including transfers out) Increases to all budgets included $7,870,332 for prior year encumbrances. The majority of the increase comes from an increase in salaries, pension and insurance of $18.1 million. The budget also includes the addition of 49 FTEs at an anticipated cost of approximately $4.6 million. Affordable housing was a focus of the administration which resulted in $4.6 million of new funding. CAPITAL ASSET AND DEBT ADMINISTRATION The City’s investment in capital assets for its governmental and business type activities had a combined totaled of $6,276,516,330, including $8,319,367 of lease assets and $15,676,300 of subscription assets (net of accumulated amortization) at June 30, 2023. Types of assets included in this category are land, land improvements, buildings, machinery and equipment, park and other recreation facilities, roads (including curb and gutter), street lights, traffic signals, parking facilities, water and waste water distribution and collection systems, airport runways and taxiways and bridges. The City’s investment in capital assets equals 75 percent of total net position. In comparing investment in capital assets to net position, the percentages for Governmental activities and Business-type activities were 65 percent and 80 percent, respectively. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS June 30, 2023 14 Major capital asset activities that occurred during the past fiscal year for Governmental Activities include the following: The City added $29,880,258 for city roads and curbs and $662,685 in signals. Other new capitalization included various parks, other improvements and equipment totaling $13,387,734. The Airport added approximately $462,982,2222 in work in process costs for the new terminals construction and the Utilities added $182,906,560 in water, storm and sewer infrastructure. Salt Lake City Corporation's Capital Assets Governmental Activities Business-Type Activities Total Government 2023 2022 2023 2022 2023 2022 Land and water rights $ 215,563,778 $ 214,433,778 $ 210,788,512 $ 208,327,029 $ 426,352,290 $ 422,760,807 Infrastructure 400,289,075 373,331,990 — — 400,289,075 373,331,990 Buildings 424,290,668 422,599,690 2,441,237,231 2,283,878,300 2,865,527,899 2,706,477,990 Right to use assets - buildings 8,319,367 8,319,367 — — 8,319,367 8,319,367 Improvements other than buildings 127,356,927 120,938,298 2,435,054,805 2,303,327,065 2,562,411,732 2,424,265,363 Machinery and equipment 135,204,730 153,020,479 458,945,782 447,584,452 594,150,512 600,604,931 Subscription asset — — 5,270,522 — 5,270,522 — Construction in progress 23,387,560 16,809,894 1,419,822,172 1,085,776,676 1,443,209,732 1,102,586,570 Accumulated depreciation and amortization (466,934,188) (458,269,677) (1,571,693,530) (1,417,540,355) (2,038,627,718) (1,875,810,032) Net book value $ 867,477,917 $ 851,183,819 $ 5,399,425,494 $ 4,911,353,167 $ 6,266,903,411 $ 5,762,536,986 At June 30, 2023, the City’s bonded debt amounted to $3,645,825,000. The portion that is backed by the full faith and credit of the City amounted to $123,320,000. All other bonded debt is known as revenue bonds and is secured by specific revenue sources. General obligation debt of the City is limited by statute to 8 percent of the reasonable fair cash value of property. The debt limit for FY2023, which calculates to $4,901,086,832, is well in excess of the City’s outstanding general obligation debt. Additional information on the City’s capital assets and debt can be found in Notes 5 and 6, respectively. Salt Lake City Corporation's Outstanding Debt General Obligation and Revenue Bonds Governmental Activities Business-Type Activities Total 2023 2022 2023 2022 2023 2022 General obligation bonds $ 123,320,000 $ 114,105,000 $ — $ — $ 123,320,000 $ 114,105,000 Revenue bonds 180,630,000 122,945,000 3,341,875,000 3,377,325,000 3,522,505,000 3,500,270,000 Total $ 303,950,000 $ 237,050,000 $ 3,341,875,000 $ 3,377,325,000 $ 3,645,825,000 $ 3,614,375,000 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS June 30, 2023 15 Economic factors and next year’s budgets and rates During the just completed fiscal year, fund balance in the General Fund increased by $42,452,059. This was mostly due to an increase in the City's property tax and sales tax revenue. As a result of COVID-19, revenues for fiscal year 2023 were estimated conservatively with projected decreases. Expenditures were adjusted accordingly. Sales tax has exceeded projections but smaller revenues such as event fees and parking have decreased, as expected. The City has received approximately $86 million in American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding from the Department of Treasury. Approximately 80% of the total ARPA funds have been budgeted and spent as of June 30, 2023. The remainder is projected to be budgeted and spent in fiscal year 2024. The City has received over $17 million for Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA) grants from the Department of Treasury over the past three years. Approximately 75% of the total ERA funds have been budgeted and spent as of June 30, 2023. The remainder is projected to be budgeted and spent in fiscal year 2024. Requests for information This financial report is designed to give its readers a general overview of the City’s finances. Questions regarding any information contained in this report or requests for additional financial information should be addressed to the Department of Finance, Chief Financial Officer, 451 South State Street, Room 245, P.O Box 145451, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-5451. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS June 30, 2023 16 This page intentionally left blank SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS June 30, 2023 17 Basic Financial Statements 18 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION STATEMENT OF NET POSITION June 30, 2023 Primary Government Governmental Activities Business-type Activities Total Component Unit Library Component Unit Utah Performing Arts Center Agency ASSETS Current assets: Cash, cash equivalents, and investments (Note 2) Unrestricted $ 451,421,134 $ 448,444,181 $ 899,865,315 $ 1,011,097 $ 13,142,789 Restricted (Note 2 & 4) 126,174,378 80,242,586 206,416,964 — — Investments (Note 2) — 64,191,997 64,191,997 21,160,376 — Receivables: Property, franchise and excise taxes 165,627,534 — 165,627,534 22,916,110 — Assessments, including $1,997,733 of delinquent assessments 4,008,802 — 4,008,802 — — Loans and other receivables, current portion 326,298 8,401,840 8,728,138 33,231 — Lease receivable, current portion — 42,026,536 42,026,536 — — Accounts, less allowance for doubtful accounts of $4,312,772 — 82,825,747 82,825,747 — 887,799 Due from other governments 4,207,308 — 4,207,308 — — Other, principally accrued interest receivable — 6,269,910 6,269,910 — — Prepaids 3,046,924 824,916 3,871,840 311,663 55,058 Inventories 1,102,691 12,970,508 14,073,199 — — Internal balances 10,357,524 (10,357,524) — — — Total current assets 766,272,593 735,840,697 1,502,113,290 45,432,477 14,085,646 Noncurrent assets: Restricted cash and cash equivalents (Note 2) — 382,253,782 382,253,782 — — Lease Receivables, net of current portion — 191,002,418 191,002,418 — — Restricted investments — 147,609,556 147,609,556 — — Investments — — — — — Capital assets (Note 5) Capital assets not being depreciated or amortized 238,951,338 1,630,610,685 1,869,562,023 737,781 — Infrastructure 400,289,075 803,662,575 1,203,951,650 — — Buildings 424,290,668 2,441,237,231 2,865,527,899 14,475,219 130,608,164 Improvements other than buildings 127,356,927 1,631,392,230 1,758,749,157 1,892,624 649,856 Machinery and equipment 135,204,730 458,945,782 594,150,512 15,828,703 662,070 Lease assets (Note 7) 8,319,367 — 8,319,367 — — Subscription assets (Note 8) 10,405,778 5,270,522 15,676,300 531,143 — Accumulated depreciation and amortization (467,727,046) (1,571,693,530) (2,039,420,576) (18,828,909) (16,521,970) Capital assets, net of accumulated depreciation and amortization 638,139,498 3,768,814,809 4,406,954,307 13,898,780 115,398,120 Total capital assets 877,090,836 5,399,425,494 6,276,516,330 14,636,561 115,398,120 Loans and other long-term receivables — 109,682,522 109,682,522 — — Net pension asset 32,243,802 — 32,243,802 — — Land and buildings held for resale — 39,483,917 39,483,917 — — Investment in joint venture (Note 17) 961,427 23,235,204 24,196,631 — — Other — 4,710,665 4,710,665 — — Total noncurrent assets 910,296,066 6,297,403,559 7,207,699,624 14,636,561 115,398,120 TOTAL ASSETS 1,676,568,659 7,033,244,256 8,709,812,915 60,069,038 129,483,766 DEFERRED OUTFLOWS OF RESOURCES Deferred outflow on the refunding of debt 5,981,276 4,282,636 10,263,912 — — Deferred outflows 53,857,735 15,387,232 69,244,968 2,108,497 — Total deferred outflows 59,839,011 19,669,868 79,508,880 2,108,497 — Total assets and deferred outflows of resources $ 1,736,407,671 $ 7,052,914,125 $ 8,789,321,795 $ 62,177,535 $ 129,483,766 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement 19 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION STATEMENT OF NET POSITION June 30, 2023 Primary Government Governmental Activities Business-type Activities Total Component Unit Library Component Unit Utah Performing Arts Center Agency LIABILITIES Current liabilities: Accounts payable $ 18,936,216 $ 88,479,899 $ 107,416,115 $ 691,815 $ 861,187 Accrued liabilities 29,006,651 36,806,219 65,812,870 — 7,022,946 Current portion of long-term compensated absences (Note 6) 23,886,825 2,329,282 26,216,107 — — Current portion of lease liability 801,855 88,020 889,875 — — Current portion of subscription liability 1,400,076 756,451 2,156,527 122,002 — Current portion of long-term debt (Note 6), payable from restricted assets 22,682,513 42,300,698 64,983,211 — — Accrued interest, payable from unrestricted assets — 78,414,506 78,414,506 — — Other liabilities, payable from restricted assets 2,102,069 — 2,102,069 — — Current deposits and advance rentals 5,031,499 3,659,427 8,690,926 3,041 — Total current liabilities 103,847,704 252,834,502 356,682,206 816,858 7,884,133 Noncurrent liabilities: Deposits, advance rentals and long term accruals — 1,108,239 1,108,239 — 1,103,578 Long-term compensated absences liability (Note 6) 1,797,933 9,480,817 11,278,750 903,039 — Pollution remediation liability — 120,734 120,734 — — Other liabilities payable from restricted assets — 6,685,979 6,685,979 — — Other post employment benefits (Note 16) — — — 179,650 — Estimated claims payable (Note 13) 3,507,055 — 3,507,055 — — Revenues collected in advance 23,499,843 37,017,035 60,516,878 — — Bonds payable (Note 6) 305,101,522 3,771,918,238 4,077,019,760 — — Net pension liability (Note 14) 75,481,918 8,298,582 83,780,501 1,103,423 — Notes payable (Note 6) 11,977,970 — 11,977,970 — — Lease liability 6,026,314 374,696 6,401,010 — — Subscription liability 7,675,214 1,809,252 9,484,466 291,232 — Total noncurrent liabilities 435,067,769 3,836,813,572 4,271,881,341 2,477,344 1,103,578 TOTAL LIABILITIES 538,915,473 4,089,648,075 4,628,563,548 3,294,202 8,987,711 DEFFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES Deferred property tax revenues 126,760,348 — 126,760,348 25,942,421 — Deferred inflows - revenue collected in advance 650 7,285,565 7,286,215 — — Deferred inflows - leases — 232,071,663 232,071,663 — — Deferred inflows - pension 834,602 200,056 1,034,658 18,830 — Total deferred inflows of resources 127,595,600 239,557,284 367,152,884 25,961,251 — NET POSITION Net investment in capital assets 692,661,082 2,168,322,382 2,860,983,464 14,493,466 115,398,120 Restricted for: Debt service — 269,434,637 269,434,637 — — Capital projects 194,726,575 105,974,955 300,701,530 243,654 — Unrestricted 182,508,938 179,976,792 362,485,730 18,184,962 5,097,935 Total net position 1,069,896,595 2,723,708,766 3,793,605,361 32,922,082 120,496,055 Total liabilities and net position $ 1,736,407,671 $ 7,052,914,125 $ 8,789,321,795 $ 62,177,535 $ 129,483,766 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement 20 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2023 Program Revenues Functions/Programs Expenses Charges for Services Operating Grants and Contributions Capital Grants and Contributions Primary government: Governmental activities: General Government $ 41,232,121 $ 30,359,856 $ 1,568,911 $ — City Council 4,333,214 428,932 — — Mayor 5,569,300 1,323,130 — — City Attorney 9,746,586 1,336,194 — — Finance 11,052,448 26,049,210 911,518 899,830 Justice Court 4,050,111 2,266,470 22,642 — Human Resources 3,849,842 633,393 — — Fire 41,287,297 8,442,074 119,216 692,794 Combined Emergency Services 8,599,922 711,933 — — Police 94,881,959 13,779,238 3,384,314 245,079 Community and Neighborhoods 64,180,005 1,145,966 56,850,390 4,668,440 Economic Development 8,169,686 2,783,954 928,029 — Public Services 78,919,958 15,527,242 1,068,085 25,824,858 Unallocated infrastructure depreciation 13,142,719 — — — Interest on long-term debt 10,751,740 — — — Total governmental activities 399,766,910 104,787,592 64,853,105 32,331,001 Business-type activities: Airport Authority 437,993,005 348,634,039 — 62,471,709 Water 82,227,807 92,355,469 — 4,313,970 Sewer 48,157,510 76,496,316 — 3,805,174 Storm Water Utility 11,020,371 14,064,503 — 2,835,809 Street Lighting 5,055,107 4,289,021 — (36,000) Refuse Collection 15,871,192 16,331,299 — — Golf 10,165,374 11,200,931 — — Housing and Loan 806,835 411,008 — — Redevelopment Agency 34,512,892 3,588,821 — 32,252,004 Total business-type activities 645,810,093 567,371,407 — 105,642,666 Total primary government $ 1,045,577,002 $ 672,158,999 $ 64,853,105 $ 137,973,668 Component unit Library $ 26,302,264 $ 2,154,745 $ 9,294 $ — Component unit UPACA $ 10,616,465 $ 8,597,041 $ — $ 50,000 General revenues Taxes: Property Franchise taxes Sales tax Investment earnings Transfers Subscriptions Total general revenues and transfers Change in net position Net Position July 1, 2022 (UPACA Jan 1, 2022) Net Position June 30, 2023 (UPACA Dec 31, 2022) The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement 21 Net (Expense) Revenue and Changes in Net Position Primary Government Component Unit Library Component Unit UPACA Governmental Activities Business-type Activities Total $ (9,303,355) $ — $ (9,303,355) $ — $ — (3,904,282) — (3,904,282) — — (4,246,170) — (4,246,170) — — (8,410,392) — (8,410,392) — — 16,808,110 — 16,808,110 — — (1,760,999) — (1,760,999) — — (3,216,449) — (3,216,449) — — (32,033,212) — (32,033,212) — — (7,887,989) — (7,887,989) — — (77,473,328) — (77,473,328) — — (1,515,209) — (1,515,209) — — (4,457,703) — (4,457,703) — — (36,499,773) — (36,499,773) — — (13,142,719) — (13,142,719) — — (10,751,740) — (10,751,740) — — (197,795,212) — (197,795,212) — — — (26,887,257) (26,887,257) — — — 14,441,632 14,441,632 — — — 32,143,980 32,143,980 — — — 5,879,941 5,879,941 — — — (802,086) (802,086) — — — 460,107 460,107 — — — 1,035,557 1,035,557 — — — (395,827) (395,827) — — — 1,327,933 1,327,933 — — — 27,203,980 27,203,980 — — $ (197,795,212) $ 27,203,980 $ (170,591,232) $ — $ — $ (24,138,225) $ (1,969,424) $ 146,170,152 $ — $ 146,170,152 $ 27,267,202 $ — 12,756,615 — 12,756,615 — — 188,409,346 — 188,409,346 — — 18,237,321 51,667,617 69,904,938 — (41,660) (29,009,312) 29,009,312 — — — — — — (531,143) 336,564,122 80,676,929 417,241,051 26,736,059 (41,660) 138,768,910 107,880,909 246,649,819 2,597,834 (2,011,084) 931,127,689 2,615,827,880 3,546,955,569 30,324,248 122,507,139 $ 1,069,896,596 $ 2,723,708,766 $ 3,793,605,362 $ 32,922,082 $ 120,496,055 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement 22 Major Governmental Fund Financial Statements General Fund - The General Fund is the principal fund of the City and is used to account for resources traditionally associated with governments which are not required to be accounted for in another fund. The General Fund accounts for the normal activities of the City, (i.e. police, fire, public works, parks, community and economic development, general government, etc.). These activities are funded principally by property taxes, sales and use taxes, franchise taxes, licenses and permits. Capital Projects Fund - The City's Capital Projects Fund is used to account for resources designated to construct general capital assets which, by their nature, may require more than one budgetary cycle for completion. Project budgets are adopted for the Capital Projects Fund. Other Improvements Fund - This fund is used to account for the cost of servicing the debt created by financing projects other than Special Improvements. The City borrowed $7 million to construct a parking structure. The loan is being reported in the Other Improvements Fund. 23 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION BALANCE SHEET GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS June 30, 2023 General Capital Projects Other Improvements Nonmajor Governmental Funds Total Governmental Funds ASSETS Cash, cash equivalents and investments (Note 2) Unrestricted $ 192,780,479 $ 146,600,222 $ 6,667,172 $ 51,109,483 $ 397,157,356 Restricted 1,109,044 117,277,735 6,657,832 — 125,044,611 Receivables: Property, franchise and excise taxes 158,718,584 — — 2,364,903 161,083,487 Accounts receivable 1,902,676 — — 2,015,279 3,917,955 Due from other funds for cash overdraft — — — 475,946 475,946 Taxes receivable 4,544,047 — — — 4,544,047 Current portion of loans receivable 48,097 — — 278,201 326,298 Due from other governments — 228,000 — 3,979,308 4,207,308 Other, principally accrued interest — — — 90,847 90,847 Prepaids 2,484,423 — 124,356 23,731 2,632,510 Total assets $ 361,587,350 $ 264,105,957 $ 13,449,360 $ 60,337,698 $ 699,480,365 LIABILITIES Accounts payable $ 6,819,317 $ 6,525,692 $ — $ 1,712,348 $ 15,057,357 Accrued liabilities 18,438,543 — — 351,638 18,790,181 Current deposits and advance rentals 3,393,141 — — 1,638,358 5,031,499 Current portion of long-term compensated absences 3,600,260 — — — 3,600,260 Revenues collected in advance — — — 23,499,843 23,499,843 Other liabilities payable from restricted assets — — — 2,102,069 2,102,069 Total liabilities 32,251,261 6,525,692 — 29,780,202 68,557,155 DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES Receivables not meeting the available criterion 126,760,348 — — — 126,760,348 Unavailable grant revenue — — — 650 650 Total deferred inflows 126,760,348 — — 650 126,760,998 FUND BALANCES Non-spendable 2,484,423 — 124,356 23,731 2,632,510 Restricted 21,157,932 194,726,575 13,325,004 15,018,855 244,228,366 Committed — — — 6,190,152 6,190,152 Assigned — 62,853,690 — 9,324,108 72,177,798 Unassigned 178,933,386 — — — 178,933,386 Total fund balances 202,575,741 257,580,265 13,449,360 30,556,846 504,162,212 Total liabilities, deferred inflow of resources and fund balances $ 361,587,350 $ 264,105,957 $ 13,449,360 $ 60,337,698 $ 699,480,365 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement 24 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION RECONCILIATION OF THE GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS BALANCE SHEET TO THE STATEMENTS OF NET POSITION June 30, 2023 Total fund balances for governmental funds $ 504,162,212 Total net position reported for governmental activities in the statement of net position is different because: Capital assets used in governmental activities are not financial resources and therefore are not reported in the funds. Those assets consist of: (see Note 5) Land $ 215,563,778 Infrastructure 400,289,075 Buildings 424,290,668 Improvements other than buildings 127,356,927 Equipment 135,204,730 Construction in progress 23,387,560 Lease assets 8,319,367 Subscription assets 10,405,778 Less accumulated depreciation and amortization (467,727,046) Total capital assets 877,090,836 Other assets are reported for governmental activities as they are not considered collectible until after year end. These include other receivables that are long-term in nature and bond issue costs less amortization Investment in joint venture 961,427 Pension asset 32,243,802 Deferred loss on defeasance 5,981,276 Deferred pension outflow 53,857,735 93,044,240 Internal services funds are used by the City to charge the costs of the fleet management system, data processing services, insurance for employee health, accident, long-term disability, unemployment and worker's compensation, general liability claims, and acquisition and lease to the City of purchased or constructed property. 56,910,650 Some of the internal service net income is allocable to business-type activities. These amounts are shown in the internal balances in the governmental activities statement. 10,357,524 Long-term liabilities applicable to the City's governmental activities are not due and payable in the current period and accordingly are not reported as fund liabilities. Interest on long-term debt is not accrued in governmental funds, but rather as an expenditure when due. Obligation for compensated absence liabilities due within 60 days are included in the governmental fund statements in accrued liabilities. All liabilities -both current and long-term are reported in the statement of net position. (See Note 6) Accounts payable (3,878,859) Accrued liabilities (10,216,470) Obligation for compensated absence liabilities due after one year (1,797,933) Current portion of long-term debt (22,682,513) Current portion of obligation for compensated absence liabilities (20,286,565) Deferred pension inflow (834,602) Bonds payable (305,101,522) Note payable and due to other funds (11,977,970) Net pension liability (75,481,918) Lease liability (6,828,169) Estimated claims liability (3,507,055) Subscription liability (9,075,290) Total liabilities (471,668,867) Total net position of governmental activities $ 1,069,896,595 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement 25 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2023 General Capital Projects Other Improvements Nonmajor Governmental Funds Total Governmental Funds Revenues: General property taxes $ 128,801,500 $ — $ 17,368,652 $ — $ 146,170,152 Sales, use and excise taxes 172,197,418 1,617,217 1,100,000 13,494,711 188,409,346 Franchise taxes 12,756,615 — — — 12,756,615 Licenses 17,599,344 — — — 17,599,344 Permits 26,347,166 13,043,797 — — 39,390,963 Fines and forfeitures 2,339,387 — — 36,174 2,375,561 Assessments — — — 1,581,962 1,581,962 Interest and investment income (loss) 12,352,550 5,262,888 159,607 463,524 18,238,569 Intergovernmental 5,936,560 7,415,253 5,447,065 65,048,776 83,847,654 Interfund service charges 25,857,520 — — — 25,857,520 Parking meter 2,616,329 — — — 2,616,329 Parking ticket 1,180,128 — — — 1,180,128 Rental and other income 697,203 181,591 318,606 431,910 1,629,310 Charges for services 5,114,484 600,000 — 2,804,287 8,518,771 Contributions — — — 765,787 765,787 Miscellaneous 4,655,041 9,936,863 — 1,953,665 16,545,569 Total revenues 418,451,245 38,057,609 24,393,930 86,580,796 567,483,580 Expenditures: Current: City Council 4,725,621 — — — 4,725,621 Mayor 5,120,100 — — — 5,120,100 City Attorney 8,683,519 — — — 8,683,519 Finance 10,039,270 — — — 10,039,270 Fire 47,959,663 — — 66,140 48,025,803 Combined Emergency Services 10,109,426 — — — 10,109,426 Police 103,022,906 — — 445,197 103,468,103 Community and Neighborhoods 30,936,834 — — 24,792,625 55,729,459 Economic Development 3,220,279 — — 2,623,323 5,843,602 Justice Court 4,928,656 — — — 4,928,656 Human Resources 3,722,452 — — — 3,722,452 Public Services 61,802,283 — — 2,365,514 64,167,797 Nondepartmental 52,459,130 — — 83 52,459,213 Capital improvements — 47,211,498 — — 47,211,498 Debt service: Principal — — 19,273,120 — 19,273,120 Interest and other fiscal charges — — 10,070,858 — 10,070,858 Total expenditures 346,730,139 47,211,498 29,343,978 30,292,882 453,578,497 Revenues over (under) expenditures 71,721,106 (9,153,889) (4,950,048) 56,287,914 113,905,083 Other financing sources (uses): New bonds issued — 85,463,891 576,109 — 86,040,000 Premium on new bonds — 4,492,804 — — 4,492,804 Premium on refunding — — — — 4,493 Proceeds from sale of property 25,554 23,115 — 14,132 62,801 Transfers in 51,822,655 39,637,805 9,006,630 300,000 100,767,090 Transfers out (81,117,256) (7,884,341) (1,000,000) (53,249,296) (143,250,893) Total other financing sources (uses) (29,269,047) 121,733,274 8,582,739 (52,935,164) 48,116,295 Net change in fund balances 42,452,059 112,579,385 3,632,691 3,352,750 162,016,885 Fund Balance July 1, 2022 160,123,682 145,000,880 9,816,669 27,204,096 342,145,327 Fund Balance June 30, 2023 $ 202,575,741 $ 257,580,265 $ 13,449,360 $ 30,556,846 $ 504,162,212 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement 26 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION RECONCILIATION OF THE STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES OF GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS TO THE STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2023 Net change in fund balances - total governmental funds $ 162,016,885 The change in net position reported for governmental activities in the statement of activities is different because: Governmental funds report capital outlays as expenditures. However, in the statement of activities the cost of those assets is allocated over their estimated useful lives and reported as depreciation expense. This is the amount by which capital outlay $47,211,498 plus Work in Process reclassifications $1,346,862 included as additions exceeded depreciation expense and unallocated depreciation $37,239,394. (See Note 5.) 11,318,966 Repayment of principal as an expenditure in the governmental funds but reduces the liability in the statement of net position. (See Note 6.) 19,273,121 In governmental funds the proceeds from the bonds and notes are considered a source of financing, but in the statement of net position, the obligation is reported as a liability. (see Note 6.) (92,532,804) Under the modified accrual basis of accounting used in the governmental funds, expenditures are not recognized for transactions that are not normally paid with expendable available financial resources. In the statement of activities, however, which is presented on the accrual basis,expenses and liabilities are reported regardless of when financial resources are available. In addition, interest on long-term debt is not recognized under the modified accrual basis of accounting until due, rather than as it accrues. This adjustment contains the following: Pension benefit $ 35,948,016 Pension expense (13,820,990) Other financing 13,474,491 Interest (20,440) Decrease in investment in joint venture (4,912) Lease offset 969,236 Subscription offset 1,725,409 Compensated absences and other post employment benefits (1,388,914) Other 4,267,786 41,149,682 Internal services funds are used by the City to charge the costs of the fleet management system, data processing services, insurance for employee health, accident, long-term disability, unemployment and worker's compensation, general liability claims, acquisition and lease to the City of purchased or constructed property and equipment and photocopying and printing services. The net revenue of internal service funds is allocated between governmental activities and business-type activities. Internal service fund net loss of $(2,222,434) in addition to business-type activities of $(234,508). (2,456,941) Change in net position of governmental activities.$ 138,768,909 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement 27 Major Proprietary Fund Financial Statements Department of Airports - This fund is used to account for the activities related to the operation of City airports. Water Utility Fund - This fund is used to account for the activities related to providing water service to the residents of the City and certain residents of Salt Lake County. Sewer Utility Fund - This fund is used to account for the activities relating to providing sewer service to the residents of the City. Stormwater Utility - This fund is used to account for the activities associated with the collection and disposition of stormwater runoff. Redevelopment Agency Fund - This fund is used to account for urban redevelopment activities such as acquisition of land sites and sale of such land for development, and loans provided for improvements in existing housing and the repayment of loans and related interest. 28 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION STATEMENT OF NET POSITION PROPRIETARY FUNDS June 30, 2023 Business-type Activities - Enterprise Funds Department of Airports Water Utility Sewer Utility Stormwater Utility ASSETS Current assets: Cash, cash equivalents, and investments: Unrestricted $ 236,821,981 $ 12,082,269 $ 58,379,179 $ 17,017,902 Restricted 32,945,799 — — — Investments 49,405,699 14,786,298 — — Receivables: Accounts, less allowance for doubtful accounts of $0, $147,292, $43,142, $6,956, $2,500,000, $0, $3,640,560 respectively, totaling $6,337,950. 61,837,772 11,974,142 6,142,217 1,306,300 Current portion of loans receivable 5,451,962 — — — Current portion of leases receivable 41,633,098 — — — Other 3,949,188 717,067 284,499 9,248 Prepaids — 322,084 125,918 47,636 Inventory of supplies 5,542,402 6,393,827 751,091 — Total current assets 437,587,901 46,275,687 65,682,904 18,381,086 Noncurrent assets: Restricted cash, cash equivalents 101,196,407 90,033,223 181,173,055 9,851,097 Leases Receivable, net of current portion 162,619,611 3,492,952 — — Restricted Investments 147,609,556 — — — Property and equipment, at cost: Land and water rights 113,215,661 57,904,235 8,476,372 4,035,611 Infrastructure — 427,894,141 223,842,010 151,926,424 Buildings 2,177,508,453 82,008,059 166,461,215 10,173,461 Improvements other than buildings 1,518,854,569 3,352,475 16,775,983 6,336,114 Machinery and equipment 363,918,231 31,366,081 33,469,317 4,975,453 Subscription asset 3,697,469 1,573,053 — — Construction in progress 988,016,852 95,153,355 309,519,343 13,551,830 Accumulated depreciation (1,101,119,961) (183,977,166) (134,936,112) (70,022,532) Net property and equipment 4,064,091,274 515,274,233 623,608,128 120,976,361 Loans and other long-term receivables, net of current portion 15,919,865 — — — Land and buildings held for resale — — — — Investment in joint venture — — — — Other 1,507,803 3,202,862 — — Total noncurrent assets 4,492,944,516 612,003,270 804,781,183 130,827,458 TOTAL ASSETS 4,930,532,417 658,278,957 870,464,087 149,208,544 DEFERRED OUTFLOWS OF RESOURCES Deferred outflows - refunding of debt — 15,720 — — Deferred outflows - pension 7,926,472 3,902,445 1,535,782 538,400 Total assets and deferred outflows of resources $ 4,938,458,889 $ 662,197,122 $ 871,999,869 $ 149,746,944 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement 29 Business-type Activities - Enterprise Funds Governmental Activities - Internal Service Funds Redevelopment Agency Nonmajor Proprietary Funds Total $ 68,456,820 $ 55,686,030 $ 448,444,181 $ 54,263,778 45,357,777 1,939,010 80,242,586 1,129,767 — — 64,191,997 — — 1,565,316 82,825,747 — 724,895 2,224,983 8,401,840 — 393,438 — 42,026,536 1,309,908 — 6,269,910 — 88,665 240,613 824,916 414,414 — 283,188 12,970,508 1,102,691 116,331,503 61,939,140 746,198,221 56,910,650 — — 382,253,782 — 24,889,855 — 191,002,418 — — — 147,609,556 — 21,324,975 5,831,658 210,788,512 1,069,180 — — 803,662,575 — 576,742 4,509,301 2,441,237,231 28,670,307 55,022,531 31,050,558 1,631,392,230 — 391,601 24,825,099 458,945,782 89,741,732 — — 5,270,522 — 13,348,636 232,156 1,419,822,172 6,991,643 (48,901,305) (32,736,454) (1,571,693,530) (73,972,845) 41,763,180 33,712,318 5,399,425,494 52,500,017 67,195,558 26,567,100 109,682,522 — 36,796,546 2,687,371 39,483,917 — 50,427,599 23,235,204 73,662,803 — — — 4,710,665 — 221,072,739 86,201,993 6,347,831,158 52,500,017 337,404,241 148,141,133 7,094,029,379 109,410,667 4,266,916 — 4,282,636 — 346,956 1,137,177 15,387,232 2,454,257 $ 342,018,114 $ 149,278,310 $ 7,113,699,248 $ 111,864,924 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement 30 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION STATEMENT OF NET POSITION PROPRIETARY FUNDS June 30, 2023 Business-type Activities - Enterprise Funds Department of Airports Water Utility Sewer Utility Stormwater Utility LIABILITIES Current Liabilities: Accounts payable $ 51,748,692 $ 7,287,164 $ 24,808,280 $ 599,826 Accrued liabilities 35,709,756 614,994 192,621 65,973 Current portion of lease liability 88,020 — — — Current portion of subscription liabilities 608,732 147,719 — — Current portion of long-term compensated absences 1,303,666 471,346 200,559 75,089 Current portion of long-term debt 25,815,000 1,050,000 5,866,090 955,550 Accrued interest 67,382,017 2,460,459 7,951,000 250,034 Current deposits and advance rentals 414,606 1,373,653 1,116,132 95,620 Total current liabilities 183,070,489 13,405,335 40,134,682 2,042,092 Noncurrent liabilities: Deposits, advance rentals and long-term accruals — — 74,075 — Long-term compensated absences liability 5,079,259 2,130,537 936,736 315,468 Pollution remediation liability 120,734 — — — Other liabilities payable from restricted assets — 4,884,217 1,002,692 799,070 Lease liabilities 374,696 — — — Subscription liabilities 843,589 965,663 — — Estimated claims liability — — — — Revenues collected in advance 30,059,897 6,957,138 — — Net pension liability 4,248,087 2,206,539 801,574 298,117 Bonds, mortgages, and notes payable, net of discounts and current portion 3,089,772,499 143,913,814 464,824,996 16,253,509 Total noncurrent liabilities 3,130,498,761 161,057,908 467,640,073 17,666,164 TOTAL LIABILITIES 3,313,569,250 174,463,243 507,774,755 19,708,256 DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES Deferred inflows - pension 106,493 45,179 21,002 6,892 Deferred inflows - leases 204,252,709 3,492,952 — — Deferred inflows - revenue collected in advance 7,285,565 — — — Total deferred inflows of resources 211,644,767 3,538,131 21,002 6,892 NET POSITION Net investment in capital assets 1,233,778,317 441,822,942 325,062,330 107,747,602 Restricted for debt service and undisbursed loans held in escrow 269,434,637 — — — Restricted for capital acquisition 45,883,411 9,912,075 — 4,821,693 Unrestricted (135,851,493) 32,460,731 39,141,782 17,462,501 TOTAL NET POSITION 1,413,244,872 484,195,748 364,204,112 130,031,796 Total liabilities, deferred inflows of resources and net position $ 4,938,458,889 $ 662,197,122 $ 871,999,869 $ 149,746,944 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement 31 Business-type Activities - Enterprise Funds Governmental Activities - Internal Service Funds Redevelopment Agency Nonmajor Proprietary Funds Total $ 2,745,152 $ 1,290,785 $ 88,479,899 $ 2,607,346 — 222,875 36,806,219 365,225 — — 88,020 — — — 756,451 — 37,680 240,942 2,329,282 403,103 6,075,000 2,539,058 42,300,698 3,770,770 333,401 37,595 78,414,506 131,734 — 659,416 3,659,427 — 9,191,233 4,990,671 252,834,502 7,278,178 — 1,034,164 1,108,239 — 285,056 733,761 9,480,817 1,714,353 — — 120,734 — — — 6,685,979 — — — 374,696 — — — 1,809,252 — — — — 11,416,296 — — 37,017,035 — 169,084 575,181 8,298,582 1,400,623 44,462,363 12,691,057 3,771,918,238 18,051,300 44,916,503 15,034,163 3,836,813,572 32,582,572 54,107,737 20,024,834 4,089,648,075 39,860,749 5,132 15,358 200,056 31,114 24,326,002 — 232,071,663 — — — 7,285,565 — 24,331,134 15,358 239,557,284 31,114 41,763,180 18,148,011 2,168,322,382 19,247,418 — — 269,434,637 — 45,357,776 — 105,974,955 — 176,458,287 111,090,107 240,761,915 52,725,642 263,579,243 129,238,118 2,784,493,889 71,973,059 $ 342,018,114 $ 149,278,310 $ 7,113,699,248 $ 111,864,924 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement 32 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION RECONCILIATION OF THE PROPRIETARY FUNDS STATEMENT OF NET POSITION TO THE PRIMARY GOVERNMENT BUSINESS-TYPE STATEMENT OF NET POSITION June 30, 2023 Total assets and deferred outflows of resources for Proprietary Funds $ 7,113,699,248 Elimination of investment in discrete component unit (50,427,599) Internal service fund allocation for proprietary funds - prior years' cumulative (10,592,031) Internal service fund allocation for proprietary funds - current year 234,508 Total assets for Primary government business-type activities $ 7,052,914,125 Total net position for Proprietary Funds $ 2,784,493,889 Elimination of investment in discrete component unit (50,427,599) Internal service fund allocation for proprietary funds - prior years' cumulative (10,592,031) Internal service fund allocation for proprietary funds - current year 234,508 Total net position for Primary government business-type activities $ 2,723,708,766 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement 33 This page intentionally left blank 34 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN FUND NET POSITION PROPRIETARY FUNDS For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2023 Business-type Activities - Enterprise Funds Department of Airports Water Utility Sewer Utility Stormwater Utility Sales and charges for services $ 271,963,140 $ 87,539,609 $ 69,251,092 $ 13,848,374 Rental and other 11,363,674 4,959,507 1,299,902 129,362 Total operating revenue 283,326,814 92,499,116 70,550,994 13,977,736 Personnel services 58,988,613 23,743,649 10,812,571 4,117,444 Operating and maintenance 19,883,662 3,215,525 2,709,559 313,171 Charges for services 92,943,075 39,647,608 7,329,974 2,912,529 Depreciation and amortization 148,449,313 10,415,151 9,565,597 3,141,636 Total operating expenses 320,264,663 77,021,933 30,417,701 10,484,780 Operating income (loss) (36,937,849) 15,477,183 40,133,293 3,492,956 Interest income 30,645,109 4,453,174 7,652,458 799,872 Interest expense (117,346,361) (5,205,874) (17,739,809) (535,591) Equity in joint venture income (loss) — — — — Passenger & Customer facility charges 64,459,536 — — — Legal settlement — — 5,780,176 — Bond Issuance costs (381,981) — — — Gain on disposition of property and equipment 837,957 401,332 48,297 38,521 Total non-operating revenues (expenses) (21,785,740) (351,368) (4,258,878) 302,802 Grants and other contributions 62,471,709 4,313,970 3,805,174 2,835,809 Total capital contributions 62,471,709 4,313,970 3,805,174 2,835,809 Income (loss) before transfers 3,748,120 19,439,785 39,679,589 6,631,567 Transfers in — 300,000 — 2,000,000 Transfers out (264,088) — — — Change in net position 3,484,031 19,739,785 39,679,589 8,631,567 Net Position July 1, 2022 1,409,760,841 464,455,963 324,524,523 121,400,229 2 3 Net Position June 30, 2023 $ 1,413,244,872 $ 484,195,748 $ 364,204,112 $ 130,031,796 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement 35 Business-type Activities - Enterprise Funds Governmental Activities - Internal Service FundsRedevelopment Agency Nonmajor Proprietary Funds Total $ 1,636,058 $ 30,130,999 $ 474,369,272 $ 98,764,873 1,153,940 677,903 19,584,288 2,894,934 2,789,998 30,808,902 493,953,560 101,659,807 2,262,907 10,278,383 110,203,567 18,519,625 1,529,860 2,093,412 29,745,190 10,705,714 28,026,607 15,679,181 186,538,974 66,374,779 650,024 3,436,316 175,658,037 8,432,337 32,469,399 31,487,292 502,145,768 104,032,455 (29,679,400) (678,390) (8,192,208) (2,372,648) 4,995,349 2,140,432 50,686,394 3,664 (2,043,494) (411,216) (143,282,345) (698,055) (110,709) 981,224 870,515 — — — 64,459,536 — 5,780,176 — — — (381,981) — — 886,591 2,212,698 150,213 2,841,146 3,597,031 (19,655,007) (544,178) 32,252,004 (36,000) 105,642,666 — 32,252,004 (36,000) 105,642,666 — 5,413,750 2,882,641 77,795,451 (2,916,826) 23,250,347 4,859,689 30,410,036 13,765,925 (622,448) (514,189) (1,400,725) (291,434) 28,041,649 7,228,141 106,804,763 10,557,665 235,537,594 122,009,976 2,677,689,126 61,415,394 $ 263,579,243 $ 129,238,118 $ 2,784,493,889 $ 71,973,059 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement 36 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION RECONCILIATION OF THE PROPRIETARY FUNDS CHANGE IN NET POSITION TO THE PRIMARY GOVERNMENT BUSINESS-TYPE CHANGES IN NET POSITION For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2023 Change in net position for Proprietary Funds $ 106,804,763 Elimination of investment (income)/loss in discrete component unit 841,639 Internal service fund allocation for proprietary funds 234,508 Change in net position for Primary government business-type activities $ 107,880,909 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement 37 This page intentionally left blank The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement 38 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION COMBINING STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS PROPRIETARY FUNDS For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2023 Department of Airports Water Utility Sewer Utility Cash Flows from Operating Activities: Receipts from customers and users $ 270,860,589 $ 88,658,909 $ 71,078,106 Receipts from (payments to) internal fund services (31,293,453) (5,701,019) (3,302,806) Payments to suppliers (98,825,295) (36,777,673) (5,524,093) Payments to employees (60,217,987) (24,527,266) (11,129,172) Net cash from (used for) operating activities 80,523,854 21,652,951 51,122,035 Cash flows from non-capital and related financing activities: Contributions from other taxing entities — — — Transfers in — 300,000 — Transfers out — — — Net cash from (used for) non-capital and related financing activities — 300,000 — Cash flows from capital and related financing activities: Proceeds from issuance of debt, net of discount and issuance costs — — — Proceeds from sale of assets and equipment 98,949 154,203 368 Contributions for aid in construction 54,369,821 3,221,100 2,852,020 Passenger and Customer Facility Charges 63,856,099 — — Payment on long-term obligations, net of capitalized interest (158,620,405) (6,015,139) (19,852,777) Payments for purchase and construction, including capitalized interest (475,493,830) (40,811,061) (128,964,679) Interest received from leases 5,046,206 106,915 — Private donations — — 5,780,176 Property and equipment purchased and contributed to a non-profit (540,000) — — Net cash from (used for) capital and related financing activities (511,283,160) (43,343,982) (140,184,892) Cash flows from investing activities: Cash paid for investments (104,185,762) (4,750) — Cash proceeds from investments 114,544,832 — — Interest used, investments and loans 24,343,068 4,073,479 7,652,458 Dividend from Joint Venture — — — Net cash from (used for) investing activities 34,702,138 4,068,729 7,652,458 Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents (396,057,168) (17,322,302) (81,410,399) Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year 767,021,355 119,437,794 320,962,633 Cash and cash equivalents at end of year $ 370,964,187 $ 102,115,492 $ 239,552,234 Cash and cash equivalent components: Unrestricted 236,821,981 12,082,269 58,379,179 Restricted 134,142,206 90,033,223 181,173,055 Cash and cash equivalents at end of year $ 370,964,187 $ 102,115,492 $ 239,552,234 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement 39 Stormwater Utility Redevelopment Agency Nonmajor Proprietary Funds Total Governmental Activities- Internal Service Funds $ 13,956,592 $ 2,510,474 $ 34,660,990 $ 481,725,660 $ — (1,532,231) — (65,375) (41,894,884) 101,659,806 (1,391,500) (39,625,570) (21,142,020) (203,286,151) (76,867,574) (4,429,326) (2,320,521) (10,626,385) (113,250,657) (18,869,206) 6,603,535 (39,435,617) 2,827,210 123,293,968 5,923,026 — 32,252,004 — 32,252,004 — 2,000,000 22,627,900 4,859,689 29,787,589 13,765,925 — (514,189) (514,189) (291,434) 2,000,000 54,879,904 4,345,500 61,525,404 13,474,491 — — 2,768,457 2,768,457 920,972 — 194,455 1,105,927 1,553,902 316,511 1,323,442 — (36,000) 61,730,383 — — — — 63,856,099 — (1,577,360) (7,377,318) (2,973,503) (196,416,502) (6,106,268) (5,542,694) (5,513,295) (3,210,259) (659,535,818) (9,386,084) — 379,715 — 5,532,836 — — — — 5,780,176 — — — — (540,000) — (5,796,612) (12,316,443) (2,345,378) (715,270,467) (14,254,869) — — — (104,190,512) — — 4,995,349 — 119,540,181 — 799,872 — 2,140,432 39,009,309 3,664 — 730,930 — 730,930 — 799,872 5,726,279 2,140,432 55,089,908 3,664 3,606,795 8,854,123 6,967,764 (475,361,186) 5,146,311 23,262,204 104,960,474 50,657,275 1,386,301,735 50,247,234 $ 26,868,999 $ 113,814,597 $ 57,625,040 $ 910,940,549 $ 55,393,545 17,017,902 68,456,820 55,686,030 448,444,181 54,263,778 9,851,097 45,357,777 1,939,010 462,496,368 1,129,767 $ 26,868,999 $ 113,814,597 $ 57,625,040 $ 910,940,549 $ 55,393,545 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement 40 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION COMBINING STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS PROPRIETARY FUNDS For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2022 Department of Airports Water Utility Sewer Utility Reconciliation of operating income (loss) to net cash from (used for) operating activities Operating Income (Loss)$ (37,201,937) $ 15,477,183 $ 40,133,293 Adjustments to reconcile operating income (loss) to net cash from (used for) operating activities: Depreciation and amortization 148,449,313 10,415,151 9,565,597 Principal forgiven on loans receivable — — — Pension expense (1,887,376) — — Increase (decrease) due to change in: Accounts receivable (18,082,803) (2,680,919) 49,199 Other current assets (2,531,673) (1,086,682) (133,223) Accounts payable (1,604,016) 255,089 420,480 Deferred outflows (2,415,383) — — Accrued interest on notes receivable — — — Accrued liabilities affecting operating activities — 213,835 58,421 Other liabilities (6,331,278) 10,666 1,393,176 Pension assets 12,720,901 — — Pension liability 4,248,087 6,209,090 3,159,033 Deferred pension outflows and inflows (16,439,491) (7,160,462) (3,523,941) Deferred inflows 879,591 — — Compensation liability 719,748 — — Total adjustments 117,725,620 6,175,768 10,988,742 Loans made to residents — — — Principal collected on loans — — — Net cash from (used for) operating activities $ 80,523,683 $ 21,652,951 $ 51,122,035 Non-cash transactions affecting financial position: Recognition of equity interest in joint venture $ — $ — $ — Contributions of capital assets from (to) other entities (539,720) 1,092,870 953,154 Leases receivable recognized 30,183,368 1,585,818 — Loans transferred out — — — Contributions and grants 8,064,656 — — Passenger facility charges (includes interest) 1,009,335 — — Customer facility charges (includes interest) (405,898) — — Bond issuance costs (117,880) — — Net increase (decrease) in fair value of investments 1,384,970 — — Loss on disposition of property (205,191) — — Subscription asset recognized 3,478,000 — — Subscription liability recognized (2,018,000) — — Total non-cash transactions $ 40,833,640 $ 2,678,688 $ 953,154 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement 41 Stormwater Utility Redevelopment Agency Nonmajor Proprietary Funds Total Governmental Activities- Internal Service Funds $ 3,492,956 $ (29,679,400) $ (678,390) $ (8,456,295) $ (2,372,648) 3,141,636 650,024 3,436,316 175,658,037 8,432,337 — 159,530 — 159,530 — — — — (1,887,376) — 5,899 (419,763) 220,117 (20,908,270) — (1,619) (52,665) 225,435 (3,580,427) (78,972) 58,689 27,985 (247,008) (1,088,781) 936,863 — — (331,328) (2,746,711) (810,065) — (69,300) — (69,300) — (118,899) — 264,915 418,272 49,511 148,632 — (43,705) (4,822,509) (699,794) — 484,040 1,507,678 14,712,619 4,310,263 1,319,978 169,084 614,506 15,719,778 1,400,623 (1,443,737) (742,593) — (29,310,224) — — (873,932) (2,143,258) (2,137,599) (5,333,204) — 31,857 1,932 753,537 88,112 3,110,579 (635,733) 3,505,600 140,870,577 8,295,673 — (9,784,191) — (9,784,191) — — 663,707 — 663,707 — $ 6,603,535 $ (39,435,617) $ 2,827,210 $ 123,293,797 $ 5,923,026 $ — $ (841,639) $ — $ (841,639) $ — 1,512,368 — — 3,018,672 — — — — 31,769,186 — — (622,448) — (622,448) — — — — 8,064,656 — — — — 1,009,335 — — — — (405,898) — — — — (117,880) — — — — 1,384,970 — — — — (205,191) — — — — 3,478,000 — — — — (2,018,000) — $ 1,512,368 $ (1,464,087) $ — $ 44,513,763 $ — The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement 42 Fiduciary Funds Deferred Compensation Fund - This fund is used to account for amounts deferred under the City's employee deferred compensation plan for which the City acts in a fiduciary capacity as trustee. 43 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION STATEMENT OF FIDUCIARY NET POSITION FIDUCIARY FUNDS June 30, 2023 Deferred Compensation Trust ASSETS Restricted cash, cash equivalents and investments $ 372,467 Total assets $ 372,467 NET POSITION - Restricted for deferred compensation $ 372,467 Total net position 372,467 Total liabilities and net position $ 372,467 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement 44 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN FIDUCIARY NET POSITION FIDUCIARY FUNDS For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2023 Deferred Compensation Trust Additions: Investment income $ 15,596 Total additions 15,596 Deductions: Benefits paid to participants 22,891 Total deductions 22,891 Net decrease in Net Position (7,295) Net Position July 1, 2022 379,762 Net Position June 30, 2023 $ 372,467 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement 45 Notes to the Financial Statements 46 1. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies Salt Lake City Corporation (the City) was incorporated January 6, 1851. The City operates under a Council-Mayor form of government and provides services to residents and businesses in many areas including police and fire protection, street maintenance, refuse collection, planning and zoning, building construction inspection, parks and recreation, prosecution, water, sewer, stormwater, airports, and general administrative services. Reporting Entity For financial reporting purposes, the reporting entity includes all funds, agencies and authorities for which the City holds corporate powers and all component units for which the City is financially accountable. The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) has established criteria to consider in determining financial accountability. The criteria are: appointment of a majority of the voting members of an organization’s governing board, and either (1) the City has the ability to impose its will on the organization or (2) there is potential for the organization to provide specific financial benefits to, or impose specific financial burdens on, the City. As required by Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), these financial statements present the City, the primary government, and its component units. The component units are included in the City’s reporting entity because of the significance of their operational or financial relationship with the City. The following funds, all with fiscal years ended June 30, 2023, have separately issued financial statements that can be obtained from their respective administrative offices: (1) The Arts Council (a special revenue fund), (2) the Water, Sewer, Stormwater and Street Lighting Utility Funds (enterprise funds), (3) the Department of Airports (an enterprise fund) and (4) the DEA Metro Narcotic Task Force (DEA) (a special revenue fund). Blended Component Units The Local Building Authority and the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City are legally separate entities from the City, but are part of the City and are blended into the internal service and enterprise funds, respectively. The Redevelopment Agency has separately issued financial statements for the year ended June 30, 2023, which are available at the Agency’s administrative office. The sole purpose of the Local Building Authority is to serve the City as a financing agency for debt financed projects. The sole purpose of the Redevelopment Agency is the elimination of blight through the process of redevelopment in designated project areas within the boundaries of the City. The Salt Lake City Council serves as the Board of Directors of both the Local Building Authority and the Redevelopment Agency. There is a financial benefit (burden) and operational responsibility between the City and the Local Building Authority and the Redevelopment Agency. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 47 Discretely Presented Component Units The discretely presented component units are the Salt Lake City Library and the Utah Performing Arts Center (UPACA). The Library is legally separate from, but financially accountable to the City, as the City can impose its will on the Library through the entire nine member Library Board appointment as well as the budget and property tax rate setting process. The Library provides services to residents rather than to the City and therefore meets the criteria of a discretely presented component unit. It is not financially dependent upon another government organization and should not be presented in any other governmental entity’s financial statements. The Salt Lake City Library is a governmental fund and has separately issued financial statements for the year ended June 30, 2023, which are available at the administrative offices of the Library. Utah Performing Arts Center Agency (UPACA) - In March 2013, Salt Lake City (City), the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) and Salt Lake County (County), executed an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement to form and create a separate legal entity, the Utah Performing Arts Center Agency (UPACA), that owns, operates, maintains and improves the George S. and Dolores Doré Eccles Theater (Theater). This state-of-the-art Theater opened in October 2016, and provides an excellent venue for Broadway shows, concerts and other entertainment events, as well as local performances and community events. UPACA provides services to residents rather than to the City and therefore meets the criteria of a discretely presented component unit of the City. UPACA is reported as an Equity Interest in Joint Venture in the RDA’s and County’s separately issued financial statements. UPACA has separately issued audited financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2022. The City and the RDA own 75% with the County having a 25% ownership in UPACA. UPACA is governed by a board of trustees consisting of nine members. Board membership is comprised of three representatives appointed by the County and six representatives appointed by the City and the RDA. Each representative has one vote and each representative's term continues until a successor is appointed. In March 2013, an Operating Agreement was entered into by UPACA, the Agency, the City and the County assigning responsibility for the operation and management to the County Center for the Arts (CFA) through December 31, 2041. CFA accounts for UPACA on a calendar year. Net operating income is distributed annually to the partners in amounts outlined in organizational agreements after required contributions to operating and capital reserve accounts. The County is responsible for any operating deficits and the City and RDA are responsible for the bond debt. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 48 Joint Venture The City is a fifty percent partner with Salt Lake County in two joint ventures. One is known as the City/County Landfill. The purpose of this joint venture is to provide solid waste management and disposal services (see note 18). The other joint venture is the Sugarhouse Park. This joint venture provides open space for enjoyment and other leisure activities for residents of the City, the County and non-resident guests. Related Organizations The City also has activities with three other related organizations, the Metropolitan Water District, the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City and the Salt Lake City Mosquito Abatement District. City officials appoint members of these three boards, but the City’s accountability does not extend beyond making the appointments. Basis of Presentation - Government-wide and fund financial statements Government-wide statements are comprised of the Statement of Net Position and the Statement of Activities. They contain information on all of the activities of the primary government and its component units except for fiduciary activities. Most effects of inter-fund activities have been eliminated from these statements. The exceptions are (1) payments-in-lieu-of-taxes the General Fund charges enterprise funds; (2) charges for water, sewer, storm-water and refuse that all customers pay to these enterprise funds and (3) charges for centrally provided services of the General Fund that benefit the receiving fund. Examples are payroll, purchasing, human resources and legal services. The government-wide statements for the primary government are separated based on the predominance of the type of revenues that support them. Governmental activities are normally supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenues, while business-type activities receive a significant portion of revenues from fees and charges for services. Certain entities that are legally separate, but financially accountable to the primary government are reported separately on the government-wide statements. The City currently has two of these entities, its discretely presented component units. The statement of activities is presented to show the extent that program revenues of a given activity support direct expenses. Direct expenses are those that can clearly be associated with a particular activity or program. Program revenues are: (1) charges to customers or others who purchase, use or directly benefit from the services or goods provided by a given activity or segment or (2) grants or other contributions that are restricted to operating or capital needs of a specific activity or segment. General revenues are those revenues like taxes and other items that are not properly reported as program revenues. Separate financial statements are included for governmental funds, proprietary funds and fiduciary funds. Fiduciary funds, however, are not included in the totals for the government-wide financial statements. Major individual governmental funds are reported in separate columns in the SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 49 governmental funds statements, as are major individual proprietary funds in the proprietary funds statements. Measurement focus and basis of accounting Measurement focus refers to the types of assets that appear on the statement of net position and changes to those same assets that appear on the statement of changes in net position. The flow of financial resources measurement focus shows current assets, liabilities and deferred inflows on the statement of net position and changes to net position in the statement of changes in net position. The flow of economic resources measurement focus shows total assets, deferred outflows, liabilities and deferred inflows on the statement of net position and changes to net position on the statement of changes in net position. Basis of accounting refers to when revenues and expenditures or expenses are recognized in the accounts and reported in the financial statements. Government-wide, proprietary and fiduciary fund statements use the economic resources measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recognized in the accounting period in which they are earned and expenses are recognized in the period incurred, regardless of the timing of the related cash flows. Un-billed fees for proprietary funds are recorded as receivables at year end. Property taxes are recorded as revenues in the year for which they are levied. Grants and similar other contributions are recognized as revenue as soon as the eligibility requirements of the provider have been met. The City’s major enterprise funds are: (1) The Department of Airports, (2) Water Utility Fund, (3) Sewer Utility Fund, (4) Stormwater Utility of Salt Lake City and (5) The Redevelopment Agency whose purpose is described previously in the section titled “Blended Component Units”. The Water Utility collects or purchases fresh water, then treats it, and delivers the now potable water to nearly all residents and businesses located in the City and many residents and businesses located geographically outside the boundaries of the City. The Department of Airports operates the Salt Lake City International Airport, Airport II and the Tooele Valley Airport, the latter two of which are located outside the boundaries of The City. The Sewer Utility Fund provides treatment and disposition services for waste water. The Stormwater Utility provides treatment and disposition services for storm runoff. In addition to the major enterprise funds, The City also operates five non-major enterprise funds and five internal service funds. The non-major enterprise funds are the Street Lighting Utility, Housing and Loan, Golf, and Refuse Collection. The Street Lighting Utility provides general street lighting for residents and commercial property owners. The Housing and Loan Fund provides loans to low and moderate-income families and individuals as well as businesses. Resources for these loans are received from a variety of sources including federal government, state government, financial institutions and internally generated sources. The Housing and Loan Fund also services these same loans. The Golf Fund operates all City-owned golf courses, while the Refuse Fund provides refuse collection and recycling services for residences and businesses of the City. Internal service funds provide services to other departments or agencies of the City on a cost reimbursement basis. The internal service funds are Fleet Management, Information Management, Risk Management, Governmental Immunity and the Local SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 50 Building Authority. The Fleet Management fund owns and services all vehicles of the governmental funds and services vehicles owned by many of the enterprise funds. Information Management maintains the infrastructure for the hard-wired telephone system, centralized computer services and the network of personal computers. Risk Management provides centralized services for the employee benefits of health, life, accident, dental, and long-term disability as well as unemployment, workers’ compensation and property insurance needs. The Governmental Immunity Fund manages the City’s general liability activities. The Local Building Authority’s purpose is discussed previously in the section titled “Blended Component Units”. The fiduciary fund is the Executive Deferred Compensation Fund. The City is the trustee for this fund and manages it in accordance with provisions of the Utah State Money Management Act and the City’s own ordinances, policies and procedures. In the past, city executives could elect to have some or all of their deferred compensation contributed to this fund, but it is now closed to further contributions. Proprietary funds separate operating and non-operating revenues and expenses. Operating revenues and expenses normally arise from providing goods and services in connection with the fund’s normal ongoing operations. The principal source of operating revenues for the proprietary funds and the internal service funds are charges to customers for goods and services. Operating expenses include the cost of sales and services, administrative overhead expenses and depreciation on capital assets. All other revenues or expenses are recorded as non-operating. Governmental fund statements use the current financial resources measurement focus and the modified accrual basis of accounting. Under the modified accrual basis, revenues are recognized when they become measurable and available. "Measurable" means that amounts can be reasonably determined within the current period. "Available" means that amounts are collectible within the current period or soon enough thereafter to be used to pay liabilities of the current period. As a practical matter, the City uses two months as a cutoff for meeting the available criterion. Property taxes are considered “measurable” when levied and available when collected and held by Salt Lake County (the County). Any amounts not available are recorded as deferred inflow of resources. Franchise taxes are considered "measurable" when collected and held by the utility company, and are recognized as revenue at that time. Other revenues that are determined to be susceptible to accrual include grants-in-aid earned and other intergovernmental revenues, charges for services, interest, assessments, inter-fund service charges, permits, fines, forfeitures, parking ticket and meter fees, and sale of property. Property taxes and assessments are recorded as receivables when levied or assessed; however, they are reported as deferred outflow of resources until the "available" criterion has been met. Sales and use taxes collected by the state and remitted to the City within the “available” time period are recognized as revenue. Revenues collected in advance are recorded as advances and recognized in the period to which they apply. Revenues that are determined to not be susceptible to accrual because they are either not available soon enough to pay liabilities of the current period (two months) or are not objectively measurable include licenses, contributions, and miscellaneous revenues. These revenues are recognized when cash is received. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 51 Expenditures are recognized in the accounting period in which the fund liability is incurred, except for long-term obligations (debt service payments, long term compensated absences and other post-employment benefits) and related interest which are recognized as expenditures when due. Inventories of supplies are expended when purchased. The City has three major governmental funds, the General Fund, the Capital Projects Fund and the Other Improvements Debt Service Fund. The General Fund is the main operating fund. It accounts for all financial resources of the general government, except for those required to be accounted for in another fund. The Capital Projects Fund accounts for resources dedicated to the construction or improvement of capital assets, which may take more than one budgetary cycle to complete. These constructed or improved capital assets are for the benefit of any or all governmental funds. The Other Projects Debt Service Fund accounts for all debt service activities except special improvement debt. In addition to the listed major governmental funds, the City also has a total of eleven non-major governmental funds: (1) the Arts Council, (2) Downtown Economic Development, (3) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Operating, (4) Grants Operating, (5) Street Lighting, (6) Demolition, Weed & Forfeiture, (7) Emergency 911 Dispatch, (8) Salt Lake City Donation, (9) Transportation Fund, (10) DEA and (11) Special Improvement Debt Service. In 2018 the State of Utah imposed a statewide .25% sales tax to be used for transportation. The City created a new transportation special revenue fund to collect and spend the sales tax to improve transportation within the City. The last one is a debt service fund while the first ten are special revenue funds. Budgets and budgetary accounting Budgets are legally required for governmental funds. The City has a policy of budgeting for proprietary funds. Annual budgets are prepared and adopted by the City Council on or before June 22 for the fiscal year commencing the following July 1, in accordance with Utah State law. The operating budget includes proposed expenditures and the proposed sources of financing for such expenditures. Prior to June 22, a public hearing is conducted to obtain taxpayer input. Budgets are adopted by ordinance in total for each department. Expenditures cannot exceed appropriations at the department level. For budgetary purposes, the City considers each enterprise fund to be a department. Management can move budgeted amounts from one line item to another within a department or decrease appropriations. The City Council can increase appropriations after holding a public hearing. During the year ended June 30, 2023, the City Council passed several supplementary appropriations. The General Fund budget is prepared using the modified accrual basis of accounting adjusted for encumbrances and changes in compensated absences. Encumbrance accounting is used by the City to assure effective budgetary control and accountability, and to comply with State law. However, only the General Fund budget is prepared under the assumption that actual expenditures will be adjusted for encumbrances. Unencumbered General Fund appropriations lapse at year end and encumbered amounts carry over to the subsequent year. Generally accepted accounting principles require that open encumbrances not be reported with expenditures. However, in the General Fund budget to actual financial statement, the actual amounts are adjusted to include encumbrances. Compensated absences are budgeted on a cash basis. Non-cash changes in the balances of compensated absences are therefore SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 52 eliminated for budgetary purposes. Lease purchases are budgeted in the year payments are due rather than in the year purchased. Budgets for the Special Revenue Funds, Debt Service Funds and the Capital Projects Fund are also prepared using the modified accrual basis of accounting and are adopted on an annual basis. The budget for the Community Development Operating, Grants Operating (special revenue funds), and the Capital Projects Fund are prepared annually for a specific set of projects. The Debt Service Funds' budgets are not prepared by project. By state law only budgets in the Capital Projects Fund do not lapse at year-end. Therefore any remaining budget in the Grants Operating Fund and the Community Development Operating Fund are re-appropriated by Council action in the following year. State law also requires a budget comparison for all funds for which an annual budget is adopted. In these three funds, the Council adopts the entire amount of the project, even though the project may not be completed in the first year. As a result, the budget comparisons on an annual basis may show large amounts of unexpended appropriations. Budgets for the Downtown Economic Development Fund, Street Lighting Fund, Demolition, Weed Abatement & Forfeiture Fund, Emergency 911 Fund, Salt Lake City Donations Fund, DEA and the Transportation Fund (special revenue funds) lapse at year end. Encumbrances are not reported as expenditures, but where necessary, are re-appropriated in the ensuing year's budget. Budgets for the proprietary funds are prepared using the accrual basis of accounting except for depreciation, lease amortization, and the changes in compensated absences and other post-employment benefits, which are not budgeted. Budgets are adopted for the entire amount of estimated proceeds from the sale of property and equipment rather than on the gain or loss from the sale as is reported in the financial statements. Budgets are also adopted for the entire amount of any debt issued to finance multi- year acquisition and construction projects. Budget comparisons in the proprietary funds may therefore show large amounts of unexpended appropriations for construction projects. These unexpended amounts are re-appropriated the following year. Cash, Cash Equivalents and Investments The City complies with GASB Statement No. 72 Fair Value Measurement and Application. The statement requires certain investments to be reported at fair value and the change in fair value to be included in revenues or expenses. The City’s policy is to report all investments at fair value except for money market investments and interest-earning investment contracts with a remaining maturity at time of purchase of ninety days or less. These are reported at amortized cost. The City’s investment in the State Treasurer’s Pool has a fair value equivalent to the value of the pool shares. This pool is administered by the State of Utah and is regulated by the Money Management Council under provisions of the Utah State Money Management Act. In all statements, the City considers all highly liquid investments (including restricted assets) that mature within ninety days or less when purchased to be cash equivalents. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 53 Inventories of supplies Inventories of supplies are valued at cost using the first-in/first-out method and consist of expendable supplies and merchandise. The cost of such inventories is recorded as expenditures/expenses when used (consumption method). Depreciable capital assets Capital assets are valued at historical cost or estimated historical cost for assets where actual historical cost was not available. Donated capital assets are valued at their acquisition costs. In the event that donated capital assets are received under a service concession agreement those assets would be recorded at acquisition value. The City has a capitalization threshold of $100,000 for infrastructure in the public right of way and $5,000 for all other assets. The City does not capitalize interest as part of construction in process. Depreciation of capital assets is computed using the straight-line method over the following estimated useful lives: Buildings 35-60 years Building improvements 5-40 years Improvements other than buildings 25-35 years Machinery and equipment, including leased property under capital leases 3-20 years Infrastructure in public way; Roads, signals, lights and bridges 20-50 years Water and sewer lines 13-100 years Construction in Progress is not depreciated until the asset is placed into service Right to use leased assets are recognized at the lease commencement date and represent the City's right to use an underlying asset for the lease term. Lease assets are measured at the initial value of the lease liability plus any payments made to the lessor before commencement of the lease term, less any lease incentives received from the lessor at or before the commencement of the lease term, plus any initial direct costs necessary to please the lease asset into service. Lease assets are amortized over the shorter of the lease term or useful life of the underlying asset using the straight line method. The amortization period varies from two to 20 years. Right to use subscription IT assets are recognized at the subscription commencement date and represent the City's right to use the underlying IT asset for the subscription term. Right to use subscription IT assets are measured at the initial value of the subscription liability plus any payments made to the vendor at the commencement of the subscription term, less any subscription incentives received from the vendor at or before the commencement of the subscription term, less any subscription SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 54 incentives received from the vendor at or before the commencement of the subscription term, plus any capitalizable initial implementation costs necessary to place the subscription asset into service. Right to use subscription IT assets are amortized over the shorter of the subscription term or useful life of the underlying asset using the straight-line method. The amortization period varies from three to five years. Bond Premiums and Discounts Amortization of bond premiums or discounts are computed on the effective interest or straight- line method over the life of the related bonds. When the straight-line method is used, it approximates the effective interest method. Bond issue costs are expensed in the period in which the debt is incurred. Lease Receivables Lease receivables are recorded by the City as the present value of future lease payments expected to be received from the lessee during the lease term, reduced by any provision for estimated uncollectible amounts. Lease receivables are subsequently reduced over the life of the lease as cash is received in the applicable reporting period. The present value of future lease payments to be received are discounted based on the interest rate the City charges the lessee. Property taxes Ad valorem (based on value) property taxes constitute a major source of General Fund revenue. Taxes are levied through the passage of an ordinance in June of each year. The levy is applicable to only one year. All taxable property is required to be assessed and taxed at a uniform and equal rate on the basis of its fair market value. The State Tax Commission is required to assess certain statutorily specified types of property including public utilities and mining property. The county assessor is required to assess all other taxable property, and both entities are required to assess the respective types of property as of January 1, the assessment date. The County is then required to complete the tax rolls by May 15. By July 21, the county treasurer is to mail assessed value and tax notices to property owners. Then a taxpayer may petition the county board of equalization between August 1 and August 15 for a revision of the assessed value. Approved changes in assessed value are made by the county auditor by November 1 and on this same date the auditor is to deliver the completed assessment rolls to the county treasurer. Tax notices are mailed with a due date of November 30, and delinquent taxes are subject to a penalty. Unless the delinquent taxes and penalties are paid before January 15, a lien is attached to the property, and the amount of taxes and penalties bear interest from January 1 until paid. If after five years delinquent taxes have not been paid, the County sells the property at a tax sale. Tax collections are remitted to the City from the County on a monthly basis. GASB Statement No. 33, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Nonexchange Transactions, defines a non-exchange transaction as one in which “a government either gives value to another party without directly receiving equal value in exchange or receives value from another party without directly giving equal value in exchange.” For property taxes, at January 1 of each year (the assessment date), the City has the legal right to collect the taxes, and in accordance with the provisions of the statement, has SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 55 recorded a receivable and a corresponding deferred inflow of resources for the assessed amount of those property taxes as of January 1, 2023. Interfund transactions In the normal course of its operations, the City has various transactions between funds. Various City funds provide a number of services such as administrative, fleet maintenance, and information processing to certain other City funds. Charges are treated as revenues in the fund providing the service and as operating expenses in the fund receiving the service (see note 9). Transfers are recognized as transfers in and out, respectively, by the funds receiving and providing the transfer. Short-term payables are shown as due to/from other funds. Long-term payables are shown as advances to/from other funds. Long-term liabilities Long-term liabilities that will be financed from governmental funds are accounted for in the governmental activities portion of the government-wide statements, while those of proprietary funds are accounted for in their respective fund. Lease liabilities represent the City's obligation to make lease payments arising from the lease. Lease liabilities are recognized at the lease commencement date based on the present value of future lease payments expected to be made during the lease term. The present value of lease payments are discounted based on a borrowing rate determined by the City. Subscription liabilities Subscription liabilities represent the City's obligation to make subscription payments arising from the subscription contract. Subscription liabilities are recognized at the subscription commencement date based on the present value of future subscription payments expected to be made during the subscription term. The present value of subscription payments are discounted based on a borrowing rate determined by the City. Pensions The City complies with GASB Statement 68, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pensions which measures the net pension liability, deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions, and pension expense, information about the fiduciary net position of the Utah Retirement Systems Pension Plan (URS). Additions to/deductions from the URS’s fiduciary net position have been determined on the same basis as they are reported by URS. For this purpose, benefit payments (including refunds of employee contributions) are recognized when due and payable in accordance with the benefit terms. Investments are reported at fair value. Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources In addition to assets, the statements of financial position will sometimes report a separate section for deferred outflows of resources. This separate financial element, deferred outflows of resources, SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 56 represents a consumption of net assets that applies to future periods and so will not be recognized as an outflow of resources (expenditure/expense) until then. The business type fund statements and government wide statements of net position report deferred outflow on the refunding of debt, unrecognized items not yet charged to pension expense and contributions from the employer after the measurement date but before the end of the employer's reporting period. In addition to liabilities, the statement of financial position will sometimes report a separate section for deferred inflow of resources. This separate financial statement element, deferred inflows of resources, represent an acquisition of net assets that applies to future periods and so will not be recognized as an inflow of resources (revenues) until that time. The government has items which qualify for reporting in this category. The governmental funds report unavailable revenue from property taxes and unavailable grant revenue. The government wide statement of net position reports unavailable revenue from property taxes and unearned annuity interest. These amounts are deferred and recognized as an inflow of resources in the period that the amounts become available. The government wide statement of net position also includes the unamortized portion of the net difference between projected and actual earnings on pension plan investments and other unrecognized items not yet charged to pension expense. The City also has deferred inflows related to leases where the City is the lessor and is reported in the statement of net position. The deferred inflows of resources related to leases are recognized as an inflow of resources (revenue) on the straight line method over the term of the lease. Fund Balance When both restricted and non-restricted fund balance is available for expenditure appropriation, the City’s policy is to use restricted fund balance first. When committed, assigned or unassigned fund balance is available to use for expenditure appropriation, the City’s policy is to use committed first, assigned second and then unassigned fund balance. Fund balance commitments would be made by the City’s legislative body, the City Council by ordinance in formal action in a public meeting. Fund balance assignments are made possible by the City Council by legally approving budgets in the governmental funds. For the General Fund, any year-end outstanding encumbrance that has been created by a City official with signatory authority and is within the budget constraints set by the Council is an assignment of fund balance. For other governmental funds any fund balance that is not restricted is assigned to the same purpose as it was originally appropriated by the City Council. Net Position The City’s net position is classified as follows: (1) Net investment in capital assets consists of the total investment in capital assets, net of accumulated depreciation and reduced by the outstanding debt obligations related to those assets. To the extent debt has been incurred, but not yet expended for capital assets, such amounts are not included as a component of net investment in capital assets; (2) Restricted for capital projects are amounts that are restricted by debt covenants to be expended for capital assets; (3) Restricted for debt service consists of that portion of net position that is restricted by debt covenants SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 57 for debt service; (4) Unrestricted net position consists of everything else that does not meet the criteria above. Land and buildings held for resale The cost of land and buildings held for resale in the Housing and Loan Fund and Redevelopment Agency (enterprise funds) are capitalized until the related property is subsequently sold. Land and buildings held for resale are carried at the lower of cost, market, or committed sales price. Costs of buildings and improvements that management determines are not recoverable are expensed. Gains and losses on dispositions of land and buildings held for resale are included in the operating statement. Use of Estimates in Preparing Financial Statements The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires the management of the City to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities. Estimate use also requires the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. Total columns The total columns shown on the accompanying fund financial statements are mathematical totals only and do not eliminate inter-fund transactions or include other entries required to present consolidated financial statements. The government-wide financial statements do, however, eliminate most inter-fund transactions and the double counting of revenues and expenses. They are therefore much closer to the consolidated financial statements presented in private sector accounting. Implementation of GASB Statement No. 96 As of July 1, 2022, the City adopted GASB Statement No. 96, Subscription-Based Information Technology Arrangements (SBITAs). The implementation of this standard establishes that a SBITA results in a right to use subscription IT asset, an intangible asset, and a corresponding liability. The standard provides the capitalization criteria for outlays other than subscription payments, including implementation costs of a SBITA. The Statement requires recognition of certain SBITA assets and liabilities for SBITAs that previously were recognized as outflows of resources based on the payment provisions of the contract. As a result of implementing this standard the City recognized a right to use subscription asset and subscription liability of $10.4 million and $10.4 million as of July 1, 2022, respectively. The Airport recognized a right to use subscription asset and subscription liability of $3.5 million and $2.0 million as of July 1, 2022, respectively. The Utilities recognized a right to use subscription asset and subscription liability of $1.6 million and $1.6 million as of July 1, 2022, respectively. As a result of these adjustments there was no effect on beginning net position. The additional disclosures required by this standard are included in Notes 8 and 9 . SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 58 2. Cash, Cash Equivalents and Investments The City maintains a cash pool and an investment pool that are available for use by all funds. Each fund type's portion of these pools is included in the combined balance sheet as "Cash and cash equivalents" and "Investments". Also included are investments separately held by several of the City's funds. It is the policy of Salt Lake City Corporation to invest public funds in accordance with the principles of sound treasury management and in compliance with state and local laws, regulations, and other policies governing the investment of public funds, specifically, according to the terms and conditions of the Utah State Money Management Act of 1974 and Rules of the State Money Management Council as currently amended (the “Act”), and the City’s own written investment policy. Public treasurers may use investment advisers to conduct investment transactions on behalf of public treasurers as permitted by statue, Rules of the Money Management Council and local ordinance or policy. Investment advisers must be certified by the Director of the Utah State Division of Securities of the Department of Commerce (the “Director”) and meet the requirements of the Utah Money Management Act (Rule 15 of the State Money Management Council). Broker/dealers and agents who desire to become certified dealers must be certified by the Director and meet the requirements of the Utah Money Management Act (Rule 16 of the State Money Management Council). Only Qualified Depositories as certified by Utah’s Commissioner of Financial Institutions are eligible to receive and hold deposits of public funds (Rule 12 of the State Money Management Council). The Utah Money Management Council issues a quarterly list of certified investment advisers, certified dealers, and qualified depositories authorized by state statute to conduct transactions with public treasurers. Transactions involving authorized deposits or investments of public funds may be conducted only through issuers of securities authorized by Section 51-7-11(3), qualified depositories included in the current state list and certified dealers included in the current state list. All securities purchased through a certified investment adviser or certified dealer are required to be delivered to the custody of the City Treasurer or to the City’s safekeeping bank or trust company. The City may place public money in investments/deposits authorized by the Money Management Act (U.C.A. 51-7-11). The Treasurer shall ensure that all purchases and sales of securities are settled within 15 days of the trade date for outstanding issues, and 30 days on new issues. In general these investments can be any of the following subject to restrictions specified in the Act: (1) Obligations of the U.S. Treasury and most Government-Sponsored Agencies; (2) Commercial paper that is classified as “first tier” by two nationally recognized statistical rating organizations, one of which must be Moody’s Investors Service or Standard & Poor’s; (3) Bankers’ Acceptances; (4) Publicly traded fixed rate corporate obligations rated “A” or higher, or the equivalent of “A” or higher, by two nationally recognized statistical rating organizations; (5) Certain variable rate securities and deposits with the same rating requirements as the fixed rate corporate obligations; (6) Utah State Public Treasurer’s Investment Pool; (7) Certain fixed rate negotiable deposits with a qualified depository or through a certified dealer; (8) Qualifying repurchase agreements. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 59 The City did not enter into any reverse repurchase agreements during the year ended June 30, 2023. City policy provides that not more than 25% of total City funds or 25% of the qualified depository's allotment, whichever is less, can be invested in any one qualified depository. Not more than 20% of total City funds may be invested in any one certified out-of-state depository institution. However, there shall be no limitation placed on the amount invested with the Public Treasurers’ Investment Fund (State Treasurer’s Pool) and other money market mutual funds, provided that the overall standards of investments achieve the City’s policy objectives. The City's deposits are insured up to $250,000 per account by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Deposits above the $250,000 per account are exposed to custodial credit risk. Custodial credit risk for deposits is the risk that in the event of a bank failure, the City’s deposits may not be recovered. The bank balance of the Primary Government’s deposits totaled $48,616,165. Of this amount, $1,012,470 was insured and the remaining $47,603,695 was uninsured and uncollateralized. The bank balance of the Library component unit totaled $438,915. Of this amount, $250,000 was insured and the remaining $188,915 was uninsured and uncollateralized. The City has no formal policy regarding deposit credit risk. Investments - The City Treasurer may take physical delivery of securities or may use a qualified depository bank for safekeeping securities. An account with a money center bank may be maintained for the purpose of settling investment transactions, safekeeping and collecting those investments. A safekeeping receipt issued by a qualified depository supports repurchase agreements with qualified depositories; otherwise, the securities are held in the custody of the City Treasurer or the City's safekeeping bank or trust company. Online access to accounts and monthly statements support investments in the State Treasurer’s Pool. All funds pledged or otherwise dedicated to the payment of interest and principal of bonds issued by the City are invested in accordance with the terms and borrowing instruments applicable to such bonds. City policy also provides that the remaining term to maturity of an investment may not exceed the period of availability of the funds invested. The investment of City funds cannot be of a speculative nature. Custodial credit risk for investments is the risk that, in the event of a failure of the counter party, the City will not be able to recover the value of the investment or collateral securities that are in the possession of an outside party. Of the total $1,653,410,737 invested by the City, $9,532,568 was exposed to custodial credit risk. The entire amount exposed was held in the City’s name by the counterparty. Investment interest rate risk is the risk that changes in interest rates of debt investments will adversely affect the fair value of an investment. The City currently has no policy regarding investment interest rate risk. The table below shows the maturities of the City’s investments. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 60 Fair Investments maturities (in years) Primary government: Value Less than 1 1 - 5 6 - 10 More than 10 Debt Securities U.S. Agency Notes $ 332,181,192 $ 108,927,355 $ 223,253,837 $ — $ — Corporate notes 72,501,632 20,919,100 51,582,532 — — Money market mutual funds 9,532,568 9,532,568 — — — Municipal Bonds 1,454,390 1,454,390 — — — $ 415,669,782 $ 140,833,413 $ 274,836,369 $ — $ — Other investments Investment in State Treasurer's Pool 1,237,740,955 Total investments, primary government $ 1,653,410,737 Component units: Other investments Investment in State Treasurer's Pool 21,160,489 Total investments, component units $21,160,489 Investment credit risk is the risk that an issuer or other counterparty to an investment will not fulfill its obligations. Salt Lake City’s policy is to follow the previously described Utah Money Management Act to reduce exposure to investment credit risk. The Library Component unit has funds invested in the Utah State Treasurer's pool. The city measures and records its investment using fair value measurement guidelines established by generally accepted accounting principles. These guidelines recognize a three tiered fair value hierarchy, as follows: Level 1: Quoted prices for identical investment in active markets. Level 2: Observable inputs other than quoted market prices. Level 3: Unobservable inputs The securities classified as Level 1 are valued as stated above. Money markets funds classified as level 2 use published fair value per share (unit) for each share and State Treasurer's Pool funds use the application of the June 30, 2023 fair value as calculated by the Utah State Treasurer, to the City's average daily balance in the Fund. The City currently has no assets that qualify for Level 3 investments. The following table illustrates the investments by the appropriate levels. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 61 Fair Value Fair Value Measurement Using 6/30/2023 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Primary government: Debt Securities U.S. Agency Notes $ 332,181,192 $ 332,181,192 $ — $ — Corporate notes 72,501,632 72,501,632 — — Money market mutual funds 9,532,568 — 9,532,568 — Municipal Bonds 1,454,390 1,454,390 Investment in State Treasurer's Pool 1,237,740,955 — 1,237,740,955 — $ 1,653,410,737 $ 404,682,824 $ 1,248,727,913 $ — Component units: Other investments Investment in State Treasurer's Pool 21,160,489 — 21,160,489 — Total investments, component units $ 21,160,489 $ — $ 21,160,489 $ — At June 30, 2023, the City's investments had the following quality ratings: Fair Quality Ratings Primary government: Value AAAm Am A1m Unrated Debt Securities U.S. Agency Notes $ 332,181,192 $ 332,181,192 $ — $ — $ — Corporate Notes 72,501,632 72,501,632 — — — Money market mutual funds 9,532,568 9,532,568 — — — Municipal Bonds 1,454,390 1,454,390 — — — Investment in State Treasurer's Pool 1,237,740,955 — — — 1,237,740,955 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 62 The following is a summary of restricted and unrestricted cash, cash equivalents and investments at June 30, 2023. Primary Government Component Unit Library Component Unit Utah Performing Arts Center Agency Unrestricted cash and cash equivalents $ 899,865,315 $ 2,565,285 $ 13,142,789 Restricted cash and cash equivalents 588,670,746 —— Unrestricted investments 64,191,997 18,244,950 — Restricted investments 147,609,556 —— Total $ 1,700,337,614 $ 20,810,235 $ 13,142,789 At June 30, 2023, the balances by type were as follows: Deposits (book balance)$ 46,889,910 $ 2,563,160 $ — Investments 1,653,410,737 18,244,950 13,142,789 Cash on hand 36,967 2,125 — Total $ 1,700,337,614 $ 20,810,235 $ 13,142,789 Concentration of credit risk is the risk of loss attributed to the magnitude of a government’s investment in a single issuer. Salt Lake City’s policy is to follow the Rules of the Money Management Council. Rule 17 of the Money Management Council limits investments in a single issuer of commercial paper and corporate obligations to between 5% and 10% depending upon the total dollar amount held in the portfolio. The City had no debt securities investments as of June 30, 2023 with more than 5% of total investments. Included in both deposits and investments are cash equivalents with an original maturity of ninety days or less. For statement of cash flows and balance sheet purposes, only those items with maturities of ninety days or less when purchased are considered cash and cash equivalents. 3. Loans Receivable The Housing and Loan Fund (an enterprise fund) provides loans to residents for improvements in existing housing within designated project areas. It also provides mortgage loans to residents within the same designated project areas. Some loans are payable in monthly installments, others are due on sale or transfer of ownership of the related property, and other loan payments are deferred. These loans have interest rates ranging from 0% to 7% and are collateralized by property or a letter of credit. Housing loans receivable as of June 30, 2023 were $28,792,083, net of $351,000 estimated as uncollectible. The Redevelopment Agency (RDA - an enterprise fund) provides housing loans to homeowners and construction loans to contractors within designated areas of the City. These loans total $67,920,453 at June 30, 2023, are payable in monthly installments, bear interest from 0% to 7.0% and are collateralized by property, letters of credit or restricted cash accounts. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 63 During the second half of FY 2020, construction of the new SLC airport was ongoing and the airlines and concessionaires began their buildouts in the new buildings. When the COVID-19 pandemic hit, many of the tenants were unable to continue funding their buildouts. In order to have the airlines and a certain amount of concessions open and operating when the TRP and NCP were completed, the Airport loaned funds to tenants to complete the buildouts. The Airport continued to loan funds through December 2020. These funds will be repaid by the end of FY 2025 with the exception on one loan going through FY 2034. 4. Restricted Assets The bond resolutions require all bond proceeds and revenue earned on bond proceeds to be restricted to the payment of bond construction projects specified within the resolutions, the payment of bond principal and interest, and the renewal and replacement of specified property and equipment. Certain Water Utility certificates of deposit are also restricted for consumer deposits and for contributions for reservoir and supply line construction. Restricted assets in the Department of Airports (an enterprise fund) are restricted for construction projects at the Airport under the Passenger Facilities Charges (PFC) Program agreement. Restricted assets in the Redevelopment Agency (an enterprise fund) are restricted by provision of bond resolutions. Restricted assets in the Demolition, Weed and Forfeiture special revenue fund are restricted while awaiting the adjudication of Police Department asset seizures related to criminal cases. Restricted assets in the Capital Projects Fund are restricted debt proceeds to be used for capital construction. Restricted assets in the Water, Sewer and Stormwater Utilities (enterprise funds) are restricted by: Bond resolution or contractual agreement for debt service or completion of debt funded capital construction; Bond resolution for renewal and replacement; Customer deposit agreements; and the Utah Impact Fee Act. Restricted assets in the Fleet Management internal service fund are assets held by a trustee and are restricted for the purchase of capital equipment funded by debt proceeds. Restricted assets in the Local Building Authority internal service fund are assets held by a trustee and are restricted for capital construction funded by bond proceeds. Restricted assets in the Other Improvement debt service funds are restricted for debt service. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 64 5. Capital Assets The following table and the one on the following page summarize the changes in capital assets for governmental and business-type activities during the year ended June 30, 2023: Beginning Balance Increases Decreases Ending Balance Primary Government Governmental activities: Capital assets, not being depreciated or amortized: Land and water rights $ 214,433,778 $ 1,130,000 $ — $ 215,563,778 Construction in progress 16,809,894 17,873,739 (11,296,073) 23,387,560 Total capital assets, not being depreciated or amortized 231,243,672 19,003,739 (11,296,073) 238,951,338 Capital assets, being depreciated and amortized Buildings 422,599,690 2,006,593 (315,615) 424,290,668 Right to use assets - Buildings 8,319,367 — — 8,319,367 Improvements other than buildings 120,938,298 7,112,890 (694,261) 127,356,927 Machinery and equipment 153,020,479 5,762,026 (23,577,775) 135,204,730 Infrastructure 373,331,990 31,187,039 (4,229,954) 400,289,075 Total capital assets being depreciated and amortized 1,078,209,824 46,068,548 (28,817,605) 1,095,460,767 Less accumulated depreciation and amortization: Buildings 137,873,186 8,995,547 (315,615) 146,553,118 Right to use assets - Buildings 781,688 842,090 — 1,623,778 Improvements other than buildings 44,436,453 5,308,356 (694,261) 49,050,548 Machinery and equipment 116,248,689 10,646,035 (23,395,457) 103,499,267 Infrastructure 158,929,661 11,507,769 (4,229,953) 166,207,477 Total accumulated depreciation and amortization 458,269,677 37,299,797 (28,635,286) 466,934,188 Total capital assets, being depreciated and amortized, net 619,940,147 8,768,751 (182,319) 628,526,579 Governmental activities capital assets, net $ 851,183,819 $ 27,772,490 $ (11,478,392) $ 867,477,917 Business-type activities Capital assets, not being depreciated or amortized: Land and water rights $ 208,327,029 $ 2,461,483 $ — $ 210,788,512 Construction in progress 1,085,776,676 641,720,344 (307,674,848) 1,419,822,172 Total capital assets, not being depreciated or amortized 1,294,103,705 644,181,827 (307,674,848) 1,630,610,684 Capital assets, being depreciated and amortized Buildings 2,283,878,300 157,932,049 (573,118) 2,441,237,231 Improvements other than buildings 2,303,327,065 134,446,107 (2,718,367) 2,435,054,805 Machinery and equipment 447,584,452 31,274,457 (19,913,127) 458,945,782 Total capital assets being depreciated and amortized 5,034,789,817 323,652,613 (23,204,612) 5,335,237,818 Less accumulated depreciation and amortization: Buildings 298,449,123 75,276,244 (755,124) 372,970,243 Improvements other than buildings 936,277,731 74,358,703 (2,522,142) 1,008,114,292 Machinery and equipment 182,813,500 24,811,547 (18,237,771) 189,387,275 Total accumulated depreciation and amortization 1,417,540,355 174,446,494 (21,515,037) 1,570,471,812 Total capital assets, being depreciated and amortized, net 3,617,249,462 149,206,119 (1,689,575) 3,764,766,006 Business-type activities capital assets, net $ 4,911,353,167 $ 793,387,946 $ (309,364,423) $ 5,395,376,690 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 65 Depreciation and amortization expense for the year ended June 30, 2023 for governmental and business type activities is shown in the table below. Depreciation Governmental activities: Expense General Government $ 11,973,505 City Council — Mayor 1,505 City Attorney 1,868 Finance 2,499,275 Human Resources 4,264 Fire 456,957 Combined Emergency Services 116,158 Police 407,997 DEA 93,826 Community and Economic Development 12,455 Public Services 949,792 Infrastructure Depreciation 11,507,769 Right to use assets - Buildings 842,090 Capital assets held by the government's internal service funds are charged to the various functions based on their usage of the assets 8,432,336 Total depreciation and amortization expense - governmental activities $ 37,299,797 Business-type activities: Airport Authority $ 147,227,595 Water 10,415,151 Sewer 9,565,597 Storm water 3,141,636 Redevelopment Agency 650,024 Other Activities 3,446,491 Total depreciation and amortization expense - business-type activities $ 174,446,494 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 66 Capital asset information for the City’s component unit, the Salt Lake City Library is as follows: Component Unit - Library Beginning Ending Capital assets, not being depreciated: Balance Increase Decrease Transfers Balance Land $ 126,107 $ — $ — $ — $ 126,107 Construction in progress 106,858 518,951 — (14,135) 611,674 Total capital assets, not being depreciated 232,965 518,951 — (14,135) 737,781 Capital assets, being depreciated Buildings 14,219,378 255,841 — — 14,475,219 Improvements other than buildings 1,875,426 17,198 — — 1,892,624 Furniture, fixtures and equipment 8,009,319 691,392 (137,134) — 8,563,577 Circulating collections 7,641,700 972,583 (1,363,157) — 7,251,126 Website development 14,000 — — — 14,000 Subscription right to use asset — 531,143 — — 531,143 Total capital assets being depreciated 31,759,823 2,468,157 (1,500,291) — 32,727,689 Less accumulated depreciation: Buildings (7,878,375) (439,325) — — (8,317,700) Improvements other than buildings (549,065) (134,099) — — (683,164) Furniture, fixtures and equipment (5,280,452) (466,998) 137,134 — (5,610,316) Circulating collections (4,398,846) (1,064,410) 1,363,157 — (4,100,099) Website development (9,750) (2,000) — — (11,750) Subscription right to use asset — (105,880) — — (105,880) Total accumulated depreciation (18,116,488) (2,212,712) 1,500,291 — (18,828,909) Total capital assets, being depreciated net 13,643,335 255,445 — — 13,898,780 Component unit capital assets, net $ 13,876,300 $ 774,396 $ — $ (14,135) $ 14,636,561 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 67 Capital asset information for the City’s component unit, Utah Performing Arts Center Agency is as follows: Beginning Ending Balance Increase Decrease Balance Capital assets being depreciated: Land improvements $ 648,861 $ 995 $ — $ 649,856 Leased equipment 195,395 — — 195,395 Buildings 130,608,164 — — 130,608,164 Furniture, fixtures, and equipment 432,841 33,834 — 466,675 Total capital assets being depreciated 131,885,261 34,829 — 131,920,090 Less accumulated depreciation: Land improvements (84,566) (48,766) — (133,332) Leased equipment (27,914) (13,956) — (41,870) Buildings (13,389,980) (2,606,722) — (15,996,702) Furniture, fixtures, and equipment (340,926) (9,140) — (350,066) Total accumulated depreciation (13,843,386) (2,678,584) — (16,521,970) Total capital assets, being depreciated net $ 118,041,875 $ (2,643,755) $ — $ 115,398,120 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 68 6. Long-term Obligations Changes in long-term obligations Revenue bonds and other long-term liabilities directly related to and intended to be paid from proprietary funds are included in the accounts of such funds. All other long-term obligations of the City are accounted for in the Governmental Activities of the government-wide statements. The table below summarizes changes in long-term obligations for the year ended June 30, 2023. Amount of Balance Balance Original Issue June 30,June 30, Due Within (bonds only) 2022 Additions Retirements 2023 One Year Governmental Activities General obligation bonds - 2010B $ 100,000,000 $ 49,885,000 $ — $ 4,910,000 $ 44,975,000 $ 5,060,000 General obligation bonds - 2013A 6,395,000 1,440,000 — 705,000 735,000 735,000 General obligation bonds - 2015A 14,615,000 6,795,000 — 1,055,000 5,740,000 1,085,000 General obligation bonds - 2015B 4,095,000 320,000 — 320,000 — — General obligation bonds - 2017B 12,920,000 10,775,000 — 1,155,000 9,620,000 1,210,000 General obligation bonds - 2019A 17,540,000 11,505,000 — 460,000 11,045,000 485,000 General obligation bonds - 2019B 5,300,000 3,900,000 — 480,000 3,420,000 505,000 General obligation bonds - 2020 17,745,000 12,675,000 — 475,000 12,200,000 500,000 General obligation bonds - 2021 20,660,000 16,810,000 — 580,000 16,230,000 610,000 General obligation bonds - 2022 21,785,000 — 21,785,000 2,430,000 19,355,000 640,000 Sales tax revenue bonds - 2013B 7,315,000 690,000 — 335,000 355,000 355,000 Sales tax revenue bonds - 2014B 10,935,000 7,955,000 — 495,000 7,460,000 515,000 Motor fuel revenue bonds - 2014 8,800,000 1,900,000 — 940,000 960,000 960,000 Sales tax revenue bonds - 2016A 21,715,000 15,920,000 — 2,040,000 13,880,000 2,125,000 Sales tax revenue bonds - 2019A 2,620,000 1,555,000 — 285,000 1,270,000 295,000 Sales tax revenue bonds - 2019B 58,540,000 57,270,000 — 480,000 56,790,000 490,000 Sales tax revenue bonds - 2021 15,045,000 15,045,000 — 205,000 14,840,000 535,000 Sales tax revenue bonds - 2022A 8,900,000 8,900,000 — 580,000 8,320,000 615,000 Sales tax revenue bonds - 2022B 40,015,000 — 40,015,000 — 40,015,000 — Sales tax revenue bonds - 2022C 24,240,000 — 24,240,000 — 24,240,000 1,925,000 Governmental bank notes: Chase — 646,564 — 177,421 469,143 183,177 Siemens 5,674,526 — 748,408 4,926,117 785,283 State of Utah 7,000,000 7,000,000 — 417,291 6,582,709 413,906 General compensated absences — 21,968,520 20,870,094 19,271,311 23,567,303 21,917,592 Internal Service Fund Debt: Lease revenue bonds - 2013A 7,180,000 650,000 — 320,000 330,000 330,000 Lease revenue bonds - 2014A 7,095,000 310,000 — 310,000 — — Lease revenue bonds - 2016A 6,755,000 5,490,000 — 270,000 5,220,000 280,000 Lease revenue bonds - 2017A 7,260,000 — 310,000 6,950,000 320,000 ISF bank notes Key Bank — 1,040,025 — 662,098 377,927 377,927 Chase — 10,138,792 699,140 3,178,680 7,659,252 1,347,219 ISF compensated absences — 2,029,344 1,927,877 1,839,765 2,117,456 1,969,234 Governmental premiums/discounts — 13,231,447 4,492,804 1,927,504 15,796,746 — Total Governmental long-term debt $ 298,779,218 $ 114,029,915 $ 47,362,479 $ 365,446,654 $ 46,569,338 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 69 Amount of Balance Balance Original Issue June 30,June 30, Due Within (bonds only) 2022 Additions Retirements 2023 One Year Business-type Activities Sewer 2009 Series $ 6,300,000 $ 2,835,000 $ — $ 315,000 $ 2,520,000 $ 315,000 Sewer 2010 Series 12,000,000 5,965,000 — 595,000 5,370,000 610,000 Storm 2011 Series 8,000,000 2,780,000 — 530,000 2,250,000 545,000 Sewer and Storm 2012 Series 28,565,000 6,535,000 — 2,375,000 4,160,000 2,415,000 Sewer and Storm 2017 Series 72,185,000 62,435,000 — 3,900,000 58,535,000 2,025,285 Water 2020 Series 157,390,000 157,390,000 — — 157,390,000 — Sewer and Storm 2022 Series 329,025,000 329,025,000 — — 329,025,000 Federal Loan - Utilities 13,112,999 154,191 — 13,267,190 — Redevelopment Agency 2013A tax increment 64,730,000 3,765,000 — 3,765,000 — — Redevelopment Agency 2015A tax increment 12,215,000 10,075,000 — 1,230,000 8,845,000 1,300,000 Redevelopment Agency 2019 tax increment 44,640,000 42,540,000 — 820,000 41,720,000 4,775,000 Airport 2017A 826,210,000 825,105,000 — 16,180,000 808,925,000 — Airport 2017B 173,790,000 173,755,000 — 4,165,000 169,590,000 — Airport 2018A-2018B 850,550,000 850,550,000 — — 850,550,000 24,000,000 Airport 2021A 776,925,000 776,925,000 — 1,405,000 775,520,000 1,620,000 Airport 2021B 127,645,000 127,645,000 — 170,000 127,475,000 195,000 Enterprise bank notes: Chase 3,417,125 2,768,457 1,354,546 4,831,036 1,096,616 Siemens 5,144,174 — 358,469 4,785,705 385,309 Yamaha 19,000 — 19,000 — — Loan financing notes 4,168,989 — 714,897 3,454,092 689,207 Enterprise compensated absences 11,112,319 10,556,703 9,858,914 11,810,108 2,329,282 RDA premiums/discounts (31,092) — (3,455) (27,637) — Airport premiums/discounts 401,813,523.95 — 18,287,025 383,526,499 — Utilities premiums/discounts 65,091,895 — 2,585,844 62,506,051 — Total Business-type long-term debt $ 3,881,173,933 $ 13,325,160 $ 68,625,240 $ 3,826,028,044 $ 42,300,698 Total long-term debt 4,179,953,151 127,355,075 115,976,377 4,191,331,848 88,870,036 Library compensation liability 872,900 1,008,757 1,061,206 903,039 — Total component unit long-term debt $ 872,900 $ 1,008,757 $ 1,061,206 $ 903,039 $ — SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 70 The annual debt requirements to maturity, including principal and interest, as of June 30, 2023 are listed in the tables below for debt with regularly scheduled payments: Year Revenue Bonds General Obligation Bonds Ending Governmental Activities Business Activities Governmental Activities June 30 Principal Interest Principal Interest Principal Interest 2024 $ 8,745,000 $ 3,690,050 $ 39,865,000 153,789,389 $ 10,830,000 $ 3,717,345 2025 8,080,000 3,472,936 45,595,000 152,154,496 10,425,000 3,376,942 2026 8,370,000 3,298,810 68,080,000 149,651,757 10,820,000 3,016,635 2027 8,700,000 3,090,096 73,465,000 146,513,215 11,235,000 2,639,760 2028 8,705,000 2,862,430 83,205,000 142,977,296 11,650,000 2,245,975 2029-2033 53,975,000 11,444,110 471,795,000 585,112,944 37,495,000 5,891,021 2034-2038 65,615,000 4,642,259 568,090,000 474,385,050 19,075,000 2,329,100 2039-2043 18,440,000 33,600 697,765,000 341,184,825 11,790,000 329,000 2044-2048 — — 908,465,000 170,385,675 — — 2049-2053 — — 385,550,000 23,345,150 — — Subtotal 180,630,000 32,534,292 3,341,875,000 2,339,499,797 123,320,000 23,545,778 Less (premiums)/discounts (3,750,602) — (446,004,912) — (7,605,131) — Net debt $ 184,380,602 $ 32,534,292 $ 3,787,879,912 $ 2,339,499,797 $ 130,925,131 $ 23,545,778 Year Other Debt Ending Governmental Activities Business Activities June 30 Principal Interest Principal Interest 2024 $ 4,764,623 $ 517,617 $ 2,821,006 $ 346,517 2025 3,778,560 400,192 2,447,840 276,073 2026 3,051,625 291,758 1,535,234 216,086 2027 1,876,889 197,662 1,857,660 154,658 2028 1,279,671 136,398 1,095,348 119,152 2029-2033 3,204,948 358,905 5,188,914 538,392 2034-2038 2,070,175 102,423 829,428 431,423 2039-2043 — — 961,830 153,435 2044-2048 — — 1,053,902 161,721 2049-2053 — — 157,337 22,315 Subtotal 20,026,490 2,004,954 15,127,495 2,073,256 Less (premiums)/discounts Total $ 20,026,490 $ 2,004,954 $ 15,127,495 $ 2,073,256 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 71 Compensation Liabilities (Compensated Absences) Vacation leave, compensatory leave, and the portion of sick leave that will eventually be paid are recognized as liabilities as they are earned. In the event of termination or retirement, an employee is reimbursed for unused accumulated vacation. Employees participating in Plan A are reimbursed for 25 percent of unused accumulated sick leave upon retirement, or 50 percent if the funds remain with the city to be used for retiree health insurance premium, while those employees participating in Plan B are reimbursed for 50 percent of the earned balance of personal leave upon separation or retirement. Upon retirement any unused severance account balance is reimbursed at 100 percent. The liability for accumulated compensated absences at June 30, 2023 is reported in the individual funds except for the long term portion relating to the governmental funds, which is recorded in the Governmental Activities column of the Government-wide Statements. Compensated absence liabilities in the enterprise and internal service funds have traditionally been liquidated by the specific enterprise or internal service fund to which the employee’s salary is charged. Compensated absences are reported in the governmental funds for unpaid balances of reimbursable unused leave for employees that terminated during the current fiscal year. For governmental funds, any compensated absence liability has typically been liquidated by the General Fund. GASB Statement No 88 - Certain Disclosure Related to Debt, including Direct Borrowings and Direct Placements To comply with GASB Statement No 88 “Certain Disclosures Related to Debt, including Direct Borrowings and Direct Placements, the city has identified bonds that have been directly placed. Also, included in the notes is a section describing direct borrowings by the City. The detail for each direct borrowing lender is also included in the debt tables within this note. General Obligation Bonds On November 18, 2010 the City issued General Obligation Bonds Series 2010B (Series 2010B) in the amount of $100,000,000. The City incurred $160,680 issuance costs, resulting in net proceeds of $99,839,320. The bonds carry an interest rate of 3.02 percent, and were issued to finish the $125,000,000 Public Safety Building and Command Center construction. The remaining balance of the 2010B bonds at June 30, 2023 was $44,975,000. This bond was a direct placement. On March 27, 2013 the City issued General Obligation Series 2013A (Series 2013A) at the par amount of $6,395,000. The bonds were issued with a premium of $622,808 and incurred issuance costs in the amount of $67,650, resulting in net proceeds of $6,950,158. The bonds were issued to defease the par amount of the General Obligation Bonds of Series 2004A due to mature from June 15, 2015 to June 15, 2024 in the total amount of $6,635,000. The net proceeds, along with other available funds were deposited in an irrevocable escrow account with an escrow agent to provide for all future debt service payments on the affected 2004A bonds. As a result, $6,635,000 is considered to be defeased and the SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 72 liability for those bonds was removed from the balance sheet. The advance refunding resulted in a difference between the reacquisition price and the net carrying amount of the old debt of $313,501. While incurring a deferred loss for accounting and reporting purposes, the City realized an economic gain of $1,788,882. The outstanding balance of the 2013A bonds at June 30, 2023 was $735,000. On February 24, 2015, the City issued Federally Taxable General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2015A at the par amount of $14,615,000. The City incurred a total of $120,808 in issuance costs, resulting in net proceeds of $14,494,192. The bonds carry coupon rates of .45 percent to 3.322 percent and have final maturity date in fiscal year 2028. The bonds were issued to defease the par amount of the General Obligation Bonds Series 2013B due to mature on June 15, 2028 in the amount of $14,423,000. As a result, $14,423,000 is considered to be defeased and the liability for those bonds was removed from the balance sheet. The 2015A Bonds maturing on or after June 15, 2025 are subject to redemption prior to maturity, at the election of the City, on December 15, 2024, and on any date thereafter, in whole or in part, from such maturities or parts thereof as will be selected by the City, at a redemption price equal to 100 percent of the principal amount of the 2015A Bonds to be redeemed plus accrued interest thereon to the date fixed for redemption. While incurring a deferred gain of $71,191 for accounting and reporting purposes, the City realized an economic loss of $150,726. The remaining balance of the defeased bonds at June 30, 2023 was $5,740,000. On February 24, 2015, the City issued General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2015B at the par amount of $4,095,000. The bonds were issued with a premium of $133,539 and incurred a total of $32,818 in issuance costs. With transfers of $40,207 from Prior Issue Debt Service Funds, the resulting net proceeds were $4,235,928. The bonds carry coupon rates of 1.5 percent to 4.0 percent and have final maturity date in fiscal year 2023. The bonds were issued to defease the par amount of the General Obligation Bonds Series 2009A, 2011 and 2013C due to mature on June 15, 2019, 2021 and 2023 respectively, and in the amounts of $370,000, $1,120,000 and $2,723,000 respectively. As a result, $4,213,000 is considered to be defeased and the liability for those bonds was removed from the balance sheet. The 2015B Bonds are not subject to optional redemption prior to maturity. For accounting and reporting purposes the City incurred a deferred loss of $17,278 while recognizing an economic gain of $320,502. The outstanding balance of the 2015B bonds at June 30, 2023 was $0. On October 25, 2017, the City issued General Obligation Refunding Bonds Series 2017B at a par amount of $12,920,000. The bonds carry coupon rates of 2.00 percent to 5.00 percent and have a final maturity of June 15, 2030. The bonds were issued to crossover refund a portion of the General Obligation Series 2010A Build America Bonds which were originally issued for the construction of the Public Safety Building. The crossover refunding results in cash flow savings of $660,669 and resulted in a deferred gain of $1,010,681. The effective discount rate is 2.201%. The Series 2010A Build America Bonds will remain percent outstanding until the crossover date of June 15, 2020 at which time they will be paid from the escrow fund. For this purpose and to cover payments on the Series 2017B Bonds, $15,460,680 was placed into escrow and will earn interest at 1.507 percent. The remaining balance of the 2017B bonds at June 30, 2023 was $9,620,000. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 73 On October 23, 2019, the City issued General Obligation Bonds Series 2019 at par amount of $22,840,000 with a premium of $3,665,151. The bonds carry coupon rates of 4.00 percent to 5.00 percent and have a final maturity date of June 15, 2039. The bonds were issued to fund construction of streets and to refund the General Obligation Bonds Series 2017. The True Interest Cost of the bonds is 2.078%. The refunding of the Series 2017 bonds resulted in net present value savings of $340,911 and a net cash flow savings of $372,874. The remaining balance of the 2019 bonds as of June 30, 2023 was $14,465,000. On September 29, 2020, the City issued General Obligation Bonds Series 2020 at par amount of $17,745,000 with a premium of $2,709,886. The bonds carry coupon rates of 3.00 percent to 5.00 percent and have a final maturity date of June 15, 2040. The bonds were issued to fund street construction. The True Interest Cost of the bonds is 1.63%. The remaining balance of the 2020 bonds as of June 30, 2023 was $12,200,000. On November 30, 2021, the City issued General Obligation Bonds Series 2021 at par amount of $20,660,000 with a premium of $2,879,180. The bonds carry coupon rates of 3.00 percent to 5.00 percent and have a final maturity date of June 15, 2041. The bonds were issued to fund street construction. The True Interest Cost of the bonds is 1.83%. The remaining balance of the 2021 bonds as of June 30, 2023 was $16,230,000. On October 5, 2022, the City issued General Obligation Bonds Series 2022A at a par amount of $21,785,000 with a premium of $1,709,958. The bonds carry coupon rates of 4.00 percent to 5.00 percent and have a final maturity date of June 15, 2042. The bonds were issued to improve various streets and roads throughout the City and related infrastructure improvements. The True Interest Cost of the bonds is 3.51%. The remaining balance of the bonds as of June 30, 2023 was $19,355,000. Sales Tax Revenue Bonds For all of the series of the Sales and Excise Tax Revenue bonds, the City has pledged sales tax revenues as collateral for the bonds. On November 26, 2013, the City issued the Series 2013B Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds in the par amount of $7,315,000 with a final maturity date of October 1, 2033. With the original issuance premium of $568,437 added and a total issuance cost of $ 156,111 subtracted, the net proceeds equaled $7,727,326. The bonds carry interest rates from 4 percent to 5 percent, and were issued to fund the construction and improvements for the Sugar house Streetcar and Greenway project. The outstanding balance of the 2013B bonds at June 30, 2023 was $355,000. On September 24, 2014, the City issued the Series 2014B Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds in the par amount of $10,935,000 with a final maturity date of October 1, 2034. With the original issuance premium of $621,745 added and a total issuance cost of $188,745 subtracted, the net proceeds equaled $11,368,000. The bonds carry interest rates from 2 percent to 4 percent, and were issued to fund City construction and acquisition projects. The Series 2014B Bonds maturing on or after October 1, SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 74 2025, are subject to redemption at the election of the City, on any date on or after October 1, 2024, in whole or in part, from such maturities or parts thereof as shall be selected by the City, upon notice given as provided in the Indenture, at a redemption price equal to 100 percent of the principal amount of the Series 2014B Bonds to be redeemed plus accrued interest thereon to the date fixed for redemption. The outstanding balance of the 2014B bonds at June 30, 2023 was $7,460,000. On June 1, 2016 the City issued Series 2016A Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds at the par amount of $21,715,000, resulting in a deferred gain of $1,010,681. The bonds were issued with a premium of $2,924,990 and incurred a total of $158,354 in issuance costs resulting net proceeds of $24,481,636. The bonds carry coupon rates of 1.5 percent to 4.0 percent and have final maturity date in fiscal year 2029. Bonds maturing after October 1, 2026 are subject to redemption in whole or in part at the election of the City. The redemption price is equal to the principal amount thereof plus accrued interest. The bonds were issued to defease the par amount of the Series 2009A Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds due to mature on October 1, 2029 in the amount of $22,075,000. As a result, $22,075,000 is considered to be defeased and the liability for those bonds was removed from the balance sheet. The outstanding balance of the 2016A bonds at June 30, 2023 was $13,880,000. On December 10, 2019, the City issued Sales Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds Series 2019A at a par amount of $2,620,000 with a premium of $343,625. The bonds carry coupon rates of 4.00 percent to 5.00 percent and have a final maturity of April 1, 2027. The True Interest Cost of the bonds is 1.42%. The bonds were issued to refund the Sales Tax Revenue Bonds Series 2007A and resulted in net present value savings of $299,661. The remaining balance of the 2019A bonds as of June 30, 2023 was $1,270,000. On December 10, 2019, the City issued Sales Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds Series 2019B at a par amount of $58,540,000. The bonds carry coupon rates of 1.794 percent to 3.102 percent and have a final maturity of April 1, 2038. The bonds have a True Interest Cost of 3.03%. The bonds were issued to refund the Sales Tax Revenue Bonds Series 2013A and resulted in net present value savings of $6,710,695 and a net cash flow savings of $8,618,611. The remaining balance of the 2019B bonds as of June 30, 2023 was $56,790,000. On December 15, 2021, the City issued Sales Tax Revenue Refunding Bond Series 2021 at the par amount of $15,045,000. The bonds carry coupon rates of .48 percent to 2.49 percent and have a final maturity date of October 1, 2034. The bonds were issued to advance refund Sales Tax Revenue Bond Series 2013B and the LBA Series 2013A and 2014A Bonds. The True Interest Cost of the bonds is 2.01%. The bonds resulted in net present value savings of $941,768 and net cash flow savings of $1,112,566. The remaining balance on the Sales Tax Series 2021 as of June 30, 2023 was $14,840,000. On January 13, 2022, the City issued Sales Tax Revenue Refunding Bond Series 2022A at a par amount of $8,900,000 with a premium of $1,511,735. The bonds carry a coupon rate of 4.00 percent and have a final maturity date of June 30, 2033. The bonds were issued to refund Sales Tax Revenue Bond Series 2012A. The True Interest Cost of the bonds is 1.23%. The bonds resulted in net present value savings of $955,814 and net cash flow savings of $1,013,504. The remaining balance of the 2022A bonds as of June 30, 2023 was $8,320,000. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 75 On November 17, 2022, the City issued Sales Tax Revenue Bonds Series 2022B at a par amount of $40,015,000 with a premium of $2,782,846. The bonds carry coupon rates of 4.73 percent to 5.21 percent and have a final maturity date of October 1, 2042. The bonds were issued fund construction and improvements of various capital projects, including City Cemetery, 600 North Corridor transformation, new radio towers for City Communication, Westside railroad quiet zones, and Warm Springs Plunge structure stabilization and improvements. The True Interest Cost of the bonds is 4.38%. The remaining balance of the bonds as of June 30, 2023 was $40,015,000. On November 17, 2022, the City issued Sales Tax Revenue Bonds Series 2022C at a par amount of $24,240,000. The bonds carry coupon rates of 4.73 percent to 5.21 percent and have a final maturity date of October 1, 2042. The bonds were issued fund construction and improvements of various capital projects, including Pioneer Park, an upgrade of the electrical transformer at the Central Plant and emergency backup generators, Smith's Ballpark improvements, urban wood reutilization equipment and storage additions, and Fisher Mansion stabilization and improvements. The True Interest Cost of the bonds is 5.05%. The remaining balance of the bonds as of June 30, 2023 was $24,240,000. Motor Fuel Revenue Bonds On August 20, 2014, the City issued Motor Fuel Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2014 at the par amount of $8,800,000. The City incurred a total of $50,000 in issuance costs, resulting in net proceeds of $8,750,000 deposited to Construction Fund for the construction or acquisition of City projects. The bonds carry a coupon rate of 2.180 percent and have a final maturity date of April 1, 2024. The bonds are not subject to optional redemption. The outstanding balance of the bonds at June 30, 2023 was $960,000. This bond was a direct placement. Water, Sewer and Stormwater Utility Bonds The bond resolution approved in conjunction with the issuance of the Salt Lake City Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds provides, among other things, that certain funds be established and that certain accounting procedures be followed. Under the terms of the resolution, the City irrevocably pledged the net revenues of the Water and Sewer Utilities to the payment of the bonds and covenanted that rates will be established to yield net revenues, as defined, equal to at least 1.25 times the debt service to become due in the next fiscal year. On November 17, 2009, the Sewer Utility issued $6,300,000 in Revenue Bonds. The 2009 Stimulus Bonds were issued as part of economic stimulus funding through the State of Utah. The Sewer Utility used the funds to replace the digester cover and walls at the reclamation plant facility. These bonds mature 2012 through 2031 with annual principal payments of $315,000 beginning February 2012 and the average interest of 0 percent. The Sewer Utility incurred issuance costs of $69,740 related to the 2009 series bonds. The issuance cost is being amortized commensurate with the debt service payments SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 76 beginning February 2012. The outstanding balance of the bonds at June 30, 2023 was $2,520,000. This bond was a direct placement. On September 14, 2010, the Sewer Utility issued $12,000,000 in Revenue Bonds at an interest rate of 2.73 percent. The 2010 Series Bonds were issued by direct purchase through JPMorgan Chase Bank as authorized by City Council resolution for the purchase, acquisition and construction of improvements, facilities and properties including the sewer Orange Street trunk line or other various improvements. This issue matures February 1, 2031. The outstanding balance of the bonds at June 30, 2023 was $5,370,000. This bond was a direct placement. On October 19, 2011, the Utilities issued $8,000,000 in Revenue Bonds at an interest rate of 2.37 percent. The Series 2011 Bonds were issued by direct purchase through JPMorgan Chase Bank as authorized by City Council resolution for the purchase, acquisition and construction of improvements, facilities and properties including the Folsom Avenue stormwater project or other various stormwater improvements. This issue matures February 1, 2027. The outstanding balance of the bonds at June 30, 2023 was $2,250,000. This bond was a direct placement. On December 11, 2012 the Sewer and Stormwater Utilities issued $28,565,000 ($23,708,950 Sewer and $4,856,050 Stormwater) in Revenue Bonds at an interest rate of 1.73 percent. The Series 2012 Bonds were issued by direct purchase through JPMorgan Chase Bank as authorized by City Council resolution. The principal purpose of the Series 2012 Bonds was to defease a portion of the Series 2004 Bonds; $20,490,662 was placed in escrow that, when combined with related interest earnings, will be necessary to make principal and interest payments totaling $19,145,000 and $1,384,181, respectively. The net carrying amount of the defeased bonds was $20,519,304 ($19,145,000 due at maturity add $1,187,044 of unamortized premium and $372,703 of accrued interest, and less unamortized issuance costs of $185,443). The refunding transaction resulted in a $28,642 deferred inflow of resources, which was amortized through February 2014. The Series 2012 bonds also generated funds of $8,000,814 (after payment of bond issue costs of $73,524) for the construction and purchase of improvements at the Sewer Treatment Plant and other sewer line upgrades. This issue matures February 1, 2027. The outstanding balance of the bonds at June 30, 2023 was $4,160,000. This bond was a direct placement. On April 5, 2017 the Salt Lake City Public Utilities issued $72,185,000 ($6,400,000 Water, $63,569,743 Sewer, and $2,215,257 Street Lighting) in Revenue Bonds. The bonds were issued at a premium of $9,593,680 and carry interest rates of 2.00 percent to 5.00 percent with a final maturity of February 1, 2037. The bonds were issued for the purpose of financing improvements to the City’s water, sewer, storm drain, and street lighting utilities, and refunding a portion of the City’s outstanding water and sewer revenue bonds. The Series 2017A Bonds maturing on or after February 1, 2028 are subject to redemption at the election of the City. The outstanding balance of the bonds at June 30, 2023 was $58,535,000. On August 12, 2020, the Water, Sewer and Stormwater Utilities issued $157,390,000 ($61,362,110 Water, $84,472,630 Sewer and $11,555,260 Stormwater) in Revenue Bonds at an average interest rate of 4.6 percent. The principal purpose of the Series 2020 Bonds was to finance a new water SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 77 reclamation facility and water treatment plant updates. The Series 2020 bonds will also help finance improvements to the City’s storm drainage system. The issuance resulted in net proceeds of $197,500,000 after premium of $40,810,454 and $700,454 cost of issuance. This issue fully matures February 1, 2050. The outstanding balance of the bonds at June 30, 2023 was $157,390,000. On September 15, 2020, the Utilities’ secured funding from the EPA under the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) program of up to $348,635,000. This funding will be provided on a reimbursement basis and will be used for the construction of a water reclamation facility to replace the fully depreciated facility that is still in use. The Sewer incurred financial charges of $102,255 related this agreement. The interest rate on the funding is 1.34 percent per year. During fiscal year 2022 the Utilities drew down $13,112,999; accordingly, the outstanding value of this loan on June 30, 2022 is $13,112,999. Accrued interest related to the amount outstanding is $59,250. Under the agreement with the EPA the Utilities will begin repaying the amounts reimbursed by the program plus deferred interest in 2029, and the debt service schedule and future maturities will be determined. On June 29, 2022, the Water and Sewer Utilities issued $329,025,000 ($64,317,477 Water and $264,707,523 Sewer) in Revenue Bonds at an average interest rate of 3.9 percent. The principal purpose of the Series 2022 Bonds is to finance a new water reclamation facility and water treatment plant updates. The issuance resulted in net proceeds of $347,893,193 after premium of $20,291,293 and $1,423,100 cost of issuance. This issue fully matures February 1, 2052. Redevelopment Agency Bonds The master indenture approved in conjunction with the issuance of Tax Increment Revenue Bonds provides, among other things, that certain funds are established and certain accounting procedures be followed. Under the terms of this indenture, the Redevelopment Agency irrevocably pledged the incremental property tax revenues and investment income of the Agency to the payment of the bonds and covenanted that the estimated annual tax increment revenues will be equal to at least 1.25 times the debt service to become due in the next fiscal year. In October 2013, the Agency issued $64,730,000 in federally taxable tax increment revenue bonds, with interest rates ranging from 3.0% to 6.0%. The bond proceeds were used to fund the construction of the Eccles Theater. The Agency received net proceeds of $63,929,046, including accrued interest of $1,377,835, and net of issuance costs of $735,103 (which were expensed on the statement of revenues and expenses and changes in net position), and a discount of $65,851, which is being amortized over the life of the bonds using the effective interest method. In May 2015, the Agency issued $12,215,000 in Series 2015A subordinate tax increment revenue bonds and $1,060,000 in Series 2015B taxable subordinate tax increment revenue bonds (total of $13,275,000) for the construction of the Regent Street Improvements. The interest rates on the Series 2015A and 2015B bonds are 2.57% and 2.66%, respectively. The Agency received net proceeds of $12,543,274, including accrued interest of $631,975 and issuance costs of $99,752, which were both SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 78 expensed as incurred. The outstanding balance of the 2015A and 2015B bonds at June 30, 2023 was $8,845,000 and $0, respectively. These bonds were direct placement. On December 11, 2019, the RDA issued Tax Increment Revenue Refunding Bonds Series 2019 at par amount of $44,640,000. The bonds carry coupon rates of 1.90 percent to 2.976 percent and have a final maturity date of April 1, 2031. The bonds were issued to refund Tax Increment Bonds Series 2013. The True Interest Cost of the bonds is 2.745%. The refunding of the Series 2013 bonds resulted in net present value savings of $2,309,062 and a net cash flow savings of $2,639,619. The remaining balance of the 2019 bonds as of June 30, 2023 was $41,720,000. Local Building Authority Bonds On June 20, 2013, the Local Building Authority issued $7,180,000 par Lease Revenue bond Series 2013A. The bonds were issued at a premium of $92,650, carry interest rates of 2.00 percent to 4.00 percent and will be used to construct a new branch Library in the Glendale area of Salt Lake City. The outstanding balance of the bonds at June 30, 2023 was $330,000. On March 20 2014, the Local Building Authority issued $7,095,000 par Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2014A. The bonds were issued at a premium of $319,104 and carry interest rates of 2.00 percent to 5.00 percent with final maturity of April 15, 2035. The Series 2014A Bonds maturing on and after April 15, 2024 are subject to redemption on or after October 15, 2023 at a price par. The Authority incurred a total of $134,591 in issuance costs and also funded a capitalized interest fund of $427,724. The net amount of $6,851,788.00 will be used to acquire and construct a new branch Library in the Marmalade area of Salt Lake City. The outstanding balance of the bonds at June 30, 2023 was $0. On March 29, 2016, the Local Building Authority issued $6,755,000 par Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2016A. The bonds were issued at a premium of $704,812 and carry interest rates of 2.00 percent to 5.00 percent with final maturity of April 15, 2037. The Series 2016A Bonds maturing on and after April 15, 2027 are subject to redemption in whole or in part at par plus accrued interest. The outstanding balance of the bonds at June 30, 2023 was $5,220,000. On April 27, 2017, the Local Building Authority issued $8,115,000 par Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2017A. The bonds were issued at a premium of $1,324,158 and carry interest rates of 4.00 percent to 5.25 percent with final maturity of April 15, 2038. The Series 2017A Bonds maturing on and after April 15, 2028 are subject to redemption in whole or in part at par plus accrued interest. The outstanding balance of the bonds at June 30, 2023 was $6,950,000. Airport On February 8, 2017 the Salt Lake City Airport issued $1,000,000,000 in Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2017A & 2017B. The bonds were issued at a premium of $126,480,831 and carry an interest rate of 5.00 percent with a final maturity of July 1, 2047. The bonds were issued for the purpose of financing a portion of the design and construction of the Terminal Redevelopment Program (TRP) SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 79 and North Concourse Program (NCP). The City currently expects that it will issue additional series of airport revenue bonds to fund approximately $1.1 billion of construction costs of elements of the TRP and NCP in addition to the costs funded with the Series 2017 Bonds. The Series 2017A & B Bonds maturing on or after July 1, 2028 are subject to redemption at the election of the City. The outstanding balance of the bonds at June 30, 2023 was $808,925,000 and $169,590,000, respectively. On October 31, 2018 the Salt Lake City Airport issued $850,550,000 in Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2018A & 2018B. The bonds were issued at a premium of $82,567,209 and carry an interest rate of 4.28 percent with a final maturity of July 1, 2048. The bonds were issued for the purpose of completing the construction of the Terminal Redevelopment Program (TRP) and North Concourse Program (NCP). The Series 2018A & B Bonds maturing on or after July 1, 2029 are subject to redemption at the election of the City. The outstanding balance of the bonds at June 30, 2023 was $850,550,000. On August 5, 2021 the Airport issued $776,925,000 of Series 2021A (AMT), and $127,645,000 of Series 2021B (Non-AMT) bonds. The proceeds of the bonds are being used to finance portions of the TRP and NCP. As of June 30, 2022, unspent Series 2021 bond proceeds was approximately $15.8 million. The Series 2021A & B bonds maturing on or after July 1, 2032 are subject to redemption at the election of the City. The outstanding balance of the bonds at June 30, 2023 was $775,520,000 and $127,475,000, respectively. Bank Notes The City directly borrows funds from multiple banks and financing companies to purchase equipment for city use. They are listed by bank or agency below: The City has an equipment financing contract with JPMorgan Chase. Equipment such as police vehicles, fire trucks, and other primary government purpose equipment are eligible to be financed under this contract. The City enters into several financing contracts a year with terms less than seven years. The interest rate is fixed and is determined separately for each contract based on a calculation of the 4- year, SWAP, tax rate, spread and other factors, but average about 2.1 percent. The initial amount available for financing was $35,000,000 and extends five years ending July 10, 2026. Each financing agreement reduces the amount available regardless of whether the final payment has been paid. As of June 30, 2023, $29,692,897 was still available for equipment purchase financing. Most of the agreements have been for fleet and refuse equipment but there is one agreement for fire apparatus. Public Services has four financing contracts with Siemens Public Inc. to purchase upgraded energy efficient equipment. Two contracts are for city parks, one is for Steiner Aquatics Center equipment and one is for golf courses. In July 2010 $832,588 was borrowed at 4.213 percent with final payment occurring in 2026. In January 2013, $6,315,796 was borrowed at 2.45 percent with the final payment occurring in 2029. These were both used in the parks division to improve efficiency in water usage and irrigation in city parks. A third agreement borrowed $3,470,79 in July 2013 at 2.95 percent maturing in 2030 and used for energy efficient equipment for Steiner Aquatics. The County SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 80 contributes half of the debt service to the City as both entities agreed to share the cost of the Aquatic Center debt. The golf fund borrowed $6,068,464 in December 2014 at 2.5 percent with final payment made in 2031. The funds were used to improve efficiency in water usage and irrigation. The Information Management Services fund, an internal service fund, borrowed $1,420,313 from Key Government Finance, Inc. for system security hardware and software in December 2018. The contract is for a fixed term of 5 years, ending January 21, 2023 with 0 percent interest rate. The fund borrowed $1,889,636 from Key Government Finance, Inc. for system security hardware and software in April 2020. The contract is for a fixed term of 5 years, ending May 24, 2024 with 0 percent interest rate. The Housing and Loan Fund has two contracts that are used to provide mortgage loans for low income housing. The city funds 20 percent of the purchase price and two contracts fund the remaining 80 percent, as described below. In August 2018 multiple bank loans were consolidated and refinanced into one loan with Ally Bank for $9,500,000 at 4.5 percent interest and matures in 2031. The City makes monthly payments plus any principal payments received from low-income borrowers when they sell or refinance their mortgages. For new low-income properties, the City borrows directly from UBS Bank, USA. The is a revolving loan participation agreement with a limit of $5,000,000 and is used to pay 80 percent of participation interest in low-income mortgage loans. Each new mortgage has a different interest rate which is based on the current LIBOR rate. The City receives principal and interest payments from the borrowers and forwards those payments to UBS Bank. Final payments are expected to be made in 2048. The balance available is $2,775,263. The golf fund has entered into three financing contracts with Yamaha purchase golf carts for the golf courses. The total amount borrowed from Yamaha is $1,070,561 with interest rates 3.8 percent. Final payments are expected to be made in 2023. On March 1, 2021, the Airport entered into a short-term revolving credit facility in which the Airport can access up to $300 million (line of credit) secured by one or more notes; which notes constitute subordinate obligations under the Subordinate Obligation Trust Indenture. The interest for the line of credit will be based on the London interbank offered rate (LIBOR) and due monthly. In the case LIBOR ceases to be a reliable source for interest rates, an alternative interest rate will be determined. The Airport will also pay a commitment fee on any unused funds on a quarterly basis. The interest rate for the commitment fee will be determined by the current credit rating of the Airport’s bonds. As of June 30, 2023, the Airport had an outstanding balance of $0 on the line of credit. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 81 7. Leases Lessor Agreements - Airport The Airport, as a lessor, recognizes a lease receivable and a deferred inflow of resources at the commencement of the lease term, with certain exceptions for leases of assets held as investments, certain regulated leases, short-term leases, and leases that transfer ownership of the underlying asset. As lessor, the asset underlying the lease is not derecognized. The lease receivable is measured at the present value of the minimum lease payments expected to be received during the lease term. The deferred inflow of resources should be measured at the value of the lease receivable in addition to any payments received at or before the commencement of the lease term that relate to future periods. For the purposes of the GASB No. 87 implementation, Airport Leases have been categorized as follows: 1. GASB No. 87 Leases - Included 2. GASB No. 87 Leases - Excluded Leases - Regulated 3. GASB No. 87 Leases - Excluded Leases - Short Term GASB No. 87 - Included Leases In accordance with GASB No. 87, the Airport recognizes a lease receivable and a deferred inflow of resources for leases the Airport categorizes as GASB No. 87 - Included. The Airport has grouped these leases into three categories: Concession Leases, Rental Car Leases, and Other Property Leases. Concession leases are leases for retail and food and beverage tenants at the Airport. Rental Car Leases are rental car agencies located at the Airport. Other Property Leases contain various leases for property and space located around the Airport. The Airport recorded a lease receivable and deferred inflow of resources of $214,651,581 on July 1, 2022 related to these leases. For the year ended June 30, 2023, the Airport reported lease revenue of $40,582,240 and interest revenue of $5,092,655 related to lease payments received. GASB No. 87 - Included Leases for the year ended June 30, 2023 are summarized as follows: Building Lease Receivable Receivable Additions Implied Interest Receivable Deduction Annual Lease Revenue Ending Lease Receivable Concession Leases $ 92,109,178 $ — $ 2,213,363 $ 10,144,674 $ 12,358,037 $ 81,964,504 Rental Car Leases 106,699,217 — 2,386,732 27,254,881 29,641,613 79,444,336 Other Property Leases 15,843,186 30,183,368 492,560 3,182,685 3,675,245 42,843,869 $ 214,651,581 $ 30,183,368 $ 5,092,655 $ 40,582,240 $ 45,674,895 $ 204,252,709 As of June 30, 2023, the lease receivable is $41,633,098 and $162,619,611 for current and non- current assets, respectively. Concession Leases The new Airport terminal and Concourse A opened in September 2020 and Concourse B opened in October 2020. At this time, all existing concession contracts were cancelled and new contracts went into effect. The Airport has 26 food and beverage locations managed by 6 operators and 33 retail locations managed by 5 operators. All food and beverage contracts are for ten years and retail contracts are for eight years. There are no options to extend. Each contract has a minimum annual guarantee SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 82 (MAG) and a variable component (percentage of gross revenues). The tenant pays the higher amount of the MAG or variable amount. MAGs were set in each contract and increase to 90% of the prior year’s rent, but cannot decrease. Based on these terms, the minimum payment will always be the initial MAG. The lease receivable is calculated using minimum payments due each year over the course of contract. The variable component is not used to calculate the lease receivable. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, all MAG payments were suspended and only the percentage rent was required. The suspension of the MAG was agreed with the tenants to last until the Airport recorded enplaned passengers at a rate of 90% of 2019 enplanements for three consecutive months. This occurred in June, July, and August 2021. Payments of MAGs were reinstated in September 2021. Also due to the pandemic, the contract termination dates for all tenants were moved to expire at the end of eight or ten years from the time the MAG payments were reinstated. All retail contracts expire on August 31, 2029, and all food and beverage contracts expire on August 31, 2031. The lease receivable was reduced, and interest recognized of $10,144,674 and $2,213,3632, respectively. The deferred inflow was also reduced by $10,144,674. The lease receivable was discounted to the net present value using the 30-year bond buyer index rate on July 1, 2021 (implementation date) of 2.53%. The Airport uses the 30-year bond buyer index rate in its Airline Use Agreement to record the return on investment on the unamortized portion of capitalized assets received from the signatory airlines. This applies to all assets with any useful life. The Airport considered this rate to be the most appropriate for leases of Airport property to match the return received from the airlines. The Airport received $15,096,659 of revenue from the variable component on top of the lease payments. Future minimum lease payments are as follows: Principal Interest 2024 $ 10,451,220 $ 1,953,142 2025 10,764,064 1,685,117 2026 10,678,786 1,412,805 2027 10,842,933 1,141,681 2028 11,079,274 864,497 2029-2033 26,084,557 1,219,824 2034-2038 2,063,670 124,628 $ 81,964,504 $ 8,401,694 Rental Car Leases As part of construction of the new airport, new rental car facilities were built. In March 2016, the Airport entered into a new ten year agreement with seven rental car agencies. Each agreement includes the rental of counter and office space, parking stalls, quick turnaround (QTA) space, QTA common space, QTA, storage space, and remote service site space. All contracts expire on February 28, 2026, and there are no options to extend. Each contract has a MAG and a variable component (10% of gross revenues), in addition to the space rentals. The tenant pays the higher amount of the MAG or variable SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 83 amount. MAGs were set in each contract and increase a minimum of 3% each year. The lease receivable is calculated using the contractual amounts for the space rental and minimum payments due for percentage rent each year over the course of contract. The variable component is not used to calculate the lease receivable. The lease receivable was reduced, and interest recognized of $27,254,881 million and $2,386,732, respectively. The deferred inflow was also reduced by $27,254,881. The lease receivable was discounted to the net present value using the 30-year bond buyer index rate on July 1, 2021 (implementation date) of 2.53%. The Airport received $6,782,490 of revenue from the variable component on top of the lease payments. Future minimum lease payments are as follows: Principal Interest 2024 $ 28,624,049 $ 1,681,435 2025 30,048,408 40,862 2026 20,771,879 197,557 $ 79,444,336 $ 1,919,854 Other Property Leases The Airport has entered into several agreements to lease space inside the airport or property on airport grounds. These agreements include ground transportation booths, rooms for communication equipment, the weather service building, space to operate the hardstand consortium, land for the post office, land for the Delta MRT Center, and land for Boeing. The termination dates for these contracts range from May 2023 to December 2039, including all options expected to be exercised. The lease receivable is calculated using the contractual amounts for the space rental. The lease receivable was reduced, and interest recognized of $3,182,685 and $492,560, respectively. The deferred inflow was also reduced by $3,182,685. The lease receivable was discounted to the net present value using the 30-year bond buyer index rate on July 1, 2021 (implementation date) of 2.53%. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 84 Future minimum lease payments are as follows: Principal Interest 2024 $ 3,916,168 $ 1,417,728 2025 4,097,606 1,300,586 2026 2,605,289 1,191,835 2027 2,212,160 1,115,469 2028 2,360,996 1,036,521 2029-2033 14,210,985 3,781,638 2034-2038 2,773,033 2,228,561 2039-2043 2,157,950 1,844,936 2044-2048 2,717,271 1,377,402 2049-053 3,892,819 761,239 2054-2055 1,899,591 73,746 $ 42,843,868 $ 16,129,661 GASB No. 87 Excluded Leases – Regulated In accordance with GASB No. 87, the Airport does not recognize a lease receivable and a deferred inflow of resources for regulated leases. Regulated leases are certain leases that are subject to external laws, regulations, or legal rulings, e.g. the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration, regulated aviation leases between airports and air carriers and other aeronautical users. Regulated leases include Airline Use Agreement Signatory Airlines, Cargo Facilities, Corporate Hangars, Flight School and Skydiving, Fixed Based Operator, FAA Space Rental, Fuel System, National Guard, and the Delta and Skywest Maintenance Hangars, as follows: Airline Use Agreement Signatory Airlines The rights, services and privileges, including the lease of preferentially-assigned gates, an airline has in connection with the use of the airport and its facilities is addressed in the Airline Use Agreement (AUA). By definition, the AUA is considered a regulated lease and does not recognize a receivable and corresponded deferred inflow of resources. The Airport and certain airlines entered into the original ten year AUA that became effective July 1, 2014 and expires on June 30, 2024. The Airport has entered into an AUA with seven (8) passenger airlines and recognized terminal, cargo ramp, federal inspection services (FIS) facilities, and passenger boarding bridge lease revenue of $72,642,425, $259,682, $2,702,067, and $1,704,417, respectively, for the year ended June 30, 2023. Cargo Facilities The Airport has entered into month-to-month agreements with 6 companies for space in cargo facilities located at the airport. Revenue from these companies was $1,001,568 for the year ended June 30, 2023. The Airport has entered into agreements with 7 additional companies for space in cargo facilities. The termination dates range from February 28, 2023 to November 8, 2045. Only one contract has SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 85 options to extend. They are on the second of 4 one-year extensions, all of which are anticipated to be used. Revenue from these companies was $883,065 for the year ended June 30, 2023. Future minimum lease payments are as follows: 2024 $ 795,756 2025 509,363 2026 486,775 2027 486,775 2028 486,775 2029-2033 1,172,624 2034-2038 1,070,360 2039-2043 1,070,360 2044-2046 327,848 $ 6,406,636 Corporate Hangars The Airport has entered into several agreements with companies for corporate hangars and the associated ground rent. Termination dates for these contracts range from April 2023 to September 2042. There are no extension options for corporate hangars. Revenue for FY 2023 from corporate hangars was $808,222. Future minimum lease payments are as follows: 2024 $ 468,221 2025 428,378 2026 410,640 2027 295,187 2028 204,799 2029-2033 772,549 2034-2038 744,656 2039-2043 695,870 $ 4,020,300 Flight School and Skydiving The Airport has entered into one agreement for skydiving and five agreements with flight schools and training. Termination dates for these contracts range from March 2023 to April 2025. Any options in the contracts are expected to be used. Revenue for FY2023 from flight schools and skydiving was $132,162. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 86 Future minimum lease payments are as follows: 2024 $ 57,936 2025 39,125 $ 97,061 Fixed Based Operator The Airport has entered into agreements with two fixed based operators to manage general aviation. Termination dates for these contracts are June 2025 and September 2042. There are no extension options for fixed based operators. Revenue for FY 2023 from fixed based operators was $1,619,515. Future minimum lease payments are as follows: 2024 $ 1,059,355 2025 989,731 2026 892,258 2027 892,258 2028 954,811 2029-2033 4,890,238 2034-2038 3,116,175 2039-2043 1,489,079 $ 14,283,905 FAA Space Rental The Airport has entered into an agreement with the FAA for space for equipment. The lease expires on September 30, 2028 and there are no options to extend. Revenue for FY 2023 from this lease was $9,448. Future minimum lease payments are as follows: 2024 $ 9,448 2025 9,448 2026 9,448 2027 9,448 2028 9,448 2029 2,362 $ 49,602 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 87 Fuel System The Airport has entered into an agreement with a company to lease and operate the fuel system. The lease expires on December 31, 2040 with an option to extend 5 years. The option is expected to be exercised. Revenue for FY 2023 from the fuel system lease was $2,250,174. Future minimum lease payments are as follows: 2024 $ 1,820,680 2025 1,829,497 2026 1,838,578 2027 1,847,932 2028 1,857,567 2029-2033 9,442,777 2034-2038 9,730,883 2039-2041 4,985,754 $ 33,353,668 National Guard The Airport has entered into agreements with the Utah Air National Guard at Salt Lake City International Airport and the Utah National Guard at South Valley Regional Airport. Termination dates for these contracts are December 31, 2028 and December 31 2045, respectively. There are no extension options. Revenue for FY 2023 from these contracts was $156,794. Future minimum lease payments are as follows: 2024 $ 156,794 2025 156,794 2026 156,794 2027 156,794 2028 156,794 2029-2033 466,747 2034-2038 431,500 2039-2043 431,500 2044-2046 215,750 $ 2,329,467 Delta and Skywest Maintenance Hangars The Airport has entered into agreements with Delta and Skywest for their maintenance hangars and associated ground rent. Delta’s agreement expired on May 31, 2023 and a new 10 year agreement was entered into on June 1, 2023, expiring on May 31, 2033, with no option to extend. Skywest’s agreement expires on November 18, 2027 with an option to extend 10 years. As of October 16, 2023, it SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 88 is unknown if Skywest will exercise the option. Revenue for FY 2023 from the maintenance hangars was $3,097,952. Future minimum lease payments are as follows: 2024 $ 4,017,031 2025 4,058,205 2026 4,100,616 2027 4,144,298 2028 3,813,577 2029-2033 11,038,354 $ 31,172,081 GASB No. 87 Excluded Leases – Short-term In accordance with GASB No. 87, the Airport does not recognize a lease receivable and a deferred inflow of resources for leases short-term leases. Short-term leases are certain leases that, at the commencement of the lease term, has a maximum possible term under the lease contract of 12 months (or less), including any options to extend, regardless of their probability of being exercised. Month-to- month leases are considered short-term. On various dates, the Airport entered into month-to-month agreements with several offsite rental car agencies. Revenue of $2,806,019 was recorded in the year ended June 30, 2023. On various dates, the Airport entered into several month-to-month agreements for Airport property and land. Revenue of $2,839,251 was recorded in the year ended June 30, 2023. Lessor Agreements - Utilities The Utilities has leased land to various parties. The estimated carrying value of the parcels or partial parcels of land related to the lease agreements on June 30, 2023, was $512,288. For the years ended June 30, 2023, the Utilities earned a total of $66,582 in lease revenue and $106,915 in lease interest revenue, respectively. As of June 30, 2023, the Utilities anticipate receiving the following amounts from Lessees in satisfaction of amounts receivable as of that date: SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 89 Principal Interest 2024 $ 73,690 $ 104,897 2025 81,339 102,602 2026 89,425 100,071 2027 96,098 97,292 2028 84,171 94,611 2029-2033 564,123 427,798 2034-2038 772,271 326,753 2039-2043 721,976 207,675 2044-2048 667,013 102,521 2049-2051 342,846 16,078 $ 3,492,952 $ 1,580,298 Lessor Agreements - RDA The Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (RDA) has accrued a receivable for three parking structure leases. The remaining receivable for these leases was $25,283,294 for the year ended June 30, 2023. Deferred inflows related to these leases were $24,326,002 as of June 30, 2022. Interest revenue recognized on these leases was $897,970 for the year ended June 30, 2023. Principal receipts of $393,438 were recognized during the fiscal year. The interest rate on the leases is 3.5%. Final receipt is expected in fiscal year 2052. As of June 30, 2023, the RDA anticipates the following payments on lease receivables: Fiscal Year Ended June 30, Principal Interest 2024 $ 392,417 $ 884,367 2025 406,508 870,276 2026 458,233 855,085 2027 475,701 838,638 2028 492,737 821,602 2029-2033 3,026,961 3,810,403 2034-2038 3,829,401 3,701,373 2039-2043 4,725,443 3,586,401 2044-2048 6,062,344 3,464,495 2049-2052 5,413,547 3,337,023 Total $ 25,283,292 $ 22,169,663 Lessee Agreements Salt Lake City leases several buildings in the city. In association with these leases, the City recorded right to use assets and lease liabilities of $8,319,367 as of July 1, 2021. The City is required to make annual principal and interest payments and the leases expire at various dates from April 2027 to SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 90 September 2041. The leases carry interest rates ranging from 1.8% to 4.2%. As of June 30, 2023, the lease liability was $6,828,169. During FY 2023, the City paid principal on the lease and reduced the lease liability by $770,117, recorded implied interest expense of $194,201, and recorded amortization expense of $869,043. Future minimum lease payments are as follows: Principal Interest 2024 $ 801,855 $ 171,695 2025 834,270 148,078 2026 869,397 123,295 2027 905,866 97,271 2028 495,128 74,137 2029-2033 1,326,968 200,425 2034-2038 937,678 104,162 2039-2042 657,007 20,189 $ 6,828,169 $ 939,252 The Airport leases a building near the airport for ground transportation operations and inspections. The lease began on December 1, 2007 and expired December 31, 2022. An amendment to extend the agreement was signed in August 2022 for an additional 5 years, expiring on December 31, 2027. During FY 2023, the Airport paid principal on the lease and reduced the lease liability by $98,188, recorded implied interest expense of $10,498, and recorded amortization expense of $105,565. Future minimum lease payments are as follows: Principal Interest 2024 $ 88,020 $ 16,932 2025 96,407 13,255 2026 104,802 9,246 2027 113,718 4,893 2028 59,769 699 $ 462,716 $ 45,025 Deferred Inflows and outflows of resources - Leases In accordance with GASB No. 87, the Airport recognizes a lease receivable and a deferred inflow of resources for leases the Airport categorizes as GASB No. 87 - Included. For these leases, the Airport is reporting Deferred Inflows of $204,252,709 as of June 30, 2023, and reported deferred lease SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 91 revenue of $40,582,240. These GASB No. 87 - Included leases for the year ended June 30, 2023 are summarized below: Beginning Deferred Inflows Additional Deferred Inflows Deferred Revenue Recognized Ending Deferred Inflows Concession Leases $ 92,109,178 $ — $ (10,144,674) $ 81,964,504 Rental Car Leases 106,699,217 —(27,254,881)79,444,336 Other Property Leases 15,843,186 30,183,368 (3,182,685)42,843,869 $ 214,651,581 $ 30,183,368 $ (40,582,240) $ 204,252,709 8. Subscription Asset During FY 2023, the City implemented GASB Statement No. 96 – Subscription-Based IT Arrangements. The City recognizes a right-to-use asset (subscription asset) at the commencement of the subscription term, with certain exceptions for short-term contracts. The subscription asset is measured as the sum of the following: (a) the amount of the initial measurement of the subscription liability, (b) payment associated with the contract made to the vendor at the commencement of the subscription term, and (c) capitalizable initial implementation costs. The City recognizes a subscription asset at the commencement of the subscription term, with certain exceptions for short-term contracts. The subscription asset is measured as the initial measurement of the subscription liability plus the capitalizable initial implementation costs. A subscription asset should be amortized in a systematic and rational manner over the shorter of the subscription term or the useful life of the underlying IT Asset and the City uses the straight-line method of amortization. Beginning Subscription Asset Additions Deletions Ending Subscription Asset Subscription Asset $ 10,405,778 $ — $ — $ 10,405,778 Accumulated Amortization —(792,859)—(792,859) Net Subscription Asset $ 10,405,778 $ (792,859) $ — $ 9,612,919 The Airport recognized six contracts as subscription-based IT arrangements. They include contracts for map solutions in the SLCDA app and website, passenger boarding bridge maintenance systems, a DBE database, an enterprise asset management system, flight data for Airport Operations, and flight information for public viewing. All contracts but one have options to extend, and all are intended to be used. Expiration dates (including anticipated options to extend) range from December 2024 to June 2030. Rates change based on terms in each contract and rate changes are considered in the calculation of the subscription liability. There are no variable components related to any of the contracts. On July 1, 2022 (implementation date), the Airport recognized a subscription asset of $3,478,100. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 92 Beginning Subscription Asset Additions Deletions Ending Subscription Asset Subscription Asset $ 3,478,100 $ 219,368 $ — $ 3,697,469 Accumulated Amortization —(1,067,514)—(1,067,514) Net Subscription Asset $ 3,478,100 $ (848,146) $ — $ 2,629,955 The Utilities recognized three subscription-based information technology agreements (SBITAs) including work order IT, customer service IT, and compliance management IT. The Utilities are required to make payments through fiscal year 2030 under the SBITAs. On July 1, 2022 (implementation date), the Utilities recognized a subscription asset of $1,573,052. Beginning Subscription Asset Additions Deletions Ending Subscription Asset Subscription Asset $ 1,573,053 $ — $ — $ 1,573,053 Accumulated Amortization —(155,076)—(155,076) Net Subscription Asset $ 1,573,053 $ (155,076) $ — $ 1,417,977 9. Subscription Liability In accordance with GASB No. 96, the City recognizes a subscription liability at the commencement of the subscription term. The subscription liability is measured at the present value of subscription payments expected to be made during the subscription term. Subscription liabilities represent the City’s obligation to make subscription payments arising from the subscription contract. Subscription liabilities are recognized at the subscription commencement date based on the present value of future subscription payments expected to be made during the subscription term. The present value of subscription payments is discounted based on a borrowing rate determined by the City. All contracts with a recognized subscription asset also have a corresponding subscription liability and the same contract terms apply. Beginning Subscription Liability Additions Implied Interest Expense Liability Deduction Annual Subscription Payment Ending Subscription Liability Subscription Liability $ 10,405,778 $ — $ 433,921 $ 1,330,488 $ 1,764,409 $ 9,075,290 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 93 Future minimum subscription payments are as follows: Principal Interest 2024 $ 1,400,076 $ 378,440 2025 1,492,995 320,056 2026 1,084,994 257,799 2027 1,157,096 212,554 2028 1,232,739 164,303 2029 2,707,390 171,082 $ 9,075,290 $ 1,504,234 The Airport subscription liability was discounted to the net present value using the 30-year bond buyer index rate on July 1, 2022 (implementation date) of 3.82%. The Airport uses the 30-year bond buyer index rate in its Airline Use Agreement to record the return on investment on the unamortized portion of capitalized assets received from the signatory airlines. This applies to all assets with any useful life. The Airport considered this rate to be the most appropriate for subscription-based contracts. The other rate available to the Airport is our borrowing rate on bond issuances. Using that rate would yield an immaterial difference from the bond buyer index rate. Beginning Subscription Liability Additions Implied Interest Expense Liability Deduction Annual Subscription Payment Ending Subscription Liability Subscription Liability $ 2,018,030 $ — $ 65,521 $ 565,709 $ 631,230 $ 1,452,321 Future minimum subscription payments are as follows: Principal Interest 2024 $ 608,732 $ 44,931 2025 528,099 22,009 2026 125,657 9,098 2027 67,250 5,941 2028 41,106 3,926 2029-2030 81,477 3,282 $ 1,452,321 $ 89,187 The Utilities subscription liability was valued using discount rates between 2.9% and 3.8% based on the Utilities’ incremental borrowing rate at the inception of each subscription agreement. Beginning Subscription Liability Additions Implied Interest Expense Liability Deduction Annual Subscription Payment Ending Subscription Liability Subscription Liability $ 1,573,052 $ — $ 41,471 $ 459,670 $ 193,095 $ 1,113,382 Future minimum subscription payments are as follows: SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 94 Principal Interest 2024 $ 147,719 $ 24,059 2025 224,194 25,209 2026 226,118 17,785 2027 239,583 10,075 2028 89,236 5,927 2029-2030 186,532 2,951 $ 1,113,382 $ 86,006 10. Fund Equity Non-spendable amounts represent the portion of fund balance that is not in a spendable form or are contractually required to remain unspent. Receivables and prepaid items are classified as non- spendable. Restricted amounts represent that portion of fund balance or net position that is legally restricted for the payment of debt service, operations and maintenance, renewal and replacement of property and equipment. Debt service and funds restricted by state or federal agencies are included in this category. The largest are impact fees and class C funds which are regulated by the state. Encumbrances, for homeless services, housing, transit and other social services, are used in the General Fund and are included in this category and reflect ongoing contractual obligations that we consider to be legally restricted for operations across all general fund departments. Committed amounts represent the portion of fund balance that can only be used for specific purposes that requires specific action by the highest decision making authority. The City Council is the highest decision making authority and approves all budgets and uses of fund balances by ordinance in official meetings designated to perform such duties. Assigned amounts represent the portion of fund balance that are intended to be used for a specific purpose but are not restricted or committed. Unassigned amounts represent residual balances in the General Fund. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 95 The table below shows a detail of the fund balance categories. Capital Nonmajor General Projects Other Governmental Fund Funds Improvement Funds Total Fund Balances: Nonspendable: Taxes and loans receivable, and prepaid items $ 2,484,423 $ — $ 124,356 $ 23,731 $ 2,632,510 Restricted for: Class C Roads — 13,942,441 — — 13,942,441 Debt Service — — 13,325,004 — 13,325,004 Misc Capital Projects — 111,001,994 — — 111,001,994 Impact Fees — 51,755,996 — — 51,755,996 Grants — 2,984,325 — 6,556,036 9,540,361 Community Development — — — 97,574 97,574 Emergency 911 — — — 850,330 850,330 Transportation — 15,041,819 — 6,927,057 21,968,876 DEA Metro Narcotic Task Force — — — 587,858 587,858 Encumbrances 21,157,932 — — — 21,157,932 Total restricted 21,157,932 194,726,575 13,325,004 15,018,855 244,228,366 Committed: Weed demolition and forfeiture — — — 198,999 198,999 Emergency 911 — — — 5,822,936 5,822,936 Debt Service — — — 168,217 168,217 Total committed — — — 6,190,152 6,190,152 Assigned to: Misc Capital Projects — 62,853,690 — — 62,853,690 Arts Council — — — 876,360 876,360 Downtown economic development — — — 2,405,272 2,405,272 Street lighting special districts — — — 599,972 599,972 Weed demolition and forfeiture — — — 1,154,144 1,154,144 Donations — — — 3,838,857 3,838,857 DEA Metro Narcotic Task Force — — — 449,503 449,503 Total assigned — 62,853,690 — 9,324,108 72,177,798 Unassigned: 178,933,386 — — — 178,933,386 Total fund balances $ 202,575,741 $ 257,580,265 $ 13,449,360 $ 30,556,846 $ 504,162,212 11. General Fund Interfund Service Charges The General Fund charges certain proprietary and special revenue funds, the Capital Projects Fund and the Library component unit for various services. These transactions have been recorded as revenue and expenses or expenditures to the funds as if they involved organizations external to the City, which are generally eliminated for the government wide statements. The amounts of the charges to those funds for the year ended June 30, 2023, are as shown in the table below: SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 96 General Fund charges for: Fire Police Engineering Administrative protection protection and other Enterprise funds:services services services services Total Water Utility $ 1,040,964 $ — $ — $ 2,781 $ 1,043,745 Sewer Utility 660,902 — — — 660,902 Storm Water Utility 188,136 — — 118,000 306,136 Street Lighting 45,389 — — — 45,389 Airport 1,955,636 7,165,500 10,635,967 — 19,757,103 Refuse Collection 384,085 — — 5,976 390,061 Golf — — — 452 452 Redevelopment Agency 1,110,000 — — 35,178 1,145,178 Internal service funds: Fleet Management 465,018 — — — 465,018 Information Management 409,258 — — — 409,258 Governmental Immunity 166,021 — — — 166,021 Risk Management 154,500 — — — 154,500 Special revenue funds Donations — — — 2,058 2,058 Capital Projects Fund — — — 549,960 549,960 Subtotal, primary government 6,579,909 7,165,500 10,635,967 714,405 25,095,781 Component unit - Library — — — — — Total reporting entity $ 6,579,909 $ 7,165,500 $ 10,635,967 $ 714,405 $ 25,095,781 12. Transfers Transfers were made to and from several funds during the course of the year ended June 30, 2023. The principal reason for transfers is to provide the receiving fund resources to carry out the activities for which the receiving fund was created. The more significant examples are transfers from the General Fund to the Capital Projects Fund, to Fleet Management for the purchase of governmental fund vehicles, Other Improvement Fund for Debt Service and to Governmental Immunity to pay general liability claims. Also, Redevelopment Agency to Debt Service Funds provide resources to make scheduled principal and interest payments. The table on the following page show the detail of transfers. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 97 Transfer in to: Capital Other Nonmajor Nonmajor Internal Transfers out from:General Projects Improvements Water Storm Water RDA Governmental Proprietary Service Total General Fund $ — $ 31,617,805 $ 7,158,428 $ 300,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 22,134,598 $ 300,000 $ 3,840,500 $ 13,765,925 $ 81,117,256 Capital Projects 7,700,000 — 184,341 — — — — — — 7,884,341 Airport 264,088 — — — — — — — — 264,088 Other Improvements — — — — — 1,000,000 — — — 1,000,000 Redevelopment — — — — — — — 622,448 — 622,448 2 2 4 4 Nonmajor Governmental 43,732,555 8,020,000 1,100,000 — — — — 396,741 — 53,249,296 Nonmajor Proprietary 126,012 — 272,427 — — 115,750 — — — 514,189 Internal Service — — 291,434 — — — — — — 291,434 $ 51,822,655 $ 39,637,805 $ 9,006,630 $ 300,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 23,250,348 $ 300,000 $ 4,859,689 $ 13,765,925 $ 144,943,052 13. Risk Management The City is self-insured for liability claims, except liability incurred at the Airport. The Airport carries commercial general liability insurance with a $500,000,000 limit and $0 deductible. The Governmental Immunity Fund (an internal service fund) has been established solely to pay liability claims other than those at the Airport along with certain related City Attorney expenses. The City carries cyber and technology liability insurance with a $5,000,000 per occurrence and aggregate limit with a $500,000 retention. The City is self-insured for workers’ compensation and carries excess workers’ compensation insurance with statutory limits over the self-insured retention of $1,000,000 per occurrence. Further, the City is self-insured for unemployment risk. The Risk Management Fund (an internal service fund) has been established to pay these claims along with health insurance premiums and certain administrative expenses. During the past three fiscal years, there have been no settlements that exceeded insurance coverage. The City and Airport carry separate all risk property insurance policies, summarized below: City: $500,000,000 aggregate limit with a $100,000 deductible, with the following exceptions: the flood deductible is $250,000 except for three properties located outside the standard report zone, which carry a $500,000 deductible; earth movement deductible is one percent (1%) per location subject to $100,000 minimum and $5,000,000 maximum per location; the Leonardo building has a $10,000 deductible. Sub-limits apply as follows: (1) earth movement $125,000,000 limit; (2) flood $100,000,000 limit; (3) Mountain Dell Dam and appurtenant structures $60,000,000 aggregate limit with $30,000,000 sub-limit for all other dams; (4) fine art coverage $100,000,000 limit. The City is self-insured for property loss above the limits and below the deductibles. The operating departments of the General Fund or proprietary funds assume financial responsibility for risk retained by the City for property damage. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 98 Airport: $1,000,000,000 with a $100,000 deductible. Sub-limits and deductible exceptions apply as follows: (1) earth movement is $100,000,000 with a deductible of one percent (1%) of Total Insured Values at the time of the loss at each covered location involved in the loss or damage, subject to a minimum of $100,000 deductible and maximum of $5,000,000 and flood coverage is $150,000,000 sub- limit with a deductible of $100,000 minimum, $5,000,000 maximum; (2) $1,000,000,000 windstorm or hail five percent (5%) of Total Insured Values at the time of the loss at each covered location involved in the loss or damage, subject to a minimum of $250,000 any one occurrence for all covered loss or damage arising out of named storm (3) business interruption and extra expense coverage of $200,000,000 with a $100,000 deductible. Terrorism, certified and non-certified acts, is not covered. The Treasurer, Deputy Treasurer, and Director of Finance are each covered by public official bonds in the amount of $10,000,000, with no deductible. The City has a government crime policy that provides public employee dishonesty coverage (an employee blanket bond) covering (1) employee theft with $1,000,000 limit and $20,000 deductible; (2) computer fraud with $1,000,000 limit and $20,000 deductible; (3) funds transfer fraud with $1,000,000 limit and $20,000 deductible; (4) theft of money and securities with $50,000 limit and $2,500 deductible; (5) money orders and counterfeit paper currency with $50,000 limit and $2,500 deductible; (6) forgery and alteration with $25,000 limit and $1,000 deductible. Changes in the estimated claims payable liability carried in the accrued liabilities of the Risk Management Fund since July 1, 2020 are shown in the table below: Current year Beginning of claims and Balance at Estimated fiscal year changes in Claim fiscal year due in one liability estimates payments end year 2020-2021 Workers' compensation $ 3,411,000 $ 2,904,672 $ (2,611,672) $ 3,704,000 Unemployment compensation 133,191 131,262 (131,261) 133,192 $ 3,544,191 $ 3,035,934 $ (2,742,933) $ 3,837,192 2021-2022 Workers' compensation $ 3,704,000 $ 1,296,441 $ (1,557,773) $ 3,442,668 Unemployment compensation 133,192 141,053 (141,054) 133,191 $ 3,837,192 $ 1,437,494 $ (1,698,827) $ 3,575,859 2022-2023 Workers' compensation $ 3,442,668 $ 1,874,009 $ (1,828,252) $ 3,488,425 $ 963,602 Unemployment compensation 133,191 (27,877) (86,684) 18,630 18,630 $ 3,575,859 $ 1,846,132 $ (1,914,936) $ 3,507,055 $ 982,232 A liability is recorded for any claims or judgments when information available prior to issuance of the financial statements indicates it is probable that a liability has been incurred at the date of the financial statements and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Incurred but not reported events, if any, are included in the statements. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 99 14. Pension Plans Identification - The City participates in one cost sharing multiple employer public employee retirement system (PERS) and one multiple-employer agent PERS. These are defined benefit retirement plans covering public employees of the State of Utah and employees of participating local governmental entities. The systems are administered under the direction of the Utah State Retirement Board whose members are appointed by the governor of Utah. Plan description: Eligible plan participants are provided with pensions through the Utah Retirement Systems. The Utah Retirement Systems are comprised of the following pension trust funds: • Public Employees Noncontributory Retirement System (Noncontributory System); Public Employees Contributory Retirement System (Contributory System); Firefighters Retirement System (Firefighters System); are multiple employee public employees retirement systems. • The Public Safety Retirement System (Public Safety System) is an agent multiple-employer retirement system. • Tier 2 Public Employees Contributory Retirement System (Tier 2 Public Employees System); and the Tier 2 Public Safety and Firefighter Contributory Retirement System (Tier 2 Public Safety and Firefighters System) are multiple employer cost sharing public employees retirement systems. The Tier 2 Public Employees System became effective July 1, 2011. All eligible employees beginning on or after July 1, 2011 who have no previous service credit with any of the Utah Retirement Systems, are member of the Tier 2 Retirement System. The Utah Retirement Systems (Systems) are established and governed by the respective sections of Title 49 of the Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended. The Systems' defined benefit plans are amended statutorily by the State Legislature. The Utah State Retirement Office Act in Title 49 provides for the administration of the Systems under the direction of the Board, whose members are appointed by the Governor. The Systems are fiduciary funds defined as pension (and other employee benefit) trust funds. URS is a component unit of the State of Utah. Title 49 of the Utah Code grants the authority to establish and amend the benefit terms. URS issues a publicly available financial report that can be obtained by writing Utah Retirement Systems, 560 E. 200 S, Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 or visiting the website: www.urs.org. The liability for pension-related debt in the governmental activities is primarily liquidated by the general fund with a minimal portion liquidated by the internal service funds (Fleet Management, Information Management Services, Risk Management, and Governmental Immunity.) SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 100 Benefits provided: URS provides retirement, disability, and death benefits. Retirement benefits are as follows: System Final Average Salary Years of service required and/or age eligible for benefit Benefit percent per year of service COLA** Noncontributory System Highest 3 years 30 years any age 2.0% per year all years Up to 4% 25 years any age* 20 years age 60* 10 years age 62* 4 years age 65 Contributory System Highest 5 years 30 years any age 1.25% per year to June 1975: Up to 4% 20 years age 60* 2.00% per year July 1975 10 years age 62* to present 4 years age 65 Public Safety System Highest 3 years 20 years any age 2.5% per year up to 20 years; Up to 2.5% to 4% 10 years age 60 2.0% per year over 20 years depending on the 4 years age 65 employer Firefighters System Highest 3 years 20 years any age 2.5% per year up to 20 years;Up to 4% 10 years age 60 2.0% per year over 20 years 4 years age 65 Tier 2 Public Employees Highest 5 years 35 years any age 1.5% per year all years Up to 2.5% System 20 years age 60* 10 years age 62* 4 years age 65 Tier 2 Public Safety and Firefighter Highest 5 years 25 years any age 1.5% per year to June 30, 2020 Up to 2.5% System 20 years age 60* 2% per year July 1, 2020 to present 10 years age 62* 4 years age 65 *actuarial reductions are applied ** All post-retirement cost-of-living adjustments are non-compounding and are based on the original benefit except for Judges, which is a compounding benefit. The cost-of-living adjustments are also limited to the actual Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase for the year, although unused CPI increases not met may be carried forward to subsequent years. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 101 Contributions: As a condition of participation in the Systems, employers and/or employees are required to contribute certain percentages of salary and wages as authorized by statute and specified by the Utah Retirement Systems Board. Contributions are actuarially determined as an amount that, when combined with employee contributions (where applicable) is expected to finance the costs of benefits earned by employees during the year, with an additional amount to finance any unfunded actuarial accrued liability. Contributions rates as of June 30, 2023 are as follows: Utah Retirement Systems Employee Paid Paid by Employer for Employee Employer Contribution Rates Employer Rate for 401(k) Plan Contributory System 11 - Local Governmental Division Tier 1 N/A 6.00 % 13.96 %N/A 111- Local Governmental Division Tier 2 N/A N/A 16.01 % 0.18 % Noncontributory System 15 - Local Governmental Division Tier 1 N/A N/A 17.97 %N/A Public Safety Retirement System 44 - Other Division A Noncontributory Tier 1 N/A N/A 46.71 %N/A 122 - Other Division A Contributory Tier 2 N/A 2.59 % 38.28 %N/A Firefighters System 32 - Division B Tier 1 N/A 16.71 % 6.24 %N/A 132 - Division B Tier 2 N/A 2.59 % 14.08 %N/A Tier 2 DC Only 211 - Local Government N/A N/A 6.19 % 10.00 % 222 - Public Safety N/A N/A 24.28 % 14.00 % 232 - Firefighters N/A N/A 0.08 % 14.00 % Tier 2 rates include a statutory required contribution to finance the unfunded actuarial accrued liability of the Tier 1 plans. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 102 For fiscal year ended June 30, 2023, the employer and employee contributions to the Systems were as follows: Employee Contributions System Employer Contributions paid by Employer Noncontributory System $ 13,669,162 $ 79 Contributory System 209,380 89,990 Public Safety System 13,146,106 — Firefighters System 1,301,449 3,485,176 Tier 2 Public Employees System 11,675,940 — Tier 2 Public Safety and Firefighter 6,537,069 544,461 Tier 2 DC Only System 1,325,692 — Tier 2 DC Public Safety and Firefighter System 698,569 62 Total Contributions $ 48,563,367 $ 4,119,768 Contributions reported are the URS Board approved required contributions by System. Contributions in the Tier 2 Systems are used to finance the unfunded liabilities in the Tier 1 Systems. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 103 Combined Pension Assets, Liabilities, Expense, and Deferred Outflows and Inflows of Resources Relating to Pensions At June 30, 2023, the City reported a net pension asset of $32,243,802 and a net pension liability of $83,780,501. Net Pension Asset Net Pension Liability Proportionate Share December 31, 2022 Proportionate Share December 31, 2021 Change (Decrease) Noncontributory System $ — $ 16,621,860 9.70 % 9.91 % (0.21) % Contributory System — 1,106,542 10.76 % 10.43 % 0.33 % Public Safety System — 62,282,792 100.00 % 100.00 % — % Firefighters System 32,243,802 — 25.62 % 26.65 % (1.03) % Tier 2 Public Employees System — 3,252,994 2.99 % 2.79 % 0.20 % Tier 2 Public Safety and Firefighter System — 516,314 6.19 % 5.80 % 0.39 % Total Net Pension Asset/ Liability $ 32,243,802 $ 83,780,501 The net pension asset and liability was measured as of December 31, 2022, and the total pension liability used to calculate the net pension asset and liability was determined by an actuarial valuation as of January 1, 2022 and rolled forward using generally accepted actuarial procedures. The proportion of the net pension asset and liability is equal to the ratio of the employer's actual contributions to the Systems during the plan year over the total of all employer contributions to the System during the plan year. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 104 For the year ended June 30, 2023, we recognized pension expense of $22,042,686. At June 30, 2023, we reported deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions from the following sources: Deferred Outflows of Resources Deferred Inflows of Resources Differences between expected and actual experience $ 10,322,268 $ 496,851 Changes in assumptions 7,384,109 126,362 Net difference between projected and actual earnings on pension plan investments 24,922,613 — Changes in proportion and differences between contributions and proportionate share of contributions 1,805,173 411,445 Contributions subsequent to the measurement date 24,810,804 — Total $ 69,244,968 $ 1,034,658 There is $24,810,804 reported as deferred outflows of resources related to pensions resulting from contributions made by us prior to our fiscal year end, but subsequent to the measurement date of December 31, 2022. These contributions will be recognized as a reduction of the net pension liability in fiscal 2023. Other amounts reported as deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions will be recognized in pension expense as follows: Deferred Outflows (Inflows) of Resources Year ended December 31, 2023 $ (8,414,321) 2024 895,792 2025 10,655,907 2026 38,605,140 2027 313,911 Thereafter $ 1,343,078 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 105 Noncontributory System Pension Expense, and Deferred Outflows and Inflows of Resources For the year ended June 30, 2023, recognized pension expense of $7,538,784. At June 30, 2023, we reported deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions from the following sources: Deferred Outflows of Resources Deferred Inflows of Resources Differences between expected and actual experience $ 5,637,888 $ — Changes in assumptions 2,724,102 66,372 Net difference between projected and actual earnings on pension plan investments 10,963,943 — Changes in proportion and differences between contributions and proportionate share of contributions — 121,244 Contributions subsequent to the measurement date 6,821,561 — Total $ 26,147,494 $ 187,616 There is $6,821,561 reported as deferred outflows of resources related to pensions resulting from contributions made by us prior to our fiscal year end, but subsequent to the measurement date of December 31, 2022. These contributions will be recognized as a reduction of the net pension liability in fiscal 2023. Other amounts reported as deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions will be recognized in pension expense as follows: Deferred Outflows (Inflows) of Resources Year ended December 31, 2023 $ (2,550,663) 2024 447,884 2025 4,403,791 2026 16,837,305 2027 — Thereafter — SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 106 Contributory System Pension Expense, and Deferred Outflows and Inflows of Resources For the year ended June 30, 2023, recognized pension expense of $2,357,203. At June 30, 2023, we reported deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions from the following sources: Deferred Outflows of Resources Deferred Inflows of Resources Differences between expected and actual experience $ — $ — Changes in assumptions — — Net difference between projected and actual earnings on pension plan investments 329,883 — — Changes in proportion and differences between contributions and proportionate share of contributions — — Contributions subsequent to the measurement date 103,533 — Total $ 433,416 $ — There is $103,533 reported as deferred outflows of resources related to pensions resulting from contributions made by us prior to our fiscal year end, but subsequent to the measurement date of December 31, 2022 . These contributions will be recognized as a reduction of the net pension liability in fiscal 2023. Other amounts reported as deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions will be recognized in pension expense as follows: Deferred Outflows (Inflows) of Resources Year ended December 31, 2023 $ (936,484) 2024 (279,812) 2025 253,697 2026 1,292,482 2027 — Thereafter — SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 107 Public Safety System Pension Expense, and Deferred Outflows and Inflows of Resources For the year ended June 30, 2023, recognized pension expense of $8,808,230. At June 30, 2023, we reported deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions from the following sources: Deferred Outflows of Resources Deferred Inflows of Resources Differences between expected and actual experience $ 1,783,690 $ 155,194 Changes in assumptions 1,047,161 — Net difference between projected and actual earnings on pension plan investments 6,281,381 — Changes in proportion and differences between contributions and proportionate share of contributions — — Contributions subsequent to the measurement date 6,697,518 — Total $ 15,809,750 $ 155,194 There is $6,697,518 reported as deferred outflows of resources related to pensions resulting from contributions made by us prior to our fiscal year end, but subsequent to the measurement date of December 31, 2022 . These contributions will be recognized as a reduction of the net pension liability in fiscal 2023. Other amounts reported as deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions will be recognized in pension expense as follows: Deferred Outflows (Inflows) of Resources Year ended December 31, 2023 $ (2,857,972) 2024 (781,239) 2025 2,583,175 2026 10,013,074 2027 — Thereafter — SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 108 Firefighters System Pension Expense, and Deferred Outflows and Inflows of Resources For the year ended June 30, 2023, recognized pension expense of $(5,139,602). At June 30, 2023, we reported deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions from the following sources: Deferred Outflows of Resources Deferred Inflows of Resources Differences between expected and actual experience $ 1,552,888 $ 41,374 Changes in assumptions 2,230,238 — Net difference between projected and actual earnings on pension plan investments 5,500,207 — Changes in proportion and differences between contributions and proportionate share of contributions 1,120,410 100,387 Contributions subsequent to the measurement date 644,108 — Total $ 11,047,851 $ 141,761 There is $644,108 reported as deferred outflows of resources related to pensions resulting from contributions made by us prior to our fiscal year end, but subsequent to the measurement date of December 31, 2022 . These contributions will be recognized as a reduction of the net pension liability in fiscal 2023. Other amounts reported as deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions will be recognized in pension expense as follows: Deferred Outflows (Inflows) of Resources Year ended December 31, 2023 $ (2,305,282) 2024 1,009,882 2025 2,622,181 2026 8,935,201 2027 — Thereafter — SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 109 Tier 2 Public Employees System Pension Expense, and Deferred Outflows and Inflows of Resources For the year ended June 30, 2023, we recognized pension expense of $6,236,870. At June 30, 2023, we reported deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions from the following sources: Deferred Outflows of Resources Deferred Inflows of Resources Differences between expected and actual experience $ 1,098,741 $ 129,065 Changes in assumptions 1,056,077 8,275 Net difference between projected and actual earnings on pension plan investments 1,311,502 — Changes in proportion and differences between contributions and proportionate share of contributions 581,526 142,691 Contributions subsequent to the measurement date 6,788,899 — Total $ 10,836,745 $ 280,031 There is $6,788,899 reported as deferred outflows of resources related to pensions resulting from contributions made by us prior to our fiscal year end, but subsequent to the measurement date of December 31, 2022 . These contributions will be recognized as a reduction of the net pension liability in fiscal 2023. Other amounts reported as deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions will be recognized in pension expense as follows: Deferred Outflows (Inflows) of Resources Year ended December 31, 2023 $ 187,219 2024 393,856 2025 625,449 2026 1,184,668 2027 281,809 Thereafter 1,094,812 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 110 Tier 2 Public Safety and Firefighter Pension Expense, and Deferred Outflows and Inflows of Resources For the year ended June 30, 2023, recognized pension expense of $2,241,201. At June 30, 2023, we reported deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions from the following sources: Deferred Outflows of Resources Deferred Inflows of Resources Differences between expected and actual experience $ 249,063 $ 171,218 Changes in assumptions 326,531 51,715 Net difference between projected and actual earnings on pension plan investments 535,697 — Changes in proportion and differences between contributions and proportionate share of contributions 103,238 47,123 Contributions subsequent to the measurement date 3,755,185 — Total $ 4,969,714 $ 270,056 There is $3,755,185 reported as deferred outflows of resources related to pensions resulting from contributions made by us prior to our fiscal year end, but subsequent to the measurement date of December 31, 2022 . These contributions will be recognized as a reduction of the net pension liability in fiscal 2023. Other amounts reported as deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions will be recognized in pension expense as follows: Deferred Outflows (Inflows) of Resources Year ended December 31, 2023 $ 48,861 2024 106,221 2025 167,614 2026 342,410 2027 32,102 Thereafter 248,263 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 111 Actuarial assumptions: The total pension liability in the December 31, 2022 actuarial valuation was determined using the following actuarial assumptions, applied to all periods included in the measurement: Inflation 2.50 Percent Salary increases 3.25 - 9.25 percent, average, including inflation Investment rate of return 6.85 percent, net of pension plan investment expenses, including inflation. Mortality rates were adopted from an actuarial experience study dated January 1, 2020. The retired mortality tables are developed using URS retiree experience and are based upon gender, occupation, and age as appropriate with projected improvement using 80% of the ultimate rates from the MP-2019 improvement assumption using a base year of 2020. The mortality assumption for active members is the PUB-2010 Employees Mortality Table for public employees, teachers, and public safety members, respectively. The actuarial assumptions used in the January 1, 2022, valuation were based on an experience study of the demographic assumptions as of January 1, 2020, and a review of economic assumptions as of January 1, 2021. The long-term expected rate of return on pension plan investments was determined using a building-block method in which best-estimate rages of expected future real rates of return (expected returns, net of pension plan investment expense and inflation) are developed for each major asset class. These ranges are combined to produce the long-term expected rate of return by weighting the expected future real rates of return by the target asset allocation percentage and by adding expected inflation. The target allocation and best estimates of arithmetic real rates of return for each major asset class are summarized in the following table: SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 112 Expected Return Arithmetic Basis Asset class Target Asset Allocation Real Return Arithmetic Basis Long-Term expected portfolio real rate of return Equity securities 35.00 % 6.58 % 2.30 % Debt securities 20.00 % 1.08 % 0.22 % Real assets 18.00 % 5.72 % 1.03 % Private equity 12.00 % 9.80 % 1.18 % Absolute return 15.00 % 2.91 % 0.44 % Cash and cash equivalents — % (0.11) % — % Totals 100 % 5.17 % Inflation 2.50 % Expected arithmetic nominal return 7.67 % The 6.85% assumed investment rate of return is comprised of an inflation rate of 2.5%, and a real return of 4.35% that is net of investment expense. Discount rate: The discount rate used to measure the total pension liability was 6.95%. The projection of cash flows used to determine the discount rate assumed that employee contributions will be made at the current contribution rate and that contributions from all participating employers will be made a contractually required rates that are actuarially determined and certified by the URS Board. Based on those assumptions, the pension plan’s fiduciary net position was projected to be available to make all projected future benefits payments of current active and inactive employees. Therefore, the long-term expected rate of return on pension plan investments was applied to all periods of projected benefit payments to determine the total pension liability. The discount rate does not use the Municipal Bond Index Rate. Sensitivity of the proportionate share of the net pension asset and liability to changes in the discount rate: The following presents the proportionate share of the net pension liability/(asset) calculated using the discount rate of 6.85%, as well as what the proportionate share of the net pension liability would be if it were calculated using a discount rate that is 1-percentage-point lower (5.85%) or 1-percentage-point higher (7.85%) than the current rate: SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 113 1% Decrease Discount Rate 1% Increase System 5.85%6.85%7.85% Noncontributory System $ 104,756,533 $ 16,621,860 $ (57,019,297) Contributory System 5,676,752 1,106,542 (2,772,258) Public Safety System 122,001,965 62,282,792 13,241,318 Firefighters System 10,020,171 (32,243,802) (66,949,514) Tier 2 Public Employees System 14,213,801 3,252,994 (5,190,918) Tier 2 Public Safety and Firefighter 4,132,945 516,314 (2,358,046) Total $ 260,802,167 $ 51,536,700 $ (121,048,715) SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 114 SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC SAFETY FUND Total pension liability 2022 Service Cost $ 6,140,012 Interest (on the Total Pension Liability) 29,255,041 Changes of benefit terms — Difference between expected and actual experience 3,310,822 Changes of assumptions — Benefit payments, including refunds of employee contributions (24,649,742) Net change in total pension liability 14,056,133 Total pension liability – beginning 435,897,793 Total pension liability – ending $ 449,953,926 Plan fiduciary net position Contributions – employer $ 16,505,799 Contributions – employee 88,709 Court Fees and Fire Insurance Tax — Net investment income (21,787,130) Benefit payments, including refunds of employee contributions (24,649,742) Administrative Expense (134,148) Other 1,538,014 Net change in plan fiduciary net position (28,438,498) Plan fiduciary net position – beginning 416,079,632 Plan fiduciary net position – ending $ 387,641,134 Net pension liability $ 62,282,792 Plan fiduciary net position as a percentage of the total pension liability 0.86 % Covered payroll $ 25,994,490 Net pension liability as a percentage of covered payroll 2.4 % Pension plan fiduciary net position: Detailed information about the pension plan’s fiduciary net position is available in the separately issued URS financial report. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 115 15. Defined Contribution Savings Plans The Defined Contribution Savings Plans are administered by the Utah Retirement System Board and are generally supplemental plan to the basic retirement benefits of the Retirement Systems, but may also be used as a primary retirement plan. These plans are voluntary tax-advantaged retirement savings programs authorized under sections 401(k), 457(b) and 408 of the Internal Revenue code. The City participates in the following Defined Contribution Savings Plans with Utah Retirement Systems: • 401(k) Plan • 457(b) Plan • Roth IRA Plan • Traditional IRA Plan Employee and employer contributions to the Utah Retire Defined Contribution Savings Plans for fiscal year ended June 30, were as follows: 2023 2022 2021 401(k) Plan Employer Contributions $ 3,745,934 $ 3,299,797 $ 2,893,832 Employee Contributions 4,764,333 4,262,121 3,767,791 457 Plan Employer Contributions — — — Employee Contributions 3,299,961 3,203,304 2,852,393 Roth IRA Plan Employer Contributions N/A N/A N/A Employee Contributions 1,656,148 1,539,508 1,380,588 Traditional IRA Employer Contributions N/A N/A N/A Employee Contributions 48,241 50,741 54,063 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 116 16. Other Post-employment Benefits Plan Description The Library provides post-employment health care benefits through a single employer defined benefit plan. The benefits are provided through the Library to certain employees who have retired from the System prior to July 1, 2018. The benefits, benefit levels, employee and employer contributions are governed by Library policy and can be amended or terminated at any time. The Library determines whether these benefits will be funded during the annual budget process. The plan is not accounted for as a trust fund since an irrevocable trust has not been established to account for the plan. The plan does not issue a separate report. The activity of the plan is reported in the Library’s general fund. Funding Policy The Library currently pays for post-employment benefits on a “pay-as-you-go” basis. Actuarial Assumptions The total OPEB liability was determined using the following actuarial assumptions, applied to all periods included in the measurement, unless otherwise specified. Measurement Date June 30, 2023 Actuarial Valuation Date June 30, 2023 Discount Rate 3.86 % Prior year discount rate 3.69 % The discount rate was based on the June 30, 2023, Fidelity General Obligation AA 20-Year Yield. Mortality rates for retirees/disabled employees were based on the PubG.H-2010 Healthy Retiree Mortality Table, Generational with Projection Scale MP -2020 for males or females, as appropriate. Inactive employees currently receiving benefit payments 17 Inactive employees entitled to but not yet receiving benefit payments — Active employees — Total 17 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 117 Changes in Total OPEB Liability Balance at June 30, 2022 $ 195,123 Changes for the Year Interest 6,824 Differences between expected and actual experience — Change in assumptions/inputs (1,897) Benefit Payments (20,400) Net Changes (15,473) Balance at June 30, 2023 $ 179,650 Sensitivity of the Total OPEB Liability 1% Decrease No Change 1% Increase (2.86)%(3.86)%(4.86)% Discount Rate $ 191,394 $ 179,650 $ 169,246 Healthcare Cost Trend Rates 166,976 179,650 193,767 OPEB Expense and Deferred Outflows and Deferred Inflows of Resources Related to OPEB OPEB Expense Interest on liabilities $ 6,824 Difference between actual and expected experience — Changes in Assumptions/Inputs (1,897) Total OPEB expense $ 4,927 There are no deferred outflows or deferred inflows of resources at June 30, 2023. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 118 17. Commitments and Contingencies Commitments for major construction, capital improvement and other projects at June 30, 2023 are shown below. General Fund $ 21,891,903 Special-revenue funds 14,353,603 Capital Projects Fund 61,030,832 Enterprise funds 2,606,210,528 Internal service funds 17,924,881 Total $ 2,721,411,747 The City is lessee under a number of non-capitalized lease agreements, one of which is non- cancellable, involving land, buildings and equipment. Rent expense during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 approximated $1,792,903 of which $1,380,447 was related to proprietary funds. Future minimum rental payments are as follows: General Fund 2024 $ 312,558 2025 312,558 2026 312,558 2027 312,558 2028 312,558 2029-2033 1,562,790 2034 312,558 Total $ 3,438,138 There are sundry claims or lawsuits that have been filed against the City or its employees involving tort and civil rights matters. The City has evaluated those claims and based upon the advice of counsel, has recorded an estimated claims payable liability in the Governmental Immunity Fund (an internal service fund) to cover any expected losses. Changes in the reported liability carried in the Governmental Immunity Fund since July 1, resulted in the changes shown in the table below. Current year Beginning of claims and Balance at Estimated fiscal year changes in Claim fiscal year due within liability estimates payments end one year 2021-2022 $ 7,815,000 $ 1,238,118 $ (512,888) $ 8,540,230 $ 2,290,839 2022-2023 $ 8,540,230 $ 2,934,208 $ (3,565,198) $ 7,909,240 7 9 $ 2,172,444 As of June 30, 2023, the Utilities had outstanding commitments for the construction and acquisition of property and equipment. Commitments of the Water Utility totaled $27,011,444, of the SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 119 Sewer Utility totaled $235,995,600, of the Stormwater Utility totaled $5,603,507, and of the Street Lighting Utility totaled $16,414. Metropolitan Water District —To meet the water supply needs of Salt Lake City and Sandy through the year 2035, the Metropolitan Water District Board completed a new treatment plant. The new treatment plant is located at the Point of the Mountain in Draper City and includes a conveyance pipeline connecting the new plant to the District’s Little Cottonwood Water Treatment Plant. The cost of the treatment plant and conveyance system totaled over $300 million, and the Utilities’ share of the cost is over $200 million. The 70 million gallon per day plant is funded by an assessment paid by the two cities. Salt Lake City has 62.5 percent of the capacity and cost assessment in the treatment plant. Following are the future minimum payments due from the Water Utility through 2035: 2024 $ 7,021,892 2025 7,021,892 2026 7,021,892 2027 7,021,892 2028 7,021,892 2029-2033 35,109,460 2034-2035 10,532,838 Total $ 80,751,758 Federal Stimulus Grant Funds- In 2021 and 2022 the City received over $105 million of federal grant money under the CARES Act, the American Rescue Plan Act and the Emergency Rent Assistance Plan to help combat the effects of the COVID 19 pandemic. This resulted in large cash deposits. The corresponding expenditures were not complete as of June 30, 2023 which resulted in presenting the unspent portion as Revenues collected in advance on the current financial statements. A majority of the funds were expended in Fiscal Year 2023. It is anticipated that the remainder of the expenditures will occur during the next fiscal year. Water Right Purchase - In 2009, the City purchased water rights connected to Big Cottonwood Canyon stream flows from one of its water exchange customers called Big Cottonwood Tanner Ditch Irrigation Company in the amount of $22,764,010. Under this new agreement the City will continue to provide culinary water to the customers of the Big Cottonwood Tanner Ditch Irrigation Company and will provide them with water vouchers which will entitle them to a set amount of water at no charge in return for their ownership in the water rights to the canyon stream. The City also agreed to upgrade the water system to meet current water system standards and to take ownership of the system. The financial statements show the increase in water rights and the value of the system purchased. Revenue collected in advance includes the value of the water vouchers issued in the amount of $6,957,137 long term and $1,022,595 in current liabilities. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 120 Litigation- The Utilities are involved in legal proceedings, primarily related to property damages and personal injury arising in the ordinary course of business. Based on the facts currently available, management accrued liabilities totaling $1,920,863, which is the estimated amount of litigation probable to have a negative outcome. Of this potential liability $1,838,863 is Water Fund related, $77,000 is Sewer Fund related, and $5,000 is Stormwater fund related. Of the $1,920,863 related to the Water Fund, $250,000 is related to a potential future environmental remediation of soils contaminated with lead as a result of shooting range activities operated by the Police Mutual Aid Association on property owned by the Water Fund. Multiple parties could be responsible. The current estimated loss could vary depending on future decisions related to the possible remediation, regulatory requirements, and cost-sharing by other responsible parties, if any. The Utilities are currently investigating the extent of lead contamination and potential remediation alternatives. There are various claims pending against the Airport from third parties. In the opinion of legal counsel for the Airport and Airport management, these are not likely to have a material adverse impact on the Airport's financial statements. Environmental Remediation- The Utilities are participating in two environmental remediation sites. The Utilities is the owner of many acres of property in Parley’s Canyon that are held for watershed purposes. Located within this area was an active shooting range that was operated by the Police Mutual Aid Association (“PMAA”) for the past 50 years. PMAA recently decided to stop operating the shooting range and control of the property has been turned back to the Utilities. An environmental assessment has been started to determine the extent of lead present at the site. The extent and manner of clean-up of the lead is not yet known, but it is anticipated that impacted soils will be stabilized and removed for proper disposal. There are multiple potentially responsible parties who operated and used the shooting range who may be required to share in the cost of the ultimate clean-up of the site. Currently, the estimate of professional fees and basic efforts to clean-up the site is $1,500,000. The clean-up costs are anticipated to be divided between the Water Enterprise Fund and Salt Lake City’s General Fund, with the General Fund paying approximately 85% of the cost. This estimate could change depending on future decisions related to the clean-up along with the value of contributions toward the clean-up received from third parties. Salt Lake City is entering into a Voluntary Cleanup Program through the Utah Department of Environmental Quality to conduct the remediation. In 2003 the Utilities began an environmental remediation process on the Sewer’s Northwest Oil Drain (NWOD) Canal under a US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) administrative order and with a cost-sharing agreement between the Utilities, British Petroleum (BP), and Chevron. The two oil companies contribute 2/3 of the project costs of the remediation, and the Utilities contribute 1/3. Over the life of the process, as of June 30, 2023 the oil companies have contributed approximately $21.8 million; the Utilities have capitalized as construction in progress a total of $33,539,841 in remediation costs. The Utilities estimate that the remaining remediation activities will generate about $33,500 in contributions from the oil companies, will cost about $50,000, and will continue through fiscal year 2024. The Utilities have budgeted accordingly. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 121 Airport- At June 30, 2023, the Airport was committed to contractors and vendors for approximately $1 billion in conjunction with Airport construction programs. In the normal course of operations, the City receives grant funds from various Federal Agencies. The grant programs are subject to audit by agents of the granting authority, the purpose of which is to ensure compliance with conditions precedent to the granting of funds. Any liability for reimbursement that may arise as the result of audits of grant funds is not believed to be material. RDA- As an Agency of the City, the RDA routinely enters into Taxing Entity Contracts (TEC) and Tax Increment Reimbursement contracts (TIR). The Agency has no taxing authority, therefore enters into TEC agreements to receive Tax Increment as revenue. For the Agency, Tax Increment is deemed contributed revenues from the various taxing authorities participating in the various Project Area TEC agreements. The Tax Increment received from the City is delineated in the Agency Financial Statements as Transfers in from the City. Tax Increment revenue from all other taxing entities is included non-operating revenues with Grants and Other Contributions. To induce the private sector to participate in the redevelopment of the Project Area, the RDA will often enter into TIR agreements which reimburse the private developer actual costs over a stated period of time. These agreements return tax increment revenues annually to the developers. Currently, the Agency is party to the following TIR agreements. During the year ended June 30, 2008, the City issued $8,590,000 of Series 2007 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds. A portion of the bond proceeds were used to finance the construction of the Grant Tower project. The Agency entered into an agreement with the City in January 2008, regarding the payment obligations on the bonds. Under the terms of the agreement, the Agency is obligated to remit funds to the City on a semi-annual basis to cover payments the City makes on the bonds. In December 2019, the City issued a complete refunding of the bond at a 4% interest rate, saving the Agency over $18,500 in principal and interest payments. As of June 30, 2022, anticipated cumulative payments remaining under the agreement were $0 During the year ended June 30, 2013, the City issued $15,000,000 of Bond Anticipation Notes (BANS) to begin construction on the Eccles Theater. These bonds were issued in expectation of the issuance of the Tax Increment Bonds (as discussed in Note 7) and the Sales Tax Revenue Bonds issued by the City (as discussed below). The City received the proceeds of the BANS and paid design and pre- construction costs. During the year ended June 30, 2014, the City issued Series 2013A Sales Tax Revenue Bonds in the amount of $51,270,000 to aid in financing the construction of the Eccles Theater. With the proceeds of these bonds, the City paid off the BANS and the remaining net proceeds of $34,349,587 were transferred to the Agency as a contribution from the City. Bond issuance costs and accrued interest of $1,920,413 were recognized by the Agency as expense. In addition, upon issuance of the bonds, the Agency used private donations of $2,596,649 and contributed $1,104,957 of its own funds into an SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 122 escrow account for capitalized interest on the bonds. In December 2019, the City completely refunded the Series 2013A bonds by issuing Series 2019 taxable sales and excise tax revenue refunding bonds in the amount of $58,540,000, saving the Agency over $11,000,000 in principal and interest payments. As of June 30, 2023, anticipated cumulative payments remaining under the agreement were $76,689,609. Anticipated payments are included in the table below. The Agency will remit principal and interest payments semi-annually to the City per the debt service schedules as a contribution to the City (expense). Total anticipated payments are as follows. Year Ending June 30,Annual Obligation 2024 $ 2,188,086 2025 2,187,723 2026 2,186,443 2027 2,184,427 2028 2,186,796 2029-2033 23,472,420 2034-2038 42,283,714 Total $ 76,689,609 As discussed previously, proceeds from the Series 2013 Agency bonds and Series 2013A City bonds provided financing for the construction of the Eccles Theater on Block 70 within the Central Business District (CBD). The remaining non-refunded portion of the Agency's Series 2013 bonds were paid in fiscal year 2023. The Series 2019 taxable tax increment revenue refunding bonds issued by the Agency mature in 2031. The Series 2019 taxable sales and excise tax revenue refunding bonds (advance refunding of Series 2013A) issued by the City are payable through fiscal year 2038. The annual debt service will be funded by the incremental property taxes generated from the CBD Project area, Block 70 Community Development Area (CDA) and private donations. Annual principal and interest payments on the bonds associated with the Theater are expected to require approximately 30% of tax increment revenues generated from CBD and Block 70, beginning in fiscal year 2016. As of June 30, 2023, the total principal and interest remaining to be paid on all bonds for the Eccles Theater project was $123,749,493. The Agency has pledged future tax increment revenues to repay the remaining Series 2019 Tax Increment and Series 2019A Sales Tax Revenue Refunding bonds. Through inter-local agreements entered into with the City and Salt Lake County (the County), CBD tax increment revenue that would have been remitted to these agencies has been pledged to the Agency through tax year 2040. In December 2011, the Agency entered into an agreement with the City in which the Agency will retain a portion of the City's Taxing Entity Committee (TEC) allocation, in order to pay principal and interest on the Theater bond obligations. Each year, beginning in tax year 2015 through 2040, the City will continue to receive from the Agency a dollar amount equal to the 2014 TEC allocation. The original inter-local agreement specified that the Agency will retain 80% of the remaining TEC allocation. This inter-local agreement was subsequently amended in May 2013 to provide that the Agency will retain up to 100% of the remaining TEC allocation, as is necessary to fund debt service payments. The Agency is required to SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 123 reimburse the City for any portion of this additional TEC allocation that is utilized for debt service on the Eccles Theater, with the balance accruing interest at the City's general fund rate. The Agency is required to commit CBD tax increment in an amount equal to the City allocation under these agreements. Similarly, in October 2012, the Agency entered into an interlocal agreement with the County wherein the Agency is entitled to retain the County's portion of the CBD tax increment up to a maximum of $43,000,000. The County will continue to receive from the Agency a dollar amount equal to the 2014 TEC allocation each year beginning in tax year 2015 through 2040, and the Agency will retain the remaining TEC allocation to fund debt service on the Eccles Theater project. During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023, the Agency transferred $6,520,478 in CBD incremental tax revenue to Block 70 for Eccles debt service per the agreements, and transferred an additional $2,469,853 in available CBD tax increment revenue. In addition, the Agency entered into an inter-local agreement with the City and the Salt Lake City School District (SLCSD) wherein the Agency is entitled to receive the City's and SLCSD's portions of the tax increment from the Block 70 CDA for twenty-five years, beginning in the tax year 2016, for the purpose of funding debt service on the Eccles Theater. The tax increment funds are not limited to funding debt service, but will also be used to fund the creation of a cultural core and for debt service on the Regent Street improvement bonds. In addition, in September 2012, the Agency entered into an agreement with the County wherein the Agency is entitled to receive the County’s portion of the Tax Increment from the Block 70 CDA for 25 years, beginning in tax year 2016, up to a maximum of $7,000,000 for the purposes of funding debt service on the Eccles Theater. During the year ended June 30, 2023, the Agency received an additional $4,150,044 in incremental property taxes under these agreements. The Agency expended $9,564,596 to cover the principal and interest payments due during the year. During the year ended June 30, 2007, the Agency entered into a reimbursement agreement with Rio Grande Development LLC, a developer of a project within the Agency's Depot District Project Area. Tremonton Hospitality LLC, dba Urban Suites assumed the agreement through an assignment and assumption agreement signed in June 2016. NF IV-VA SSCI Salt Lake LLC assumed the agreement through an assignment and assumption agreement signed in Fiscal Year 2021. Under this agreement, the Agency is obligated to repay to the developers, from the tax increment revenue increases received from the prospective projects, at the lesser of $2,020,000 or 37.5% of the tax increment increases over the reimbursement term, plus accrued interest, but not to exceed the tax increment revenues received by the Agency from the individual projects. These obligations are also subject to the developers paying property taxes in a timely manner and the receipts of certificates project completion. For the year ended June 30, 2023, the Agency paid the developers $73,047. During the year ended June 30, 2010, the Agency entered into a reimbursement agreement with 222 S. Main Investments, LLC, a developer of a project within the Agency’s Central Business District Project Area. Under this agreement, the Agency is obligated to repay to the developers 85% of the tax increment revenues received by the Agency from the respective project up to the lesser of: 1) total developer costs less $127,300,000 or 2) $6,000,000, plus accrued interest of 5.9%, over the reimbursement term, which expires in January 2031. These obligations are also subject to the developers paying property taxes on a timely basis, the receipt of certificates of project completion, and annual certificates of compliance with SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 124 the other terms of the reimbursement agreement. For the year ended June 30, 2023, the Agency recorded expenses of $559,841. During the year ended June 30, 2015, the Agency entered into a reimbursement agreement with Liberty Gateway Properties, L.C. (Liberty) for a mixed-use housing project located on 500 West between South Temple and 100 South, in the Agency’s Depot District Project Area. The agreement provides a tax increment reimbursement to the Developer for costs incurred in connection with the associated parking garage component of the project from the tax increment created from the property. Under the agreement, the Agency will pay the Developer a reimbursement amount equal to the sum of 1) $3,000 multiplied by the actual number of eligible at-grade structured parking stalls (up to a maximum of 48 stalls), plus 2) $6,000 multiplied by the actual number of below-grade structured parking stalls (up to a maximum of 112), together with simple interest accrued thereon. The maximum that will be reimbursed is $816,000. The reimbursement term is for the tax years 2015 through 2022 The Agency will make an annual payment to the Developer during the reimbursement term in an amount equal to 72% of the tax increment for such year actually received by the Agency until the earlier to occur of 1) Developer has received an amount equal to the reimbursement amount or 2) the expiration of the reimbursement term. These obligations are subject to the Developer paying property taxes on a timely basis, receipts of certificates of project completion, and other annual reporting duties as defined in the reimbursement agreement. For the year ended June 30, 2023, the Agency recorded expenses of $129,148. During the year ended June 30, 2017, the Agency and Larry H. Miller Arena Corporation (the "Lessee"), entered into a Participation and Reimbursement Agreement for the renovation of the Delta Center Arena at 301 West South Temple, as part of the Central Business District Neighborhood Redevelopment Project Area Plan. This agreement outlines the Agency's commitment to partially reimburse the Lessee for public area upgrades through tax increment financing, with a cap of $15,946,396 for Tax Increment (TI) Reimbursement Payments and $6,753,604 for Grant Reimbursement Payments, ensuring the total reimbursement does not exceed $22,700,000. The Reimbursement Term will expire December 31, 2040, with annual payments contingent on the Lessee's compliance with specific conditions, including project completion, property tax payments, and maintaining the Arena as the home venue for Utah Jazz NBA games. The Agency retains the right to issue bonds secured by the tax increment, with the understanding that this will not absolve it of its obligations under this agreement. The Agency's financial commitment, encompassing both TI and Grant Reimbursement Payments, is firmly capped, and any shortfall in tax increment generation will not extend the Agency's obligations beyond the agreed term. For the year ended June 30, 2023, the Agency recorded expenses of $657,881, which consisted of $350,899 of TI Reimbursement Payments and $306,982 of Grant Reimbursement Payments. During the year ended June 30, 2019, the Agency entered into a reimbursement agreement with Stadler US, Inc, a developer of a project located within the Agency’s Stadler Rail Project Area. Under the agreement, the Agency is obligated to reimburse the developers, from the tax increment revenues received from the respective projects, up to $9,610,721 over a twenty (20) year term, but not in excess of SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 125 the tax increment revenues received from the individual projects. These obligations are also subject to the developers paying property taxes on a timely basis and the receipts of certificates of project completion. For the years ended June 30, 2023, the Agency made reimbursements to Stadler for tax years 2019-2022 totaling $350,941. During the year ended June 30, 2020, the Agency entered into a reimbursement agreement with NWQ, LLC, a developer of a project located within the Agency’s Northwest Quadrant Project Area. Under the agreement, the Agency is obligated to reimburse the developers, from the tax increment revenues received from the respective projects, up to $28,000,000 over a nineteen (19) year term, but not in excess of the tax increment revenues received from the individual projects. These obligations are also subject to the developers paying property taxes on a timely basis and the receipts of certificates of project completion. The first reimbursement was made for tax years 2019-2021. The total reimbursement paid for the year ended June 30, 2023 to NWQ LLC, was $154,107. During the year ended June 30, 2020, the Agency entered into a reimbursement agreement with West Quarter Residential I, LLC, a developer of a project located within the Agency’s Block 67 Project Area. Under the agreement, the Agency is obligated to reimburse the developers, from the tax increment revenues received from the respective projects, up to $15,000,000 over a twenty (20) year term as a pass-through from Salt Lake County for transportation funds from the State of Utah, but not in excess of the tax increment revenues received from the individual projects. These obligations are also subject to the developers paying property taxes on a timely basis and the receipts of certificates of project completion. The first year of reimbursement was anticipated to be for the 2022 tax year. No payments were made during the year ended June 30, 2023. In March, 2008, the Agency and the State of Utah (State) entered into a lease agreement for the rental by the State of 250 parking stalls in a parking structure owned by the Agency. The lease requires monthly payments of $20 per stall, for a total of $5,000 per month. The lease term is 20 years. In addition, the lease includes a provision for the repayment of a portion of the construction costs to be paid by the State of $350,000 over the term of the parking rental agreement. The repayment terms requires interest of 3% and monthly payments of $2,077, in addition to the monthly rent payments. The balance of the unpaid amount as of June 30, 2023, was $69,533, which has been recorded as a note receivable. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 126 18. Related Party Transactions To meet the water supply needs of Salt Lake City and Sandy through the year 2035, the Metropolitan Water District Board, a related entity, completed a new treatment plant. The new treatment plant is located at the Point of the Mountain in Draper City and includes a conveyance pipeline connecting the new plant to the District’s Little Cottonwood Water Treatment Plant. The cost of the treatment plant and conveyance system totaled over $300 million, and the Utilities’ share of the cost is over $200 million. The 70 million gallon per day plant is funded by an assessment paid by the two cities. Salt Lake City has 62.5 percent of the capacity and cost assessment in the new treatment plant. Below are the future minimum payments due from the Water Utility through 2035: Year Ending June 30, 2024 $ 7,021,892 2025 7,021,892 2026 7,021,892 2027 7,021,892 2028 7,021,892 2029-2033 35,109,460 2034-2035 10,532,838 Total $ 80,751,758 19. Joint Venture The City is a member of a joint venture known as the City/County landfill in which the City and Salt Lake County (through its Municipal Affairs Fund and the remainder of the County) each have fifty percent interest. The joint venture was created to provide solid waste management and disposal services. The City’s equity in the net resources of the landfill at June 30, 2023, was $23,235,204. This equity interest is shown in the City’s Refuse Collection Fund (an enterprise fund). The inter-local cooperation agreement created the joint venture and established the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Council (the Council). The Council consists of five members: the County’s Mayor, or a designee; the City's Mayor, or a designee; one elected official, or a designee designated by the Salt Lake County Council of Governments, who is not an official or an employee of the County or the City but whose municipality is served by the Facility; one member of the Salt Lake Valley Board of Health or the Director of Health as designated by such Board, or a designee; and one member with technical expertise in the field of solid waste management, said expert member to be selected by the council members who represent the City, the County, and the Salt Lake Valley Board of Health. The Council’s responsibilities are to recommend: (1) appointment or removal of Director; (2) plan, establish and approve all construction projects for solid waste operations; and (3) determine best use of facility; (4) establish public policy for all major operations or activities; (5) prepare an annual operating budget that includes expenditures and the means of financing them. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 127 All actions by the Council are recommendations to the City Council and the County Commission, which have equal power to review, ratify, modify, or veto any action submitted by the Council. The Council has developed a master plan designed to comply with environmental standards established by the federal government and to meet accounting and financial reporting requirements under GASB Statement No. 18, Accounting for Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Closure and Post- closure Care Costs. In compliance with this standard, the Council has established user fees sufficient to cover all operating costs, including post-closure costs that have been mandated by the federal government. The estimated liability for closure and post closure care was established under the requirement set by the State of Utah’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and is based on an engineering study completed during November 2016. The estimate totals $9,946,927 at Salt Lake County’s fiscal year end and is based on 32.2% of capacity currently filled. The Landfill will recognize the remaining estimated cost of closure and post-closure care of approximately $29,225,170 as the remaining capacity is filled. The total capacity was revised in 2016 to reflect increased allowable height, slope and new technology. The landfill is expected to be filled to capacity in the year 2082. The expenses in 2022 were $1,332,383. Actual ongoing costs may differ due to inflation, changes in technology, or change in regulations. In November 1996, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued final regulations regarding financial assurance provisions for local government owners and operators of municipal solid waste landfills. The regulations allow compliance with financial assurance requirements by meeting a financial test or by alternate methods. The financial test method is available only to local governments who can demonstrate that they are capable of meeting their financial obligations relating to their landfills and is sometimes referred to as “self-insurance.” The alternate methods generally involve third-party financial instruments such as trust funds, letters of credit, or insurance policies. The financial assurance requirement is the estimated total current costs of closure and post-closure care of $39,172,097 at December 31, 2022. Although the County and Salt Lake City satisfy the financial test coverage and the financial assurance requirement (therefore, an alternate method is not necessary), the Landfill has set aside resources to finance the estimated liability for landfill closure and postclosure costs; at December 31, 2022 the Landfill has set aside $9,946,927 of its pooled cash and investments.The owners are required to submit documentation of financial assurance to the Utah Department of Environmental Quality demonstrating that they meet the financial test at the close of each fiscal year. In the event the owners no longer meet the requirements of the financial test, they shall, within 210 days following the close of their fiscal years, obtain alternative financial assurance for total current costs of landfill closure and post-closure care that exceed 43% of the owners’ total annual revenue. For the year ended June 30, 2023, the City paid the landfill approximately $1,830,984 in user fees. Separately audited financial statements for the City/County landfill may be obtained from the Executive Director or Fiscal Manager, Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Facility, 6030 West California Avenue, Salt Lake City, Utah 84104. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 128 The City has 50% ownership interest in the Sugarhouse House Park Authority. Salt Lake County owns the remaining 50% interest. The Sugar House Park Authority, created in 1957, maintains and improves the land known as Sugarhouse Park which includes 116 acres of land with a historical cost of $112,500. The City’s investment in the Sugar House Park Authority as of December 31, 2022 totaled $961,427, which has been included in governmental activity investment in joint ventures in the government-wide statement of net position. Of the total investment, $686,539 is related to capital assets. The Sugar House Park Authority is governed by a Board of Trustees consisting of nine members. The City and the County each appoint one member. The other seven members are appointed jointly by the City and County Trustees. The City provides water to the park for a fee and the county is contracted to provide maintenance services and provide for daily management, operation and maintenance of the park. Separately audited statements may be obtained from the Sugar House Park Authority, 6332 S. Airport Road, West Jordan, Utah, 84084. 20. Recent Accounting Pronouncements Newly Issued Accounting Pronouncements In April 2022, the GASB issued Statement No. 99. The objectives of this Statement are to enhance comparability in accounting and financial reporting and to improve the consistency of authoritative literature by addressing (1) practice issues that have been identified during implementation and application of certain GASB Statements and (2) accounting and financial reporting for financial guarantees. The requirements related to leases, PPPs, and SBITAs will take effect for financial statements starting with the fiscal year that ends June 30, 2023. The requirements related to financial guarantees and the classification and reporting of derivative instruments within the scope of Statement 53 will take effect for financial statements starting with the fiscal year that ends June 30, 2024. The city is currently evaluating the impact this statement will have in future years. In June 2022, the GASB issued Statement No. 100. This Statement defines accounting changes as changes in accounting principles, changes in accounting estimates, and changes to or within the financial reporting entity and describes the transactions or other events that constitute those changes. As part of those descriptions, for (1) certain changes in accounting principles and (2) certain changes in accounting estimates that result from a change in measurement methodology, a new principle or methodology should be justified on the basis that it is preferable to the principle or methodology used before the change. That preferability should be based on the qualitative characteristics of financial reporting—understandability, reliability, relevance, timeliness, consistency, and comparability. This Statement also addresses corrections of errors in previously issued financial statements. The requirements of this Statement will take effect for financial statements starting with the fiscal year that ends June 30, 2024. The city is currently evaluating the impact this statement will have in future years. In June 2022, the GASB issued Statement No. 101. his Statement requires that liabilities for compensated absences be recognized for (1) leave that has not been used and (2) leave that has been used but not yet paid in cash or settled through noncash means. A liability should be recognized for SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 129 leave that has not been used if (a) the leave is attributable to services already rendered, (b) the leave accumulates, and (c) the leave is more likely than not to be used for time off or otherwise paid in cash or settled through noncash means. Leave is attributable to services already rendered when an employee has performed the services required to earn the leave. Leave that accumulates is carried forward from the reporting period in which it is earned to a future reporting period during which it may be used for time off or otherwise paid or settled. In estimating the leave that is more likely than not to be used or otherwise paid or settled, a government should consider relevant factors such as employment policies related to compensated absences and historical information about the use or payment of compensated absences. However, leave that is more likely than not to be settled through conversion to defined benefit post-employment benefits should not be included in a liability for compensated absences. The requirements of this Statement will take effect for financial statements starting with the fiscal year that ends December 31, 2024. The city is currently evaluating the impact this statement will have in future years. 21. Subsequent Events The following events occurred subsequent to June 30, 2023: On September 26, 2022, the Airport reduced the accessible amount on the line of credit from $300 million to $150 million. On October 5, 2022, the City issued $21,875,000 of GO Series 2022 bonds. The proceeds of the bonds are being used for street reconstruction. On November 17, 2022 the City issued $40,015,000 and 24,240,000 of Sales Tax Revenue bonds 2022B and 2022C bonds, respectively. The proceeds of the bonds are being used for (a) financing all or a portion of the cost of (i) acquiring, constructing and improving capital improvement projects including (A) City Cemetery irrigation and road repairs and reconstruction; (B) improvements to Pioneer Park; (C) 600 North Corridor transformation; (D) new radio towers for City communication; (E) an upgrade of the electrical transformer at the Central Plant and emergency backup generators; (F) Westside railroad quiet zones; (G) Warm Spring Plunge structure stabilization and improvements; (H) Smith’s Ballpark improvements; (I) urban wood reutilization equipment and storage additions; and (J) Fisher Mansion stabilization and improvements and (ii) acquiring, constructing, improving and remodeling various other capital improvement program projects. Subsequent to year-end, the City continues to be impacted by the Coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19), which has significantly increased risk and uncertainties in the global economy including the community in which the City operates. The City is closely and continuously monitoring the pandemic, its effects on the organization and the community, and the financial impact on the City. Subsequent to year-end, the City received approximately $6 million from the State of Utah. This was a reallocation of Federal Emergency Rental Assistance grant funds from the Covid 19 pandemic. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2023 130 Required Supplementary Information 131 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE GENERAL FUND Year ended June 30, 2023 Actual (GAAP basis) Adjustment to budgetary basis (Note to RSI 1) Actual on budgetary basis (non-GAAP) Budgeted Amounts Original Budget Final Budget Variance Revenues: General property taxes $ 128,801,500 $ — $ 128,801,500 $ 126,651,149 $ 126,651,149 $ 2,150,351 Sales, use and excise taxes 172,197,418 — 172,197,418 149,414,508 149,414,508 22,782,910 Franchise taxes 12,756,615 — 12,756,615 11,657,128 11,657,128 1,099,487 Licenses 17,599,344 — 17,599,344 15,514,249 15,514,249 2,085,095 Permits 26,347,166 — 26,347,166 25,216,212 25,216,212 1,130,954 Fines and forfeitures 2,339,387 — 2,339,387 1,915,174 1,915,174 424,213 Interest 12,352,550 — 12,352,550 2,071,154 2,071,154 10,281,396 Intergovernmental 5,936,560 — 5,936,560 4,644,622 4,644,622 1,291,938 Interfund service charges 25,857,520 — 25,857,520 24,431,717 24,431,717 1,425,803 Parking meter 2,616,329 — 2,616,329 2,635,475 2,635,475 (19,146) Parking ticket 1,180,128 — 1,180,128 1,850,000 1,850,000 (669,872) Charges for services 5,114,484 — 5,114,484 3,759,620 3,759,620 1,354,864 Rental and other income 697,203 — 697,203 — — 697,203 Miscellaneous 4,655,041 — 4,655,041 4,117,537 4,134,655 520,386 Total revenues 418,451,245 — 418,451,245 373,878,545 373,895,663 44,555,582 Expenditures: Current: City Council 4,725,621 437,597 5,163,218 5,387,707 5,865,015 701,797 Mayor 5,120,100 211,809 5,331,909 6,625,451 6,717,811 1,385,902 City Attorney 8,683,519 95,923 8,779,442 9,007,633 9,149,396 369,954 Finance 10,039,270 512,062 10,551,332 10,709,847 11,511,177 959,845 Fire 47,959,663 778,023 48,737,686 48,586,492 49,240,693 503,007 Combined Emergency Services 10,109,426 155,081 10,264,507 10,872,140 11,002,507 738,000 Police 103,022,906 1,927,708 104,950,614 103,977,042 109,399,027 4,448,413 Community and Neighborhoods 30,936,834 2,860,773 33,797,607 29,311,147 40,320,645 6,523,038 Economic Development 3,220,279 60,277 3,280,556 3,695,620 4,041,963 761,407 Justice Court 4,928,656 69,173 4,997,829 5,199,660 5,246,029 248,200 Human Resource 3,722,452 66,766 3,789,218 4,236,836 4,283,535 494,317 Public Services 61,802,283 6,234,766 68,037,049 63,628,160 70,558,245 2,521,196 Nondepartmental 52,459,130 7,743,738 60,202,868 40,862,171 52,311,573 (7,891,295) Total expenditures 346,730,139 21,153,696 367,883,835 342,099,906 379,647,616 11,763,781 Revenues over (under) expenditures 71,721,106 (21,153,696) 50,567,410 31,778,639 (5,751,953) 56,319,363 Other financing sources (uses): Proceeds from sale of property 25,554 — 25,554 — — 25,554 Transfers in 51,822,655 — 51,822,655 28,821,993 54,013,488 (2,190,833) Transfers out (81,117,256) — (81,117,256) (83,437,502) (99,167,639) 18,050,383 Total other financing sources (uses): (29,269,047) — (29,269,047) (54,615,509) (45,154,151) 15,885,104 Net Change in Fund Balance 42,452,059 $ (21,153,696) $ 21,298,363 $ (22,836,870) $ (50,906,104) $ 72,204,467 Fund Balance July 1, 2022 160,123,682 Prior year encumbrances appropriated in current year — Prior period compensated absences — Fund Balance June 30, 2023 $ 202,575,741 132 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF THE PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE NET PENSION LIABILITY UTAH RETIREMENT SYSTEMS As of the Year Ended December 31, 2021 Last 10 Fiscal Years * Noncontributory System 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 Proportion of the net pension liability/(asset) 9.70 % 9.91 % 9.93 % 10.01 % 10.09 % 10.16 % 10.50 % 10.40 % 10.30 % Proportionate share of the net pension liability/(asset) $16,621,860 $ (56,771,800) $ 5,095,905 $ 37,731,456 $ 74,328,318 $ 44,516,859 $ 67,230,056 $ 58,910,626 $ 44,746,492 Covered payroll 76,152,635 76,880,596 77,864,031 79,785,630 81,245,865 82,604,948 86,964,302 85,816,435 86,096,547 Proportionate share of the net pension liability/(asset) as a percentage of its covered payroll 21.83 % (73.84) % 6.54 % 47.29 % 91.49 % 53.89 % 77.30 % 68.60 % 52.00 % Plan fiduciary net position as a percentage of the total pension liability 97.50 % 108.70 % 99.20 % 93.70 % 87.00 % 91.90 % 87.30 % 87.80 % 90.20 % Contributory Retirement System 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 Proportion of the net pension liability/(asset) 10.76 % 10.43 % 10.43 % 10.93 % 12.05 % 13.90 % 14.20 % 9.50 % 9.20 % Proportionate share of the net pension liability/(asset) $ 1,106,542 $ (7,552,026) $ (1,869,545) $ 716,348 $ 4,889,920 $ 1,131,317 $ 4,650,788 $ 6,662,216 $ 2,659,357 Covered payroll 1,509,950 1,532,256 1,720,735 1,958,697 2,255,421 2,821,107 3,401,048 4,038,849 4,934,504 Proportionate share of the net pension liability/(asset) as a percentage of its covered payroll 73.28 % (492.87) % (108.65) % 36.57 % 216.80 % 40.10 % 136.80 % 165.00 % 53.90 % Plan fiduciary net position as a percentage of the total pension liability 97.70 % 115.90 % 103.90 % 98.60 % 91.20 % 98.20 % 92.90 % 85.70 % 94.00 % * In accordance with paragraph 81.a of GASB 68, the City is required to disclose a 10 year history in this table. However, until a full 10 year trend is compiled, the City will present information for those years for which information is available. 133 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF THE PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE NET PENSION LIABILITY UTAH RETIREMENT SYSTEMS As of the Year Ended December 31, 2021 Last 10 Fiscal Years * Public Safety System 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 Proportion of the net pension liability/(asset) 100.00 % 100.00 % 100.00 % 100.00 % 100.00 % 100.00 % 100.00 % 100.00 % 100.00 % Proportionate share of the net pension liability/(asset) $62,282,792 $19,818,161 $59,354,942 $79,378,833 $103,028,051 $86,194,634 $91,688,895 $85,106,335 $72,876,185 Covered payroll 28,012,449 27,379,781 28,690,327 29,303,158 29,710,645 29,999,431 31,087,336 28,581,857 28,254,323 Proportionate share of the net pension liability/(asset) as a percentage of its covered payroll 222.34 % 72.38 % 206.88 % 270.89 % 346.77 % 287.32 % 294.90 % 297.80 % 257.90 % Plan fiduciary net position as a percentage of the total pension liability 86.20 % 95.50 % 85.90 % 80.40 % 73.70 % 77.30 % 74.00 % 73.90 % 76.70 % Firefighters System 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 Proportion of the net pension liability/(asset) 25.62 % 26.65 % 26.38 % 26.66 % 26.50 % 25.40 % 26.00 % 25.80 % 25.70 % Proportionate share of the net pension liability/(asset) $ (32,243,802) $ (72,083,739) $ (35,538,594) $ (16,662,414) $ 10,708,746 $ (5,697,589) $ 3,844,181 $ 4,382,293 $ (2,831,091) Covered payroll 21,331,459 22,127,493 21,900,906 21,916,972 21,677,933 21,246,778 22,462,865 21,718,863 21,493,020 Proportionate share of the net pension liability/(asset) as a percentage of its covered payroll (151.16) % (325.77) % (162.27) % (76.03) % 49.40 % (26.82) % 17.11 % 20.20 % (13.20) % Plan fiduciary net position as a percentage of the total pension liability 110.30 % 122.90 % 112.00 % 105.80 % 96.10 % 102.30 % 98.40 % 98.10 % 101.30 % * In accordance with paragraph 81.a of GASB 68, the City is required to disclose a 10 year history in this table. However, until a full 10 year trend is compiled, the City will present information for those years for which information is available. 134 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF THE PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE NET PENSION LIABILITY UTAH RETIREMENT SYSTEMS As of the Year Ended December 31, 2021 Last 10 Fiscal Years * Tier 2 Public Employees System 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 Proportion of the net pension liability/(asset) 2.99 % 2.79 % 2.87 % 2.84 % 2.74 % 2.70 % 2.70 % 2.60 % 2.50 % Proportionate share of the net pension liability/(asset) $3,252,994 $(1,179,997) $ 412,448 $ 639,365 $ 1,173,741 $ 237,701 $ 305,635 $ (5,627) $ (75,674) Covered payroll 65,149,798 51,749,660 45,852,498 39,505,904 31,993,906 26,365,818 22,470,077 16,654,990 12,253,110 Proportionate share of the net pension liability/(asset) as a percentage of its covered payroll 4.99 % (2.28) % 0.90 % 1.62 % 3.67 % 0.90 % 1.40 % — % (0.60) % Plan fiduciary net position as a percentage of the total pension liability 92.30 % 103.80 % 98.30 % 96.50 % 90.80 % 97.40 % 95.10 % 100.20 % 103.50 % Tier 2 Public Safety and Firefighter System 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 Proportion of the net pension liability/(asset) 6.19 % 5.80 % 5.74 % 5.55 % 5.18 % 5.18 % 5.10 % 4.90 % 4.70 % Proportionate share of the net pension liability/(asset) $ 516,314 $ (293,012) $ 515,287 $ 521,868 $ 129,911 $ (59,931) $ (44,337) $ (70,899) $ (69,679) Covered payroll 19,042,447 13,863,869 11,485,493 9,144,399 6,932,409 5,466,404 4,220,190 2,887,833 1,947,856 Proportionate share of the net pension liability/(asset) as a percentage of its covered payroll 2.71 % (2.11) % 4.49 % 5.71 % 1.87 % (1.10) % 1.10 % (2.50) % (3.60) % Plan fiduciary net position as a percentage of the total pension liability 96.04 % 102.80 % 93.10 % 89.60 % 95.60 % 103.00 % 103.60 % 110.70 % 120.50 % * In accordance with paragraph 81.a of GASB 68, the City is required to disclose a 10 year history in this table. However, until a full 10 year trend is compiled, the City will present information for those years for which information is available. 135 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF CONTRIBUTIONS UTAH RETIREMENT SYSTEMS June 30, 2023 Last 10 Fiscal Years * Noncontributory System 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 Actuarial determined contributions $ 13,669,162 $ 13,987,824 $ 14,211,603 $ 14,468,883 $ 14,784,183 $ 15,587,651 $ 15,203,842 $ 15,620,205 $ 15,813,000 $ 14,799,405 Contributions in relation to the contractually required contribution (13,669,162) (13,987,824) (14,211,603) (14,468,883) (14,784,183) (15,587,651) (15,203,842) (15,620,205) (15,813,000) (14,799,405) Contribution deficiency — — — — — — — — — Covered payroll 75,622,149 76,229,226 77,436,235 78,833,598 80,557,707 84,994,448 82,857,075 85,124,380 86,242,509 86,203,296 Contributions as a percentage of covered payroll ** 18.08 % 18.35 % 18.35 % 18.35 % 18.35 % 18.34 % 18.40 % 18.40 % 18.30 % 17.20 % Contributory Retirement System 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 Actuarial determined contributions $ 209,380 $ 220,194 $ 230,348 $ 269,579 $ 295,509 $ 385,624 $ 440,076 $ 521,065 $ 663,580 $ 678,348 Contributions in relation to the contractually required contribution (209,380) (220,194) (230,348) (269,579) (295,509) (385,624) (440,076) (521,065) (663,580) (678,348) Contribution deficiency — — — — — — — — — Covered payroll 1,490,725 1,522,794 1,593,017 1,864,326 2,043,653 2,667,741 3,043,441 3,603,536 4,589,128 5,108,117 Contributions as a percentage of covered payroll ** 14.05 % 14.46 % 14.46 % 14.46 % 14.46 % 14.50 % 14.5% 14.50 % 14.50 % 13.30 % * Amounts presented were determined as of fiscal year July 1 - June 30. ** Contributions as a percentage of covered payroll may be different than the Board certified rate due to rounding or other administrative issues. 136 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF CONTRIBUTIONS UTAH RETIREMENT SYSTEMS June 30, 2023 Last 10 Fiscal Years * Public Safety System 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 Actuarial determined contributions $ 13,146,106 $ 12,767,488 $ 12,550,149 $ 13,455,117 $ 13,599,853 $ 14,249,526 $ 13,983,065 $ 13,373,761 $ 13,142,387 $ 12,367,266 Contributions in relation to the contractually required contribution (13,146,106) (12,767,488) (12,550,149) (13,455,117) (13,599,853) (14,249,526) (13,983,065) (13,373,761) (13,142,387) (12,367,266) Contribution deficiency — — — — — — — — — Covered payroll 28,351,640 27,876,833 27,456,348 29,318,067 29,492,416 30,940,836 30,315,192 28,977,940 28,508,216 27,913,882 Contributions as a percentage of covered payroll ** 46.37 % 45.80 % 45.71 % 4580.00 % 45.90 % 46.11 % 46.10 % 46.20 % 46.20 % 46.10 % 44.30 % Firefighters System 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 Actuarial determined contributions $ 1,301,449 $ 1,534,954 $ 1,584,137 $ 1,594,213 $ 1,575,638 $ 1,492,942 $ 1,415,652 $ 1,478,858 $ 1,423,828 $ 953,758 Contributions in relation to the contractually required contribution (1,301,449) (1,534,954) (1,584,137) (1,594,213) (1,575,638) (1,492,942) (1,415,652) (1,478,858) (1,423,828) (953,758) Contribution deficiency — — — — — — — — — Covered payroll 20,898,457 21,507,692 22,144,611 22,042,984 21,763,435 22,283,254 21,256,546 21,877,162 21,606,471 21,390,496 Contributions as a percentage of covered payroll ** 6.23 % 7.14 % 7.15 % 7.23 % 7.24 % 6.70 % 6.70 % 6.80 % 6.60 % 4.50 % * Amounts presented were determined as of fiscal year July 1 - June 30. ** Contributions as a percentage of covered payroll may be different than the Board certified rate due to rounding or other administrative issues. 137 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF CONTRIBUTIONS UTAH RETIREMENT SYSTEMS June 30, 2023 Last 10 Fiscal Years * Tier 2 Public Employee System***2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 Actuarial determined contributions $ 11,675,940 $ 9,282,036 $ 7,581,247 $ 6,812,120 $ 5,538,150 $ 4,540,799 $ 3,554,282 $ 2,862,396 $ 2,144,571 $ 1,434,751 Contributions in relation to the contractually required contribution (11,675,940) (9,282,036) (7,581,247) (6,812,120) (5,538,150) (4,540,799) (3,554,282) (2,862,396) (2,144,571) (1,434,751) Contribution deficiency — — — — — — — — — Covered payroll 71,143,338 57,760,755 47,983,204 43,501,516 35,640,144 30,052,109 23,838,638 19,200,283 14,354,821 10,255,748 Contributions as a percentage of covered payroll ** 16.41 % 16.07 % 15.80 % 15.66 % 15.54 % 15.10 % 14.90 % 14.90 % 14.90 % 14.00 % Tier 2 Public Safety and Firefighter System***2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 Actuarial determined contributions $ 6,537,069 $ 5,165,630 $ 3,605,014 $ 3,079,494 $ 2,273,400 $ 1,700,143 $ 1,268,783 $ 958,067 $ 723,268 $ 494,869 Contributions in relation to the contractually required contribution (6,537,069) (5,165,630) (3,605,014) (3,079,494) (2,273,400) (1,700,143) (1,268,783) (958,067) (723,268) (494,869) Contribution deficiency — — — — — — — — — Covered payroll 20,603,402 16,575,313 11,814,994 10,711,284 8,055,737 6,249,529 4,734,619 3,478,846 2,424,518 1,709,850 Contributions as a percentage of covered payroll ** 31.73 % 31.16 % 30.51 % 28.75 % 28.22 % 27.20 % 26.80 % 27.50 % 29.80 % 28.90 % * Amounts presented were determined as of fiscal year July 1 - June 30. ** Contributions as a percentage of covered payroll may be different than the Board certified rate due to rounding or other administrative issues. *** Contributions in Tier 2 include an amortization rate to help fund the unfunded liabilities in the Tier 1 systems. Tier 2 systems were created effective July 1, 2011. 138 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF CONTRIBUTIONS UTAH RETIREMENT SYSTEMS June 30, 2023 Last 10 Fiscal Years * Tier 2 Public Employees DC Only System***2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 Actuarial determined contributions $ 1,325,692 $ 1,164,900 $ 1,044,855 $ 839,449 $ 718,595 $ 612,119 $ 469,208 $ 350,234 $ 223,610 $ 99,229 Contributions in relation to the contractually required contribution (1,325,692) (1,164,900) (1,044,855) (839,449) (718,595) (612,119) (469,208) (350,234) (223,610) (99,229) Contribution deficiency — — — — — — — — — Covered payroll 20,088,131 16,699,079 14,939,673 11,951,099 10,299,788 8,817,876 6,802,409 5,235,399 3,327,655 1,778,375 Contributions as a percentage of covered payroll ** 6.60 % 6.98 % 6.99 % 7.02 % 6.98 % 6.94 % 6.90 % 6.70 % 6.70 % 5.60 % Tier 2 Public Safety and Firefighter DC Only System***2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 Actuarial determined contributions $ 698,569 $ 567,245 $ 453,281 $ 389,830 $ 358,354 $ 273,217 $ 167,364 $ 144,511 $ 138,623 $ 66,613 Contributions in relation to the contractually required contribution (698,569) (567,245) (453,281) (389,830) (358,354) (273,217) (167,364) (144,511) (138,623) (66,613) Contribution deficiency — — — — — — — — — Covered payroll 3,540,475 2,872,082 2,327,822 2,025,004 1,826,747 1,357,040 892,166 738,510 660,215 327,534 Contributions as a percentage of covered payroll ** 19.73 % 19.75 % 19.47 % 19.25 % 19.62 % 20.10 % 18.80 % 19.60 % 21.00 % 20.30 % * Amounts presented were determined as of fiscal year July 1 - June 30. ** Contributions as a percentage of covered payroll may be different than the Board certified rate due to rounding or other administrative issues. *** Contributions in Tier 2 include an amortization rate to help fund the unfunded liabilities in the Tier 1 systems. Tier 2 systems were created effective July 1, 2011. 139 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF CONTRIBUTIONS UTAH RETIREMENT SYSTEMS June 30, 2023 Last 10 Fiscal Years * SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC SAFETY FUND 2033 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 Actuarially Determined Contribution $ 16,505,799 $ 15,350,247 $ 15,608,224 $ 15,608,919 $ 15,294,371 $ 14,899,169 $ 15,260,367 $ 14,100,050 Contribution in relation to the actuarially determined contribution (16,505,799) (15,350,247) (15,608,224) (15,608,919) (15,294,371) (14,899,169) (15,260,367) (14,100,050) Contribution deficiency (excess) — — — — — — Covered payroll 25,994,490 26,735,927 28,519,448 28,862,618 29,357,367 30,142,604 28,331,159 28,581,857 Contributions as a percentage of covered payroll 63.5 % 57.4 % 54.7 % 54.1 % 52.1 % 49.43 % 53.86 % 49.33 % * Amounts presented were determined as of fiscal year July 1 - June 30. The City is required to prospectively develop this table in future years to show 10-years of information. However, until a full 10 year trend is compiled, the City will present information available. 140 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF CHANGES IN NET PENSION LIABILITY December 31, 2022 Last 10 Fiscal Years* Schedule of Changes in Net Pension Liability Total pension liability 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 Service Cost $ 6,140,012 $ 6,146,543 $ 6,566,784 $ 6,664,578 $ 6,763,108 $ 6,704,194 $ 6,316,421 $ 5,963,330 Interest (on the Total Pension Liability) 29,255,041 28,604,572 27,597,013 26,741,309 25,880,971 24,936,718 23,099,095 23,023,003 Difference between expected and actual experience 3,310,822 (769,824) 3,340,606 345,357 533,365 2,143,293 2,814,918 2,062,462 Changes of assumptions — 5,194,335 (242,821) — — 11,736,690 11,312,611 — Benefit payments, including refunds of employee contributions (24,649,742) (23,562,271) (21,546,165) (21,233,951) (20,264,462) (18,746,721) (17,682,059) (17,073,847) Net change in total pension liability 14,056,133 15,613,355 15,715,417 12,517,293 12,912,982 26,774,174 25,860,986 13,974,948 Total pension liability – beginning 435,897,793 420,284,438 404,569,021 392,051,728 379,138,746 352,364,572 326,503,586 312,528,638 Total pension liability – ending $ 449,953,926 $ 435,897,793 $ 420,284,438 $ 404,569,021 $ 392,051,728 $ 379,138,746 $ 352,364,572 $ 326,503,586 Plan fiduciary net position Contributions – employer $ 16,505,799 $ 15,350,247 $ 15,608,224 $ 15,608,919 $ 15,294,371 $ 14,899,169 $ 15,260,367 $ 14,100,050 Contributions – employee 88,709 3,338 88,759 — — — 7,662 198 Net investment income (21,787,130) 61,654,861 40,543,142 41,115,915 (1,074,920) 34,603,100 20,441,556 4,177,400 Benefit payments, including refunds of employee contributions (24,649,742) (23,562,271) (21,546,165) (21,233,951) (20,264,462) (18,746,721) (17,682,059) (17,073,847) Administrative Expense (134,148) (130,628) (129,919) (125,839) (134,501) (129,436) (118,082) (115,895) Other 1,538,014 1,834,589 1,175,267 801,467 2,259,077 1,642,323 1,368,982 656,892 Net change in plan fiduciary net position (28,438,498) 55,150,136 35,739,308 36,166,511 (3,920,435) 32,268,435 19,278,426 1,744,798 Plan fiduciary net position – beginning 416,079,632 360,929,496 325,190,188 289,023,677 292,944,112 260,675,677 241,397,251 239,652,453 Plan fiduciary net position – ending $ 387,641,134 $ 416,079,632 $ 360,929,496 $ 325,190,188 $ 289,023,677 $ 292,944,112 $ 260,675,677 $ 241,397,251 Net pension liability $ 62,282,792 $ 19,818,161 $ 59,354,942 $ 79,378,833 $ 103,028,051 $ 86,194,634 $ 91,688,895 $ 85,106,335 Plan fiduciary net position as a percentage of the total pension liability 86.2 % 95.5 % 85.9 % 80.4 % 73.7 % 77.3 % 74.0 % 73.9 % Covered payroll 25,994,490 26,735,927 28,519,448 28,862,618 29,357,367 30,142,604 28,331,159 28,581,857 Net pension liability as a percentage of covered payroll 239.6 % 74.1 % 208.1 % 275.0 % 350.9 % 286.0 % 323.6 % 297.8 % Pension plan fiduciary net position: Detailed information about the pension plan’s fiduciary net position is available in the separately issued URS financial report. *Fiscal 2016 is the earliest data the City has for this plan; this schedule will be built prospectively. 141 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION COMPONENT UNIT LIBRARY SCHEDULE OF CHANGES IN THE TOTAL OPEB LIABILITY AND RELATED RATIOS June 30, 2023 Last 10 Fiscal Years * Schedule of Changes in the Total OPEB Liability and Related Ratios 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 Total OPEB Liability Service Cost $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — Interest 6,824 4,455 5,876 7,958 9,568 10,234 Changes of benefit terms — — — — — Differences between expected and actual experience (6,241) (1,113) (398) (764) 1,985 Changes in assumptions or other inputs (1,897) (24,306) 9,647 1,857 8,215 — Benefit Payments (20,400) (21,600) (22,900) (24,750) (29,250) (31,950) Net Change in Total OPEB liability (15,473) (47,692) (8,490) (15,333) (12,231) (19,731) Total OPEB Liability - Beginning 195,123 242,815 251,305 266,638 278,868 298,599 Total OPEB Liability - Ending $ 179,650 $ 195,123 $ 242,815 $ 251,305 $ 266,637 $ 278,868 Covered Payroll $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — Total OPEB Liability as a percentage of covered Payroll N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Notes to Schedule: Changes of Benefit Terms: None Discount rates used in each period:3.86%3.69%1.92%2.45%3.13%3.62% Changes of assumptions and other inputs reflects the effects of changes in the discount rate each period, as shown above. * In accordance with paragraph 170.a of GASB Statement No. 75, employers will need to disclose a 10-year schedule of changes in the total OPEB liability in their required supplementary information. However, until a full 10-year schedule is compiled, the Library will present information for those years for which information is available. 142 Notes to Required Supplementary Information 143 1. Budgetary-GAAP Reporting Reconciliation The City Council can amend the budget to any extent, provided the budgeted expenditures do not exceed revenues and appropriated fund balance. During the year ended June 30, 2023, General Fund appropriations increased by a net $28,069,234. The first increase was for encumbrances totaling $20,147,898. The third budget amendment increased funding for deeply affordable housing to address immediate and long-term homeless needs by $6 million. The fourth budget amendment totaled $7,584,328 and included requests for five new positions. It also included $750,000 for fire station gender equity, $2,539,019 for police patrol response, $500,000 for the tennis court reconstruction and $800,000 for substation improvements and various smaller projects. The fifth and sixth budget amendment increased general fund budgets by $5,940,349 and $12,219,731 respectively. These amounts included funding increases for repairs to City Hall for earthquake damages, improvements to the City physical security, reapairs to the Steiner building roof, and ARPA revenue replacement. Other smaller budget amendments made up the difference. The Schedules of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual include comparisons of the legally adopted budget (more fully described in Note 1 of the Notes to the Financial Statements) with actual data on a budgetary basis for the General Fund and proprietary funds that have a budgetary basis that differs from GAAP. Accounting principles applied for purposes of developing data on a budgetary basis differ from those used to present financial statements in conformity with GAAP. The difference in expenditures between GAAP and budgetary basis for the General Fund is reconciled in the following table. General Fund Expenditures Actual on reporting basis Plus encumbrances as of Change in compensation obligations Actual on budgetary basisJune 30, 2023 City Council $ 4,725,621 $ 422,308 $ 15,289 $ 5,163,218 Mayor 5,120,100 201,201 10,608 5,331,909 City Attorney 8,683,519 68,254 27,669 8,779,442 Finance 10,039,270 479,131 32,931 10,551,332 Fire 47,959,663 637,083 140,940 48,737,686 Combined Emergency Services 10,109,426 130,367 24,714 10,264,507 Police 103,022,906 1,680,990 246,718 104,950,614 Community and Neighborhoods 30,936,834 2,800,541 60,232 33,797,607 Economic Development 3,220,279 55,343 4,934 3,280,556 Justice Courts 4,928,656 46,369 22,804 4,997,829 Human Resources 3,722,452 46,699 20,067 3,789,218 Public Services 61,802,283 6,111,185 123,581 68,037,049 Nondepartmental 52,459,130 7,743,738 — 60,202,868 Total expenditures 346,730,139 20,423,209 730,487 367,883,835 Transfers out 81,117,256 — — 81,117,256 Total $ 427,847,395 $ 20,423,209 $ 730,487 $ 449,001,091 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION June 30, 2023 144 2. Post-employment Benefits other than pensions: No assets are accumulated in a trust that meets the criteria in paragraph four of GASB Statement 75. The plan is not accounted for as a trust fund since an irrevocable trust has not been established to account for the plan. The plan does not issue a separate report. The activity of the plan is reported in the Library’s general fund. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION June 30, 2023 145 This page intentionally left blank 146 Supplementary Information 147 Nonmajor Governmental Funds Arts Council Fund - To account for activities of the Arts Council and the purchase or construction of art in City owned facilities. Downtown Economic Development Fund - To account for special assessments which are restricted for downtown projects or improvements. Community Development Operating Fund - To account for monies received by the City as grantee participant in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, except for CDBG monies to be used for capital improvements which are accounted for in the Capital Projects Fund. Grants Operating Fund - To account for monies received by the City under the Home Program, Emergency Medical Services, Emergency Shelter Grants, Housing Opportunities for Persons with Aids Grants, Urban Area Security Initiative Grants, Metropolitan Medical Response System Grants, Local Emergency Planning Committee Hazardous Materials Grants, Drug Free Communities Grants, Rocky Mountain Drug Trafficking Grants, Justice Assistance Grants, Historic Preservation Grants, and other studies and grants. Street Lighting Fund - To account for the operation of additional street lights, the cost of which is paid by the City and by property owners who benefit from these improvements. Demolition, Weed and Forfeiture Fund - To account for City mandated demolition, weed abatement activities and certain police forfeiture activities. Emergency 911 Dispatch Fund - To account for the City's portion of the County-wide emergency dispatch system. Salt Lake City Donation Fund - This fund was established to account for individual private and intergovernmental contributions held in trust by the City for the Child Abduction Fund, Youth City Programs, Imagination Celebration, Police and Fire Equipment Endowments, Environmental Issues Fund, Police High School Scholarship Fund, Historic Preservation Fund, Mayor’s Sponsorship Fund, and other contributions received to be held for a specific purpose. Transportation Fund - In 2018 the State of Utah imposed a statewide 0.25% sales tax to be used for transportation. The state legislature allowed the Cities to receive this funding directly in July 2019. In the fiscal year ended June 30, 2020, the City created a separate governmental transportation fund to collect and spend their portion of the sales to improve transportation within the City. DEA Metro Narcotic Task Force Fund - The Drug Enforcement Administration Metropolitan Narcotic Task Force (DEA Metro Narcotic Task Force) is dedicated to the reduction of illegal drug trafficking. Financial resources are provided by federal grants and asset forfeitures. 148 Special Improvement Debt Service Fund - This fund is used to account for the cost of servicing the debt created by financing the construction of public improvements deemed to benefit the properties against which special assessments are levied. 149 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION COMBINING BALANCE SHEET NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS June 30, 2023 Special Revenue Funds Special Improvement Debt Service Fund Total Nonmajor Governmental Funds ASSETS Cash and cash equivalents Unrestricted $ 50,941,266 $ 168,217 $ 51,109,483 Receivables: Property tax receivable 2,364,903 — 2,364,903 Accounts receivable 1,875,862 139,417 2,015,279 Loan and other receivables 278,201 — 278,201 Due from for cash overdraft 475,946 — 475,946 Due from other governments 3,979,308 — 3,979,308 Other 4,057 86,790 90,847 Prepaids 23,731 — 23,731 Total assets $ 59,943,274 $ 394,424 $ 60,337,698 LIABILITIES Due to for cash overdraft $ 475,946 $ — $ 475,946 Accounts payable 1,712,348 — 1,712,348 Accrued liabilities 351,638 — 351,638 Current deposits and advance rentals 1,638,358 — 1,638,358 Revenues collected in advance 23,499,843 — 23,499,843 Other liabilities payable from restricted assets 1,875,862 226,207 2,102,069 Total liabilities 29,553,995 226,207 29,780,202 DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES Unavailable grant revenue 650 — 650 Total liabilities and deferred inflows of resources 29,554,645 226,207 29,780,852 FUND BALANCE Nonspendable 23,731 — 23,731 Restricted 15,018,855 — 15,018,855 Committed 6,021,935 168,217 6,190,152 Assigned 9,324,108 — 9,324,108 Total fund balance 30,388,629 168,217 30,556,846 Total liabilities and fund balance $ 59,943,274 $ 394,424 $ 60,337,698 150 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS Year ended June 30, 2023 Special Revenue Funds Special Improvement Debt Service Fund Total Nonmajor Governmental Funds Revenues: Sales, use, and excise taxes $ 13,494,711 $ — $ 13,494,711 Assessments 1,568,911 13,051 1,581,962 Fines and forfeitures 36,174 — 36,174 Interest 447,871 15,653 463,524 Intergovernmental 65,048,776 — 65,048,776 Charges for services 2,804,287 — 2,804,287 Contributions 765,787 — 765,787 Rental and other income 431,910 — 431,910 Miscellaneous 1,953,665 — 1,953,665 Total revenues 86,552,092 28,704 86,580,796 Expenditures: Fire 66,140 — 66,140 Police 445,197 — 445,197 Community and Neighborhoods 24,792,625 — 24,792,625 Economic Development 2,623,323 — 2,623,323 Public Services 2,365,514 — 2,365,514 Nondepartmental — 83 83 Total expenditures 30,292,799 83 30,292,882 Revenues over expenditures 56,259,293 28,621 56,287,914 Other financing sources: Proceeds from sale of property 14,132 — 14,132 Transfers in 300,000 — 300,000 Transfers out (53,249,296) (53,249,296) Total other financing sources (52,935,164) — (52,935,164) Net change in fund balances 3,324,129 28,621 3,352,750 Fund Balance July 1, 2022 27,064,500 139,596 27,204,096 Fund Balance June 30, 2023 $ 30,388,629 $ 168,217 $ 30,556,846 151 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION COMBINING BALANCE SHEET NONMAJOR SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS June 30, 2023 Arts Council Downtown Economic Development Community Development Operating Grants Operating ASSETS Cash and cash equivalents Unrestricted $ 1,014,535 $ 2,816,272 $ — $ 27,313,629 Receivables: Property tax receivable — — — — Accounts receivable — 1,875,862 — — Loan and other receivables, net 278,201 — — — Due from for cash overdraft — — 475,946 Due from other governments — — 778,132 3,201,176 Other 4,057 — — — Prepaids 5,731 — 1,500 16,500 Total assets $ 1,302,524 $ 4,692,134 $ 779,632 $ 31,007,251 LIABILITIES Due to for cash overdraft $ — $ — $ 475,946 $ — Accounts payable 68,145 411,000 204,612 934,872 Accrued liabilities 351,638 — — — Current deposits and advance rentals — — — — Total current liabilities 419,783 411,000 680,558 934,872 Noncurrent liabilties: Revenues collected in advance — — — 23,499,843 Other liabilities payable from restricted assets — 1,875,862 — — Total liabilities 419,783 2,286,862 680,558 24,434,715 DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES Unavailable grant revenue 650 — — — Total liabilities and deferred inflows of resources 420,433 2,286,862 680,558 24,434,715 FUND BALANCE Nonspendable 5,731 — 1,500 16,500 Restricted — — 97,574 6,556,036 Committed — — — — Assigned 876,360 2,405,272 — — Total fund balance 882,091 2,405,272 99,074 6,572,536 Total liabilities deferred inflows of resources and fund balance $ 1,302,524 $ 4,692,134 $ 779,632 $ 31,007,251 152 Street Lighting Demolition, Weed and Forfeiture Emergency 911 Dispatch Salt Lake City Donation Fund Salt Lake City Transportation Fund DEA Metro Narcotic Task Force Nonmajor Special Revenue Total $ 599,972 $ 3,014,810 $ 5,822,936 $ 3,909,218 $ 5,412,484 $ 1,037,410 $ 50,941,266 — — 850,330 — 1,514,573 — 2,364,903 — — — — — — 1,875,862 — — — — — — 278,201 — — — — — — 475,946 — — — — — — 3,979,308 — — — — — — 4,057 — — — — — — 23,731 $ 599,972 $ 3,014,810 $ 6,673,266 $ 3,909,218 $ 6,927,057 $ 1,037,410 59,943,274 $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — 475,946 — 23,309 — 70,361 — 49 1,712,348 — — — — — — 351,638 — 1,638,358 — — — — 1,638,358 — 1,661,667 — 70,361 — 49 4,178,290 — — — — — — 23,499,843 — — — — — — 1,875,862 — 1,661,667 — 70,361 — 49 29,553,995 — — — — — — 650 — 1,661,667 — 70,361 — 49 29,554,645 — — — — — — 23,731 — — 850,330 — 6,927,057 587,858 15,018,855 — 198,999 5,822,936 — — — 6,021,935 599,972 1,154,144 — 3,838,857 — 449,503 9,324,108 599,972 1,353,143 6,673,266 3,838,857 6,927,057 1,037,361 30,388,629 $ 599,972 $ 3,014,810 $ 6,673,266 $ 3,909,218 $ 6,927,057 $ 1,037,410 $ 59,943,274 153 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUE EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES NONMAJOR SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Year ended June 30, 2023 Arts Council Downtown Economic Development Community Development Operating Grants Operating Revenues: Sales, use, and excise taxes $ — $ — $ — $ — Assessments — 1,568,911 — — Fines and forfeitures — — — — Interest — 3,607 — 101,211 Intergovernmental — — 4,074,559 59,362,362 Charges for services 2,018,167 — — — Contributions 765,787 — — — Rental and other income — — — — Miscellaneous — — — 688,660 Total revenues 2,783,954 1,572,518 4,074,559 60,152,233 Expenditures: Fire — — — — Police — — — — Community and Neighborhoods — 1,668,631 2,579,246 20,128,930 Economic Development 2,623,323 — — — Public Services — — — — Total expenditures 2,623,323 1,668,631 2,579,246 20,128,930 Revenues over expenditures 160,631 (96,113) 1,495,313 40,023,303 Other financing sources: Proceeds from sale of property — — — — Transfers in — — — — Transfers out — — (1,476,972) (38,493,191) Total other financing sources — — (1,476,972) (38,493,191) Net change in fund balances 160,631 (96,113) 18,341 1,530,112 Fund Balance July 1, 2022 721,460 2,501,385 80,733 5,042,424 Fund Balance June 30, 2023 $ 882,091 $ 2,405,272 $ 99,074 $ 6,572,536 154 Street Lighting Demolition, Weed and Forfeiture Emergency 911 Dispatch Salt Lake City Donation Fund Salt Lake City Transportation Fund DEA Metro Narcotic Task Force Nonmajor Special Revenue Total $ — $ — $ 5,001,229 $ — $ 8,493,482 $ — $ 13,494,711 ——————1,568,911 —36,174 ————36,174 926 40,999 215,780 85,348 ——447,871 ———1,611,855 ——65,048,776 —212,843 —573,277 ——2,804,287 ——————765,787 ———431,910 ——431,910 —62,967 —1,165,186 —36,852 1,953,665 926 352,983 5,217,009 3,867,576 8,493,482 36,852 86,552,092 ———66,140 ——66,140 ———51,666 —393,531 445,197 —325,182 ——90,636 —24,792,625 ——————2,623,323 ———2,365,514 ——2,365,514 —325,182 —2,483,320 90,636 393,531 30,292,799 926 27,801 5,217,009 1,384,256 8,402,846 (356,679)56,259,293 —14,132 ————14,132 —300,000 ————300,000 ——(3,800,385)(20,000)(9,458,748)—(53,249,296) — 314,132 (3,800,385) (20,000) (9,458,748) — (52,935,164) 926 341,933 1,416,624 1,364,256 (1,055,902) (356,679) 3,324,129 599,046 1,011,210 5,256,642 2,474,601 7,982,959 1,394,040 27,064,500 $ 599,972 $ 1,353,143 $ 6,673,266 $ 3,838,857 $ 6,927,057 $ 1,037,361 $ 30,388,629 155 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION BUDGET COMPARISON SCHEDULE ARTS COUNCIL Year ended Year ended June 30, 2023 Budgeted Amounts Actual (GAAP basis)Original Final Variance Revenues: Charges for services $ 1,990,118 $ 1,894,493 $ 2,004,721 $ (14,603) Contributions 765,787 617,700 732,738 33,049 Miscellaneous 28,049 — 8,000 20,049 Total revenues 2,783,954 2,512,193 2,745,459 38,495 Expenditures: Arts Council 2,623,323 2,512,193 2,756,621 133,298 Total expenditures 2,623,323 2,512,193 2,756,621 133,298 Revenues over expenditures 160,631 $ — $ (11,162) $ 171,793 Other financing sources: Net change in fund balance 160,631 Fund Balance July 1, 2022 721,460 Fund Balance June 30, 2023 $ 882,091 156 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION BUDGET COMPARISON SCHEDULE DOWNTOWN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Year ended June 30, 2023 Budgeted Amounts Actual (GAAP basis)Original Final Variance Revenues: Assessments $ 1,568,911 $ 1,700,000 $ 1,700,000 $ (131,089) Interest 3,607 — — 3,607 Total revenues 1,572,518 1,700,000 1,700,000 (127,482) Expenditures: Community and Economic Development 1,668,631 1,700,000 1,700,000 31,369 Total expenditures 1,668,631 1,700,000 1,700,000 31,369 Revenues over expenditures (96,113) $ — $ — $ (96,113) Net change in fund balance (96,113) Fund Balance July 1, 2022 2,501,385 Fund Balance June 30, 2023 $ 2,405,272 157 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION BUDGET COMPARISON SCHEDULE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OPERATING FUND Year ended June 30, 2023 Budgeted Amounts Actual (GAAP basis)Original Final Variance Revenues: Intergovernmental $ 4,074,559 $ 4,670,517 $ 6,980,730 $ (2,906,171) Total revenues 4,074,559 4,670,517 6,980,730 (2,906,171) Expenditures: Community and Economic Development 2,579,246 4,958,433 7,268,646 4,689,400 Total expenditures 2,579,246 4,958,433 7,268,646 4,689,400 Revenues over expenditures 1,495,313 (287,916) (287,916) 1,783,229 Other financing sources (uses): Transfers out (1,476,972) — — (1,476,972) Total other financing sources: (1,476,972) $ — $ — $ (1,476,972) Net change in fund balance 18,341 Fund Balance July 1, 2022 80,733 Fund Balance June 30, 2023 $ 99,074 158 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION BUDGET COMPARISON SCHEDULE GRANTS OPERATING FUND Year ended June 30, 2023 Budgeted Amounts Actual (GAAP basis)Original Final Variance Revenues: Interest $ 101,211 $ — $ 5,000 $ 96,211 Intergovernmental 59,362,362 34,158,918 73,380,812 (14,018,450) Miscellaneous 688,660 — 65,400 623,260 Total revenues 60,152,233 34,158,918 73,451,212 (13,298,979) Expenditures: Community and Economic Development 20,128,930 6,724,042 75,141,537 55,012,607 Total expenditures 20,128,930 6,724,042 75,141,537 55,012,607 Revenues over (under) expenditures 40,023,303 27,434,876 (1,690,325) (68,311,586) Other financing sources (uses): Transfers out (38,493,191) (19,890,111) (38,493,191) — Total other financing sources: (38,493,191) $ (19,890,111) $ (38,493,191) $ — Net change in fund balance 1,530,112 Fund Balance July 1, 2022 5,042,424 Fund Balance June 30, 2023 $ 6,572,536 159 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION BUDGET COMPARISON SCHEDULE STREET LIGHTING Year ended June 30, 2023 Budgeted Amounts Actual (GAAP basis)Original Final Variance Revenues: Interest $ 926 $ — $ — $ 926 Total revenues 926 — — 926 Revenues over expenditures 926 $ — $ — $ 926 Net change in fund balance 926 Fund Balance July 1, 2022 599,046 Fund Balance June 30, 2023 $ 599,972 160 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION BUDGET COMPARISON SCHEDULE DEMOLITION, WEED AND FORFEITURE Year ended June 30, 2023 Budgeted Amounts Actual (GAAP basis)Original Final Variance Revenues: Fines and forfeitures $ 36,174 $ — $ — $ 36,174 Interest 40,999 — — 40,999 Charges for services 212,843 — — 212,843 Miscellaneous 62,967 — — 62,967 Total revenues 352,983 — — 352,983 Expenditures: Community and Economic Development 325,182 300,000 1,202,827 877,645 Total expenditures 325,182 300,000 1,202,827 877,645 Revenues over (under) expenditures 27,801 (300,000) (1,202,827) 1,230,628 Other financing sources: Proceeds from sale of property 14,132 — — 14,132 Transfers in 300,000 300,000 350,000 (50,000) Total other financing sources: 314,132 $ 300,000 $ 350,000 $ (35,868) Net change in fund balance 341,933 Fund Balance July 1, 2022 1,011,210 Fund Balance June 30, 2023 $ 1,353,143 161 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION BUDGET COMPARISON SCHEDULE EMERGENCY 911 DISPATCH Year ended June 30, 2023 Budgeted Amounts Actual (GAAP basis)Original Final Variance Revenues: Sales, use and excise taxes $ 5,001,229 $ 3,850,000 $ 3,850,000 $ 1,151,229 Interest 215,780 75,000 75,000 140,780 Total revenues 5,217,009 3,925,000 3,925,000 1,292,009 Revenues over expenditures 5,217,009 3,925,000 3,925,000 1,292,009 Other financing uses: Transfers out (3,800,385) (3,800,385) (3,800,385) — Total other financing uses: (3,800,385) $ (3,800,385) $ (3,800,385) $ — Net change in fund balance 1,416,624 Fund Balance July 1, 2022 5,256,642 Fund Balance June 30, 2023 $ 6,673,266 162 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION BUDGET COMPARISON SCHEDULE SALT LAKE CITY DONATION FUND Year ended June 30, 2023 Budgeted Amounts Actual (GAAP basis)Original Final Variance Revenues: Interest $ 85,348 $ — $ 44,668 $ 40,680 Intergovernmental 1,611,855 1,646,800 1,646,800 (34,945) Charges for services 573,277 508,850 508,850 64,427 Rental and other income 431,910 201,100 201,100 230,810 Miscellaneous 1,165,186 563,500 1,712,493 (547,307) Total revenues 3,867,576 2,920,250 4,113,911 (246,335) Expenditures: Fire 66,140 — — (66,140) Police 51,666 — — (51,666) Public Services 2,365,514 2,870,250 5,473,075 3,107,561 Total expenditures 2,483,320 2,870,250 5,473,075 2,989,755 Revenues over (under) expenditures 1,384,256 50,000 (1,359,164) 2,743,420 Other financing sources: Transfers out (20,000) — (20,000) — Total other financing sources: (20,000) $ — $ (20,000) $ — Net change in fund balance 1,364,256 Fund Balance July 1, 2022 2,474,601 Fund Balance June 30, 2023 $ 3,838,857 163 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION BUDGET COMPARISON SCHEDULE SALT LAKE CITY TRANSPORTATION FUND Year ended June 30, 2023 Budgeted Amounts Actual (GAAP basis)Original Final Variance Revenues: Sales tax $ 8,493,482 $ 9,600,000 $ 9,600,000 $ (1,106,518) Total revenues 8,493,482 9,600,000 9,600,000 (1,106,518) Expenditures: Transportation 90,636 9,458,748 9,458,748 (9,368,112) Total expenditures 90,636 9,458,748 9,458,748 (9,368,112) Revenues over (under) expenditures 8,402,846 141,252 141,252 8,261,594 Other financing sources: Transfers out (9,458,748) — — (9,458,748) Total other financing sources: (9,458,748) $ — $ — $ (9,458,748) Net change in fund balance (1,055,902) Fund Balance July 1, 2022 7,982,959 Fund Balance June 30, 2023 $ 6,927,057 164 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION BUDGET COMPARISON SCHEDULE DEA METRO NARCOTIC TASK FORCE FUND Year ended June 30, 2023 Budgeted Amounts Actual (GAAP basis)Original Final Variance Revenues: Miscellaneous $ 36,852 $ 1,762,560 $ 1,762,560 $ (1,725,708) Total revenues 36,852 1,762,560 1,762,560 (1,725,708) Expenditures: Police 393,531 1,762,560 1,762,560 (1,369,029) Total expenditures 393,531 1,762,560 1,762,560 (1,369,029) Revenues over (under) expenditures (356,679) $ — $ — $ (356,679) Net change in fund balance (356,679) Fund Balance July 1, 2022 1,394,040 Fund Balance June 30, 2023 $ 1,037,361 165 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION COMBINING BALANCE SHEET NONMAJOR DEBT SERVICE FUND Year ended June 30, 2023 Special Improvement ASSETS Cash and cash equivalents Unrestricted $ 168,217 Receivables: Accounts 139,417 Other 86,790 Total assets $ 394,424 LIABILITIES Other liabilities $ 226,207 Total liabilities 226,207 FUND BALANCE Committed 168,217 Total fund balance 168,217 Total liabilities and fund balance $ 394,424 166 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES NONMAJOR DEBT SERVICE FUND Year ended June 30, 2023 Special Improvement Revenues: Assessments $ 13,051 Interest 15,653 Total revenues 28,704 Expenditures: Finance Debt service: Operating and maintenance 83 Total expenditures 83 Net change in fund balance 28,621 Fund Balance July 1, 2022 139,596 Fund Balance June 30, 2023 $ 168,217 167 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION BUDGET COMPARISON SCHEDULE SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT FUND Year ended June 30, 2023 Actual (GAAP basis) Budgeted Amounts Original Budget Final Budget Variance Revenues: Assessments $ 13,051 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 10,051 Interest 15,653 — — 15,653 Total revenues 28,704 3,000 3,000 25,704 Expenditures: Operating and maintenance 83 1,200 1,200 1,117 Administrative Services — 1,800 1,800 1,800 Total expenditures 83 3,000 3,000 2,917 Revenues over (under) expenditures 28,621 $ — $ — $ 28,621 Net change in fund balance 28,621 Fund Balance July 1, 2022 139,596 Fund Balance June 30, 2023 $ 168,217 168 Major Governmental Funds Budgetary Comparison Schedule 169 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION BUDGET COMPARISON SCHEDULE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Year ended June 30, 2023 Actual (GAAP basis) Budgeted Amounts Original Budget Final Budget Variance Revenues: Sales, use and excise taxes $ 1,617,217 $ 8,000,000 $ 1,617,217 $ — Permits 13,043,797 3,360,193 —13,043,797 Interest 5,262,888 —606,328 4,656,560 Intergovernmental 7,415,253 3,870,505 11,604,637 (4,189,384) Charges for Services 600,000 —600,000 — Rental and other income 181,591 —154,000 27,591 Miscellaneous 9,936,863 222,554 10,383,216 (446,353) Total revenues 38,057,609 15,453,252 24,965,397 13,092,211 Expenditures: Capital improvements 47,211,498 35,311,882 298,075,516 250,864,018 Total expenditures 47,211,498 35,311,882 298,075,516 250,864,018 Revenues under expenditures (9,153,889)(19,858,630)(273,110,118)(237,771,807) Other financing sources (uses): Proceeds from bond issuance 89,956,695 —89,953,000 3,695 Proceeds from sale of property 23,115 ——23,115 Debt Service: Transfers in 39,637,805 20,007,135 42,117,368 (2,479,563) Transfers out (7,884,341)(148,505)(7,348,505)(535,836) Total other financing sources (uses):121,733,274 $ 19,858,630 $ 124,721,863 $ (2,988,589) Net Change in Fund Balance 112,579,385 Fund Balance July 1, 2022 145,000,880 Fund Balance June 30, 2023 $ 257,580,265 170 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION BUDGET COMPARISON SCHEDULE OTHER IMPROVEMENT FUND Year ended June 30, 2023 Budgeted Amounts Actual (GAAP basis)Original Final Variance Revenues: Property taxes $ 17,368,652 $ 17,368,652 $ 17,368,652 $ — Sales, use and excise taxes 1,100,000 — — 1,100,000 Intergovernmental 5,447,065 2,187,367 2,187,367 3,259,698 Interest 159,607 — — 159,607 Rental and other income 318,606 318,608 318,608 (2) Total revenues 24,393,930 19,874,627 19,874,627 4,519,303 Expenditures: Administrative Services — 7,500 7,500 7,500 Debt service: Principal 19,273,120 22,592,200 20,177,046 903,926 Interest 10,070,858 10,058,858 9,857,243 (213,615) Total expenditures 29,343,978 32,658,558 30,041,789 697,811 Revenues under expenditures (4,950,048) (12,783,931) (10,167,162) 3,821,492 Other financing sources: Refunding bonds issued 576,109 — 579,804 (3,695) Transfers in 9,006,630 12,163,362 8,966,789 39,841 Total other financing sources 9,582,739 12,163,362 9,546,593 36,146 Other financing uses: Transfers out (1,000,000) (1,000,000) (1,000,000) — Total other financing uses (1,000,000) $ (1,000,000) $ (1,000,000) $ — Net change in fund balance 3,632,691 Fund Balance July 1, 2022 9,816,669 Fund Balance June 30, 2023 $ 13,449,360 171 This page intentionally left blank 172 Nonmajor Enterprise Funds Street Lighting Utility – This fund is used to account for the activities related to operations, repairs and maintenance of the street lights. Refuse Collection Fund – This fund is used to account for the operations and activities related to garbage collection and disposal. Housing and Loan Fund – This fund is used to account for the loan servicing activities of the City’s grand and leveraged bank funded loans, except for the Urban Development Action Grant loans. Golf Fund – This fund is used to account for the operation of golf courses for use by the general public. 173 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION COMBINING STATEMENT OF NET POSITION NONMAJOR PROPRIETARY FUNDS June 30, 2023 Street Lighting Utility ASSETS Current assets: Cash and cash equivalents Unrestricted $ 5,674,529 Restricted 80,661 Receivables: Accounts, less allowance for doubtful accounts of $6,956, $28,302, $0, $0 respectively, totaling $35,258. 355,405 Current portion of loans receivable — Prepaid expenses 2,055 Inventory of supplies — Total current assets 6,112,650 Property and equipment, at cost: Land and water rights — Buildings — Improvements other than buildings 13,156,875 Machinery and equipment — Construction in progress — Accumulated depreciation (4,635,130) Net property and equipment 8,521,745 Loans and other long-term receivables, less allowance for doubtful accounts of $0, $0, $351,000, $0, respectively, totaling $351,000. — Land and buildings held for resale — Investment in joint venture — Total noncurrent assets 8,521,745 Total assets 14,634,395 DEFERRED OUTFLOWS OF RESOURCES Deferred Outflows - Pension 32,971 Total Deferred Outflows 32,971 Total assets and deferred outflows of resources $ 14,667,366 174 Refuse Collection Housing & Loan Golf Total $ 7,404,359 $ 31,353,806 $ 11,253,336 $ 55,686,030 1,858,349 — — 1,939,010 1,209,911 — — 1,565,316 — 2,224,983 — 2,224,983 61,500 — 177,058 240,613 — — 283,188 283,188 10,534,119 33,578,789 11,713,582 61,939,140 — — 5,831,658 5,831,658 — — 4,509,301 4,509,301 — — 17,893,683 31,050,558 21,470,913 — 3,354,186 24,825,099 232,156 — — 232,156 (13,040,683) — (15,060,641) (32,736,454) 8,662,386 — 16,528,187 33,712,318 — 26,567,100 — 26,567,100 — 2,687,371 — 2,687,371 23,235,204 — — 23,235,204 31,897,590 29,254,471 16,528,187 86,201,993 42,431,709 62,833,260 28,241,769 148,141,133 647,479 — 456,727 1,137,177 647,479 — 456,727 1,137,177 $ 43,079,188 $ 62,833,260 $ 28,698,496 $ 149,278,310 175 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION COMBINING STATEMENT OF NET POSITION NONMAJOR PROPRIETARY FUNDS June 30, 2023 Street Lighting Utility LIABILITIES Current liabilities: Accounts payable $ 420,532 Accrued liabilities 4,235 Accrued interest 37,595 Current deposits and advance rentals 31,382 Current portion of long-term compensated absences 2,253 Current portion of long-term debt 103,360 Total current liabilities 599,357 Noncurrent liabilties: Deposits, advance rentals and long-term accruals — Bonds, mortgages, and notes payable 2,055,922 Long-term compensated absences liability 18,668 Net pension liability 14,466 Total noncurrent liabilities 2,089,056 Total liabilities 2,688,413 DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES Deferred Inflows - Pension 599 Total deferred inflows 599 NET POSITION Invested in capital assets 6,405,529 Unrestricted 5,572,825 Total net position 11,978,354 Total liabilities, deferred inflows of resources and net position $ 14,667,366 176 Refuse Collection Housing & Loan Golf Total $ 290,604 $ 227,905 $ 351,744 $ 1,290,785 122,496 —96,144 222,875 ———37,595 —628,034 —659,416 64,766 —173,923 240,942 1,746,491 689,207 —2,539,058 2,224,357 1,545,146 621,811 4,990,671 102,012 —932,152 1,034,164 3,084,545 2,764,885 4,785,705 12,691,057 365,332 —349,761 733,761 313,138 —247,577 575,181 3,865,027 2,764,885 6,315,195 15,034,163 6,089,384 4,310,031 6,937,006 20,024,834 9,745 —5,014 15,358 9,745 —5,014 15,358 ——11,742,482 18,148,011 36,980,059 58,523,229 10,013,994 111,090,107 36,980,059 58,523,229 21,756,476 129,238,118 $ 43,079,188 $ 62,833,260 $ 28,698,496 $ 149,278,310 177 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN NET POSITION NONMAJOR PROPRIETARY FUNDS June 30, 2023 Street Lighting Utility Sales and charges for services $ 4,288,019 Rental and other 1,111 Total operating revenue 4,289,130 Personnel services 213,646 Operating and maintenance — Charges and services 4,055,718 Depreciation and amortization 707,539 Total operating expenses 4,976,903 Operating income/(loss) (687,773) Interest income 171,632 Interest expense (78,204) Equity in joint venture income — Gain on disposition of property and equipment — Total nonoperating revenues 93,428 Grants and other contributions (36,000) Total capital contributions (36,000) Income/(loss) before transfers (630,345) Transfers in — Transfers out — Change in net position (630,345) Net Position July 1, 2022 12,608,699 Net Position June 30, 2023 $ 11,978,354 178 Refuse Collection Housing & Loan Golf Total $ 15,249,801 $ — $ 10,593,179 $ 30,130,999 209,899 411,008 55,885 677,903 15,459,700 411,008 10,649,064 30,808,902 5,654,765 — 4,409,972 10,278,383 427,299 7,261 1,658,852 2,093,412 7,760,911 661,537 3,201,015 15,679,181 1,968,540 — 760,237 3,436,316 15,811,515 668,798 10,030,076 31,487,292 (351,815) (257,790) 618,988 (678,390) 196,274 1,504,776 267,750 2,140,432 (59,677) (138,037) (135,298) (411,216) 981,224 — — 981,224 325,691 — 560,900 886,591 1,443,512 1,366,739 693,352 3,597,031 — — — (36,000) — — — (36,000) 1,091,697 1,108,949 1,312,340 2,882,641 1,762,126 1,019,189 2,078,374 4,859,689 (272,427) (241,762) — (514,189) 2,581,396 1,886,376 3,390,714 7,228,141 34,398,662 56,636,853 18,365,762 122,009,976 $ 36,980,059 $ 58,523,229 $ 21,756,476 $ 129,238,118 179 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION COMBINING STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS NONMAJOR PROPRIETARY FUNDS June 30, 2023 Street Lighting Utility Cash Flows from Operating Activities Receipts from customers and users $ 4,362,693 Payments to internal fund services (65,375) Payments to suppliers (3,893,254) Payments to employees (270,322) Net cash provided by operating activities 133,742 Cash flows from noncapital and related financing activities: Transfers in — Transfers out — Net cash provided by (used in) noncapital and related financing activities — Cash flows from capital and related financing activities: Proceeds from issuance of debt (net of discount and issuance costs) — Proceeds from sale of equipment — Contributions for aid in construction (36,000) Payment on long-term obligations, net of capitalized interest (193,579) Payments for purchase and construction, including capitalized interest (199,606) Net cash provided by capital and related financing activities (429,185) Cash flows from investing activities: Interest received on investments and loans 171,632 Net cash provided by investing activities 171,632 Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents (123,811) Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year 5,879,001 Cash and cash equivalents at end of year $ 5,755,190 Cash and cash equivalent components: Unrestricted $ 5,674,529 Restricted 80,661 Cash and cash equivalents at end of year $ 5,755,190 Cash flows from operating activities - Operating income (loss)$ (687,773) Adjustments to reconcile operating income (loss) to net cash provided by (used in) operating activities: Depreciation and amortization 707,539 Increase (decrease) due to changes in: Accounts receivable 86,078 Other current assets 300 Accounts payable 97,086 Deferred outflows — Accrued liabilities affecting operating activities (52,713) Other liabilities (12,512) Pension assets — Pension liability 53,791 Deferred inflows (58,054) Compensation liability — Total adjustments 821,515 Net cash provided by operating activities $ 133,742 Noncash transactions affecting financial position: 180 Refuse Collection Housing & Loan Golf Total $ 15,375,147 $ 4,006,743 $ 10,916,407 $ 34,660,990 — — — (65,375) (8,188,210) (4,151,313) (4,909,243) (21,142,020) (5,780,951) — (4,575,112) (10,626,385) 1,405,986 (144,570) 1,432,052 2,827,210 1,762,126 1,019,189 2,078,374 4,859,689 (272,427) (241,762) — (514,189) 1,489,699 777,427 2,078,374 4,345,500 2,768,457 — 2,768,457 545,027 — 560,900 1,105,927 — — — (36,000) (1,414,223) (852,934) (512,767) (2,973,503) (2,405,990) — (604,663) (3,210,259) (506,728) (852,934) (556,530) (2,345,378) 196,274 1,504,776 267,750 2,140,432 196,274 1,504,776 267,750 2,140,432 2,585,231 1,284,699 3,221,646 6,967,764 6,677,477 30,069,107 8,031,690 50,657,275 9,262,708 31,353,806 11,253,336 57,625,040 $ 7,404,359 $ 31,353,806 $ 11,253,336 $ 55,686,030 1,858,349 — — 1,939,010 $ 9,262,708 $ 31,353,806 $ 11,253,336 $ 57,625,040 $ (351,815) $ (257,790) $ 618,988 $ (678,390) 1,968,540 — 760,237 3,436,316 108,356 25,683 — 220,117 4,596 327,632 (107,093) 225,435 (161,716) (240,095) 57,717 (247,008) (207,025) — (124,303) (331,328) 30,761 — 286,867 264,915 (31,193) — — (43,705) 720,977 — 786,701 1,507,678 313,138 — 247,577 614,506 (1,007,962) — (1,077,242) (2,143,258) 19,329 — (17,397) 1,932 1,757,801 113,220 813,064 3,505,600 $ 1,405,986 $ (144,570) $ 1,432,052 $ 2,827,210 181 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION BUDGET COMPARISON SCHEDULE STREET LIGHTING UTILITY FUND Year ended June 30, 2023 Actual on GAAP basis Budgetary Basis Actual on budgetary basis Budgeted Amounts Original Final Variance Revenues and other sources: Operating revenue - sales and charges for current services $ 4,289,130 $ 4,289,130 $ 4,174,722 $ 4,174,722 $ 114,408 Interest income 171,632 171,292 22,500 22,500 148,792 Contributions and nonoperating grants (36,000) (36,000) 25,000 25,000 (61,000) Transfers in — — 80,000 80,000 (80,000) Total revenues and other sources 4,424,762 4,424,422 4,302,222 4,302,222 122,200 Expenses and other uses: Personnel services 213,647 271,490 392,792 392,792 121,302 Operating and maintenance — — 6,994 6,994 6,994 Charges and services 4,055,717 4,054,195 2,924,454 2,929,725 (1,124,470) Depreciation and amortization 707,539 — — — — Expenses before debt service and capital outlay 4,976,903 4,325,685 3,324,240 3,329,511 (996,174) Debt Service Principal — 98,430 100,485 100,485 2,055 Interest 78,204 93,099 93,100 93,100 1 Infrastructure — 152,292 2,240,000 2,256,415 2,104,123 Total expenses and other uses 5,055,107 4,669,506 5,757,825 5,779,511 1,110,005 Change in net position $ (630,345) $ (245,084) $ (1,455,603) $ (1,477,289) $ 1,232,205 182 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION BUDGET COMPARISON SCHEDULE REFUSE COLLECTION FUND Year ended June 30, 2023 Actual on GAAP basis Budgetary Basis Actual on budgetary basis Budgeted Amounts Original Final Variance Revenues and other sources: Refuse collection fees $ 15,249,801 $ 15,249,801 $ 15,533,746 $ 15,533,746 $ (283,945) Fixed asset disposition proceeds — 545,027 74,000 74,000 471,027 Gain on fixed asset disposition 325,691 — — — — Rental and other 209,899 — — — — Proceeds from debt — — 4,816,800 4,816,800 (4,816,800) Interest income 196,274 196,274 36,432 36,432 159,842 Equity in joint venture income 981,224 981,224 — — 981,224 Transfer in 1,762,126 1,762,126 997,126 997,126 765,000 Total revenues and other sources 18,725,015 18,734,452 21,458,104 21,458,104 (2,723,652) Expenses and other uses: Personnel services 5,654,765 5,885,779 6,029,059 6,029,059 143,280 Operating and maintenance 427,299 427,299 278,599 479,599 52,300 Charges and services 7,760,911 7,745,947 10,052,438 9,851,438 2,105,491 Depreciation 1,968,540 — — — — Transfers out 272,427 272,427 275,000 275,000 2,573 Total expenses before debt service and capital outlay 16,083,942 14,331,452 16,635,096 16,635,096 2,303,644 Debt service: Principal — 1,850,728 2,531,546 2,531,546 680,818 Interest 59,677 59,677 47,325 47,325 (12,352) Capital outlay - purchase of equipment — 2,405,990 5,738,704 8,774,404 6,368,414 Total expenses and other uses 16,143,619 18,647,847 24,952,671 27,988,371 9,340,524 Change in net position $ 2,581,396 $ 86,605 $ (3,494,567) $ (6,530,267) $ 6,616,872 183 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION BUDGET COMPARISON SCHEDULE HOUSING LOANS FUND Year ended June 30, 2023 Actual on GAAP basis Budgetary Basis Actual on budgetary basis Budgeted Amounts Original Final Variance Revenues and other sources: Operating revenue - sales and charges for current services $ 411,008 $ 1,201,737 $ 15,166,000 $ 15,459,793 $ (14,258,056) Property disposition proceeds — — 200,000 200,000 (200,000) Interest income 1,504,776 1,504,776 851,000 851,000 653,776 Transfers in 1,019,189 1,019,189 — 924,856 94,333 Total revenues and other sources 2,934,973 3,725,702 16,217,000 17,435,649 (13,709,947) Expenses and other uses: Charges and services 661,537 682,228 24,629,254 26,932,093 26,249,865 Operating and maintenance 7,261 7,261 — — (7,261) Transfers out 241,762 241,762 — 100,000 (141,762) Expenses before debt service and capital outlay 910,560 931,251 24,629,254 27,032,093 26,100,842 Debt service: Principal — 714,897 960,000 960,000 245,103 Interest 138,037 138,037 190,000 190,000 51,963 Total expenses and other uses 1,048,597 1,784,185 25,779,254 28,182,093 26,397,908 Change in net position $ 1,886,376 $ 1,941,517 $ (9,562,254) $ (10,746,444) $ 12,687,961 184 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION BUDGET COMPARISON SCHEDULE GOLF FUND Year ended June 30, 2023 Actual on GAAP basis Budgetary Basis Actual on budgetary basis Budgeted Amounts Original Final Variance Revenues and other sources: Admissions and fees $ 7,376,699 $ 7,376,699 $ 6,368,182 $ 6,368,182 $ 1,008,517 Equipment and facility rental 2,308,313 2,308,313 2,245,887 2,245,887 62,426 Retail sales and concessions 959,417 959,417 882,258 882,258 77,159 Interest income 267,750 267,750 — — 267,750 Fixed asset disposition proceeds 560,900 560,900 — — 560,900 Other revenue 4,635 4,635 11,675 11,675 (7,040) Transfers in 2,078,374 2,078,374 2,052,674 2,078,374 — Total revenues and other sources 13,556,088 13,556,088 11,560,676 11,586,376 1,969,712 Expenses and other uses: Personnel services 4,409,972 4,887,900 4,606,093 4,652,893 (235,007) Operating and maintenance 1,658,852 1,527,464 1,474,818 1,574,843 47,379 Charges and services 3,201,015 3,201,015 3,225,867 3,156,742 (44,273) Depreciation 760,237 — — — — Total expenses before debt service and capital outlay 10,030,076 9,616,379 9,306,778 9,384,478 (231,901) Debt Service: Principal — 382,391 358,725 377,168 (5,223) Interest 135,298 135,298 154,011 135,568 270 Capital outlay-purchase of equipment — 373,306 4,906,502 5,472,177 5,098,871 Total expenses and other uses 10,165,374 10,507,374 14,726,016 15,369,391 4,862,017 Change in net position $ 3,390,714 $ 3,048,714 $ (3,165,340) $ (3,783,015) $ 6,831,729 185 Major Enterprise Funds Budgetary Comparison Schedule 186 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION BUDGET COMPARISON SCHEDULE DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS FUND Year ended June 30, 2023 Actual on GAAP basis Budgetary Basis Actual on budgetary basis Budgeted Amounts Original Final Variance Revenues and other sources: Airfields $ 148,356,337 $ 148,356,337 $ 151,979,800 $ 151,979,800 $ (3,623,463) Terminals 14,970,365 14,970,365 26,985,100 26,985,100 (12,014,735) Landside 103,903,250 103,903,250 94,900,800 94,900,800 9,002,450 Lease Revenue 11,363,674 11,363,674 10,724,700 10,724,700 638,974 General aviation 4,128,025 4,128,025 3,304,300 3,304,300 823,725 State aviation tax 3,007,521 3,007,521 3,224,300 3,224,300 (216,779) Other revenue 11,442,091 11,442,091 4,350,100 4,350,100 7,091,991 Equipment disposition proceeds — 98,949 — — 98,949 Interest income 30,645,109 30,645,108 2,000,000 2,000,000 28,645,108 Passenger facility charges 49,282,454 49,282,454 — — 49,282,454 Customer facility charges 15,177,082 15,177,082 — — 15,177,082 Contributions for aid in construction 62,471,709 62,471,709 4,799,500 4,799,500 57,672,209 Airline revenue sharing (13,844,449) (13,844,449) — — (13,844,449) Total revenues and other sources 440,903,168 441,002,116 302,268,600 302,268,600 138,733,516 Expenses and other uses: Personnel services 61,413,708 61,413,708 62,544,500 63,524,271 $ 2,110,563 Accrued compensated absences and other post employment benefits (2,425,095) — — — — Operating and maintenance 20,147,750 20,147,750 17,494,200 21,378,300 1,230,550 Charges and services 92,097,826 92,944,076 101,119,900 111,059,100 18,115,024 Loss on capital asset disposition 7,293 (106,242) — — 106,242 Depreciation and amortization 148,449,313 — — — — Bond Issuance costs 381,981 — 3,500,000 3,500,000 3,500,000 Transfers out — — — 150,000 150,000 Total expenses before capital outlay 320,072,776 174,399,292 184,658,600 199,611,671 25,212,379 Debt service: Interest 117,346,361 136,370,783 136,333,200 136,333,200 (37,583) Capital outlay: Land — 776,005 — — (776,005) Equipment — 7,829,447 7,760,600 7,760,600 (68,847) Construction, including multi-year projects — 458,549,887 41,813,500 729,794,200 271,244,313 Total expenses and other uses 437,419,137 777,925,414 370,565,900 1,073,499,671 295,574,257 Change in net position $ 3,484,031 $ (336,923,298) $ (68,297,300) $ (771,231,071) $ (632,497,555) 187 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION BUDGET COMPARISON SCHEDULE WATER UTILITY FUND Year ended June 30, 2023 Actual on GAAP basis Budgetary Basis Actual on budgetary basis Budgeted Amounts Original Final Variance Revenues and other sources: Operating revenue - sales and charges for current services $ 87,539,609 $ 86,517,015 $ 98,266,900 $ 98,266,900 $ (11,749,885) Equipment disposition proceeds 154,203 154,203 40,500 40,500 113,703 Gain on sale of assets 247,129 ——— — Interest income 4,453,174 4,454,255 883,164 883,164 3,571,091 Contributions and non-operating grants 4,076,028 4,076,028 1,953,620 38,894,307 (34,818,279) Interfund service charge 3,177,284 3,177,284 3,171,284 4,588,844 (1,411,560) Rental and other income 1,782,223 1,782,223 1,796,230 378,670 1,403,553 Impact fees 237,942 237,942 1,784,670 1,784,670 (1,546,728) Transfers in 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 — Total revenues and other sources 101,967,592 100,698,950 108,196,368 145,137,055 (44,438,105) Expenses and other uses: Personnel services 24,581,383 24,581,383 30,194,025 30,194,025 5,612,642 Accrued compensated absences and other post employment benefits (837,734)———— Operating and maintenance 3,215,525 3,215,525 5,259,214 5,428,235 2,212,710 Charges and services 39,647,608 39,724,021 46,918,580 49,453,950 9,729,929 Depreciation and amortization 10,415,151 ———— Expenses before debt service and capital outlay 77,021,933 67,520,929 82,371,819 85,076,210 17,555,281 Debt service: Principal —1,005,000 1,023,750 1,023,750 18,750 Interest 5,910,225 5,910,225 5,074,303 5,074,303 (835,922) Premium (704,351)———— Land and water rights —4,750 2,150,000 2,301,050 2,296,300 Buildings —11,838,983 9,250,000 57,035,120 45,196,137 Infrastructure —26,923,439 29,639,000 49,523,456 22,600,017 Improvements other than buildings ——100,000 112,083 112,083 Equipment —2,653,622 3,143,943 4,436,979 1,783,357 Total expenses and other uses 82,227,807 115,856,948 132,752,815 204,582,951 88,726,003 Change in net position $ 19,739,785 $ (15,157,998) $ (24,556,447) $ (59,445,896) $ 44,287,898 188 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION BUDGET COMPARISON SCHEDULE SEWER UTILITY FUND Year ended June 30, 2023 Actual on GAAP basis Budgetary Basis Actual on budgetary basis Budgeted Amounts Original Final Variance Revenues and other sources: Operating revenue - sales and charges for current services $ 69,251,092 $ 69,251,092 $ 66,740,000 $ 66,740,000 $ 2,511,092 Equipment disposition proceeds 368 368 50,000 50,000 (49,632) Gain on sale of assets 47,929 — — — — Interest income 7,652,458 7,595,453 947,084 947,084 6,648,369 Impact fees 2,852,020 2,852,020 1,422,000 1,422,000 1,430,020 Debt proceeds — — 125,965,000 125,965,000 (125,965,000) Legal settlement 5,780,176 5,780,176 — — 5,780,176 Contributions and non-operating grants 953,154 953,154 1,100,823 1,100,823 (147,669) Rental and other income 1,299,902 1,299,902 406,000 406,000 893,902 Total revenues and other sources 87,837,099 87,732,165 196,630,907 196,630,907 (108,898,742) Expenses and other uses: Personnel services 11,156,646 11,156,646 13,827,671 13,827,671 2,671,025 Accrued compensated absences and other post employment benefits (344,074) — — — — Operating and maintenance 2,709,559 2,709,559 3,164,804 3,241,052 531,493 Charges and services 7,329,973 7,259,411 10,322,637 10,653,941 3,394,530 Depreciation and amortization 9,565,597 — — — — Expenses before debt service and capital outlay 30,417,701 21,125,616 27,315,112 27,722,664 6,597,048 Debt service: Principal — 5,677,820 5,756,267 5,756,267 78,447 Interest 17,739,809 19,264,465 15,653,237 15,653,237 (3,611,228) Infrastructure — 13,917,193 24,385,000 54,011,137 40,093,944 Buildings — 117,622,508 181,499,910 330,392,499 212,769,991 Improvements other than buildings — 12,968 — — (12,968) Equipment —358,908 1,305,054 1,411,963 1,053,055 Total expenses and other uses 48,157,510 177,979,478 255,914,580 434,947,767 256,968,289 Change in net position $ 39,679,589 $ (90,247,313) $ (59,283,673) $ (238,316,860) $ 148,069,547 189 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION BUDGET COMPARISON SCHEDULE STORMWATER UTILITY FUND Year ended June 30, 2023 Actual on GAAP basis Budgetary Basis Actual on budgetary basis Budgeted Amounts Original Final Variance Revenues and other sources: Operating revenue - sales and charges for current services $ 13,977,736 $ 13,977,736 $ 12,424,733 $ 12,424,733 $ 1,553,003 Gain on sale of assets 38,521 — — — — Interest income 799,872 791,596 75,000 75,000 716,596 Impact fees 1,322,941 1,322,941 625,000 625,000 697,941 Contributions and non-operating grants 1,512,868 1,512,868 352,000 352,000 1,160,868 Transfers in 2,000,000 2,000,000 —2,000,000 — Total revenues and other sources 19,651,938 19,605,141 13,476,733 15,476,733 4,128,408 Expenses and other uses: Personnel services 4,377,851 4,377,851 4,612,954 4,612,954 235,103 Accrued compensated absences and other post employment benefits (260,407)———— Operating and maintenance 313,171 313,171 306,197 306,197 (6,974) Charges and services 2,912,529 2,923,208 4,864,250 5,185,672 2,262,464 Depreciation and amortization 3,141,636 ———— Expenses before debt service and capital outlay 10,484,780 7,614,230 9,783,401 10,104,823 2,490,593 Debt service: Principal —933,750 942,834 942,834 9,084 Interest 535,591 635,465 611,487 611,487 (23,978) Land —850,000 890,000 953,064 103,064 Infrastructure —4,371,337 4,825,000 11,151,120 6,779,783 Buildings —955,041 800,000 2,145,537 1,190,496 Improvements other than buildings —51,060 100,000 302,109 251,049 Equipment —419,302 747,000 747,000 327,698 Total expenses and other uses 11,020,371 15,830,185 18,699,722 26,957,974 11,127,789 Change in net position $ 8,631,567 $ 3,774,956 $ (5,222,989) $ (11,481,241) $ 15,256,197 190 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION BUDGET COMPARISON SCHEDULE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUND Year ended June 30, 2023 Actual on GAAP basis Budgetary Basis Actual on budgetary basis Budgeted Amounts Original Final Variance Revenues and other sources: Operating income - rental and other $ 1,153,608 $ 1,557,701 $ 1,459,035 $ 1,459,035 $ 98,666 Contributions 32,252,004 32,252,004 41,362,198 47,796,602 (15,544,598) Interest income loans reecivable 738,088 668,788 296,800 124,800 543,988 Interest income lease receivable 897,970 897,970 — — 897,970 Interest on Investments 4,995,349 4,349,711 583,000 583,000 3,766,711 Miscellaneous 332 332 — — 332 Loan principal receipts — 663,706 1,497,000 287,000 376,706 Change in equity interest in joint venture (110,709) 730,929 — — 730,929 Proceeds from sale of capital assets — — — — — Transfers in 22,627,900 22,627,900 15,633,013 20,992,047 1,635,853 Total revenues and other sources $ 62,554,542 $ 63,749,042 $ 60,831,046 $ 71,242,484 $ (7,493,443) Expenses and other uses: Personnel services $ 2,205,295 $ 2,320,519 $ 2,480,095 $ 2,526,900 $ (206,381) Accrued compensated absences and other post employment benefits 57,612 — — — — Operating and maintenance 1,529,860 1,832,140 1,359,560 1,719,560 112,580 Charges and services 18,242,418 819,220 25,503,278 42,536,902 (41,717,682) Loans made to residents and businesses 9,784,191 14,102,143 — — 14,102,143 Depreciation and amortization 650,024 — — — — Transfers out — — 22,389,611 13,474,116 (13,474,116) Total expenses before debt service 32,469,400 19,074,023 51,732,544 60,257,478 (41,183,455) Debt service: Principal — 5,815,000 6,225,000 6,295,000 (480,000) Interest and fiscal charges 2,043,494 1,562,318 3,333,457 3,263,457 (1,701,139) Capital Outlays — 10,695,343 2,009,898 97,945,719 (87,250,376) Total expenses and other uses 34,512,894 37,146,684 63,300,899 167,761,654 (130,614,971) Change in net position $ 28,041,649 $ 26,602,358 $ (2,469,853) $ (96,519,170) $ 123,121,528 191 This page intentionally left blank. 192 Internal Service Funds Fleet Management Fund - This fund is used to account for the costs of the fleet management system which provides vehicles for use by City departments, and which provides vehicle maintenance on a cost- reimbursement basis. Information Management Services Fund - This fund is used to account for the costs of providing data processing services to City departments. Costs are recovered by charges to user departments. Risk Management Fund - This fund is used to account for the costs of providing insurance for employee health, accident, long-term disability, unemployment and worker's compensation. It also accounts for costs of the City's property damage insurance. Governmental Immunity Fund - This fund is used to account for payment of general liability claims against the City. Local Building Authority Fund - This fund is used to account for the acquisition and lease to the City of purchased or constructed property and equipment. This fund accounts for the bonds which were issued to purchase or construct the property and equipment and also accounts for the retirement of those bonds. 193 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION COMBINING STATEMENT OF NET POSITION INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS June 30, 2023 Fleet Management Information Management Services ASSETS Current assets: Cash and cash equivalents Unrestricted $ 19,766,121 $ 13,653,654 Restricted 1,126,957 — Prepaid expenses 64,783 108,750 Inventory of supplies 1,102,691 — Total current assets 22,060,552 13,762,404 Noncurrent assets: Property and equipment, at cost: Land and water rights — — Buildings 948,512 60,411 Machinery and equipment 81,116,751 8,543,827 Construction in progress 6,364,728 626,915 Accumulated depreciation (64,147,868) (6,228,571) Net property and equipment 24,282,123 3,002,582 Total noncurrent assets 24,282,123 3,002,582 Total assets 46,342,675 16,764,986 DEFERRED OUTFLOWS OF RESOURCES Deferred outflows - Pension 479,575 1,760,864 Total deferred outflows 479,575 1,760,864 Total assets and deferred outflows of resources $ 46,822,250 $ 18,525,850 LIABILITIES Current liabilities: Accounts payable $ 927,535 $ 1,377,342 Accrued liabilities 127,867 201,486 Current portion of long-term compensated absences 36,538 336,834 Current portion of long-term debt: 2,840,770 — Accrued interest, payable from unrestricted assets — — Total current liabilities 3,932,710 1,915,662 Noncurrent liabilties: Bonds, mortgages, and notes payable 4,818,481 378,036 Estimated claims liability — — Long-term compensated absences liability 283,774 1,282,253 Net pension liability 236,189 1,010,703 Total noncurrent liabilities 5,338,444 2,670,992 Total liabilities 9,271,154 4,586,654 DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES Deferred inflows - Pension 6,922 21,035 Total deferred inflows 6,922 21,035 NET POSITION Invested in capital assets 16,622,872 2,624,546 Unrestricted 20,921,302 11,293,615 Total net position 37,544,174 13,918,161 Total liabilities, deferred inflows of resources and net position $ 46,822,250 $ 18,525,850 194 Risk Management Governmental Immunity Local Building Authority Total $ 8,760,038 $ 12,028,026 $ 55,939 $ 54,263,778 — — 2,810 1,129,767 231,131 9,750 — 414,414 — — — 1,102,691 8,991,169 12,037,776 58,749 56,910,650 — — 1,069,180 1,069,180 — — 27,661,384 28,670,307 81,154 — — 89,741,732 — — — 6,991,643 (81,154) — (3,515,252) (73,972,845) — — 25,215,312 52,500,017 — — 25,215,312 52,500,017 8,991,169 12,037,776 25,274,061 109,410,667 106,288 107,530 — 2,454,257 106,288 107,530 — 2,454,257 $ 9,097,457 $ 12,145,306 $ 25,274,061 $ 111,864,924 $ 298,830 $ 839 $ 2,800 $ 2,607,346 16,769 19,103 — 365,225 26,267 3,464 — 403,103 — — 930,000 3,770,770 — — 131,734 131,734 341,866 23,406 1,064,534 7,278,178 — — 12,854,783 18,051,300 3,507,056 7,909,240 — 11,416,296 84,531 63,795 — 1,714,353 106,184 47,547 — 1,400,623 3,697,771 8,020,582 12,854,783 32,582,572 4,039,637 8,043,987 13,919,317 39,860,749 1,228 1,929 — 31,114 1,228 1,929 — 31,114 — — — 19,247,418 5,056,592 4,099,389 11,354,744 52,725,642 5,056,592 4,099,389 11,354,744 71,973,060 $ 9,097,457 $ 12,145,306 $ 25,274,061 $ 111,864,924 195 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN NET POSITION INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS Year ended June 30, 2023 Fleet Management Information Management Services Sales and charges for services $ 14,544,383 $ 27,373,915 Rental and other 25,847 512 Total operating revenue 14,570,230 27,374,427 Personnel services 4,448,200 11,791,877 Operating and maintenance 8,500,839 2,192,221 Charges and services 1,804,825 12,193,272 Depreciation and amortization 6,541,985 1,337,124 Total operating expenses 21,295,849 27,514,494 Operating income (loss) (6,725,619) (140,067) Interest income — — Interest expense (200,942) — Gain on disposition of property and equipment 143,657 6,556 Total nonoperating revenues (expenses) (57,285) 6,556 Income before transfers (6,782,904) (133,511) Transfers in 12,091,900 — Transfers out (291,434) — Change in net position 5,017,562 (133,511) Net Position July 1, 2022 32,526,613 14,051,671 Net Position June 30, 2023 $ 37,544,174 $ 13,918,161 196 Risk Management Governmental Immunity Local Building Authority Total $ 53,070,628 $ 3,775,947 $ — $ 98,764,873 200,000 2,000,000 668,575 2,894,934 53,270,628 5,775,947 668,575 101,659,807 1,291,979 987,569 — 18,519,625 11,936 718 — 10,705,714 49,164,700 3,210,707 1,275 66,374,779 — — 553,228 8,432,337 50,468,615 4,198,994 554,503 104,032,455 2,802,013 1,576,953 114,072 (2,372,648) — — 3,664 3,664 — — (497,113) (698,055) — — — 150,213 — — (493,449) (544,178) 2,802,013 1,576,953 (379,377) (2,916,826) — 500,000 1,174,025 13,765,925 — — — (291,434) 2,802,013 2,076,953 794,648 10,557,665 2,254,579 2,022,436 10,560,095 61,415,394 $ 5,056,592 $ 4,099,389 $ 11,354,744 $ 71,973,060 197 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION COMBINING STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS Year ended June 30, 2023 Fleet Management Information Management Services Cash Flows from Operating Activities Receipts from internal fund services $ 14,570,229 $ 27,374,427 Payments to suppliers (9,912,261) (14,037,363) Payments to employees (4,598,431) (11,986,619) Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities 59,537 1,350,445 Cash flows from noncapital and related financing activities: Transfers in 12,091,900 — Transfers out (291,434) — Net cash provided by (used in) noncapital and related financing activities 11,800,466 — Cash flows from capital and related financing activities: Proceeds from issuance of debt (net of discount and issuance costs) 920,972 — Proceeds from sale of equipment 301,708 14,803 Payment on long-term obligations (3,601,454) (661,989) Payments for purchase and construction (8,615,060) (771,024) Net cash provided by (used in) capital and related financing activities (10,993,834) (1,418,210) Cash flows from investing activities: Interest received on investments and loans — — Net cash provided by investing activities — — Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents 866,169 (67,765) Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year 20,026,909 13,721,419 Cash and cash equivalents at end of year 20,893,078 13,653,654 Cash and cash equivalent components: Unrestricted 19,766,121 13,653,654 Restricted 1,126,957 — Cash and cash equivalents at end of year 20,893,078 13,653,654 Cash flows from operating activities - Operating income (loss) (6,725,619) (140,067) Adjustments to reconcile operating income (loss) to net cash provided by (used in) operating activities: Depreciation and amortization 6,541,985 1,337,124 Increase (decrease) due to changes in: Other current assets (93,705) (12,761) Accounts payable 487,107 348,130 Deferred outflows (104,216) (648,086) Accrued liabilities affecting operating activities (15,818) 56,910 Other liabilities — — Pension assets 689,218 2,947,795 Pension liability 236,189 1,010,703 Deferred inflows (957,252) (3,686,640) Compensation liability 1,648 137,337 Total adjustments 6,785,156 1,490,512 Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities $ 59,537 $ 1,350,445 198 Risk Management Governmental Immunity Local Building Authority Total $ 53,270,628 $ 5,775,947 $ 668,575 $ 101,659,806 (49,069,907) (3,849,568) 1,525 (76,867,574) (1,242,522) (1,041,634) — (18,869,206) 2,958,199 884,745 670,100 5,923,026 — 500,000 1,174,025 13,765,925 — — — (291,434) — 500,000 1,174,025 13,474,491 — — — 920,972 — — — 316,511 — — (1,842,825) (6,106,268) — — — (9,386,084) — — (1,842,825) (14,254,869) — — 3,664 3,664 — — 3,664 3,664 2,958,199 1,384,745 4,964 5,146,311 5,801,839 10,643,282 53,785 50,247,234 8,760,038 12,028,026 58,749 55,393,545 8,760,038 12,028,026 55,939 54,263,778 — — 2,810 1,129,767 8,760,038 12,028,026 58,749 55,393,545 2,802,013 1,576,953 114,072 (2,372,648) — — 553,228 8,432,337 27,494 — — (78,972) 106,729 (7,903) 2,800 936,863 (38,306) (19,457) — (810,065) 3,374 5,045 — 49,511 (68,804) (630,990) — (699,794) 580,299 92,951 — 4,310,263 106,184 47,547 — 1,400,623 (554,076) (135,236) — (5,333,204) (6,708) (44,165) — 88,112 156,186 (692,209) 556,028 8,295,673 $ 2,958,199 $ 884,745 $ 670,100 $ 5,923,026 199 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION BUDGET COMPARISON SCHEDULE FLEET MANAGEMENT FUND Year ended June 30, 2023 Budgetary Basis Actual on GAAP basis Actual on budgetary basis Budgeted Amounts VarianceOriginalFinal Revenues and other sources: Charges for maintenance $ 14,544,383 $ 14,544,383 $ 15,805,169 $ 15,805,169 $ (1,260,786) Other revenue 25,847 25,847 958,903 958,903 (933,056) Proceeds from note — — 1,000,000 1,000,000 (1,000,000) Proceeds from sale of equipment 143,657 143,657 335,465 335,465 (191,808) Transfers in 12,091,900 12,091,900 10,727,455 12,127,355 (35,455) Total revenues and other sources 26,805,787 26,805,787 28,826,992 30,226,892 (3,421,105) Expenses and other uses: Personnel services 4,448,200 4,448,200 4,675,074 4,675,074 (226,874) Operating and maintenance 8,500,839 8,500,839 9,100,089 9,153,089 (652,250) Charges and services 1,804,825 1,804,825 2,229,774 2,345,274 (540,449) Depreciation 6,541,985 — — — — Transfers out 291,434 291,434 295,361 295,361 (3,927) Total expenses before debt service and capital outlay 21,587,283 15,045,298 16,300,298 16,468,798 (1,423,500) Debt service: Principal — 3,359,335 3,459,903 3,459,903 (100,568) Interest 200,942 — 283,786 283,786 (283,786) Capital outlay — — 10,382,044 25,153,404 (25,153,404) Total expenses and other uses 21,788,225 18,404,633 30,426,031 45,365,891 (26,961,258) Change in net position $ 5,017,562 $ 8,401,154 $ (1,599,039) $ (15,138,999) $ 23,540,153 200 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION BUDGET COMPARISON SCHEDULE INFORMATION MANAGEMENT FUND Year ended June 30, 2023 Budgetary Basis Actual on GAAP basis Actual on budgetary basis Budgeted Amounts VarianceOriginalFinal Revenue: Charges for services $ 27,373,915 $ 27,373,915 $ 30,332,167 $ 35,838,772 $ 8,464,857 Gain on sale of equipment 6,556 — — — — Proceeds from sale of equipment — 7,514 — — (7,514) Miscellaneous revenue 512 512 — — (512) Transfers in — — — 220,000 220,000 Total revenues and other sources 27,380,983 27,381,941 30,332,167 36,058,772 8,676,831 Expenses and other uses: Personnel services 11,791,877 11,791,877 13,369,733 13,349,733 1,557,856 Operating and maintenance 2,192,221 2,192,221 766,559 1,296,689 (895,532) Charges and services 12,193,272 12,193,272 11,992,609 13,276,896 1,083,624 Depreciation 1,337,124 — — — — Total expenses before capital outlay 27,514,494 26,177,370 26,128,901 27,923,318 1,745,948 Debt Service: Principal — 661,989 — — (661,989) Capital outlay — 679,489 4,403,266 8,490,482 7,810,993 Total expenses and other uses 27,514,494 27,518,848 30,532,167 36,413,801 8,894,952 Change in net position $ (133,510) $ (136,907) $ (200,000) $ (355,029) $ (218,122) 201 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION BUDGET COMPARISON SCHEDULE RISK MANAGEMENT FUND Year ended June 30, 2023 Budgetary Basis Actual on GAAP basis Actual on budgetary basis Budgeted Amounts VarianceOriginalFinal Revenues and other sources: Charges for services $ 53,070,628 $ 53,070,628 $ 53,229,000 $ 53,229,000 $ 158,372 Miscellaneous 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 — Transfers in — — 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 Total revenues and other sources 53,270,628 53,270,628 54,679,000 54,679,000 1,408,372 Expenses and other uses: Personnel services 1,291,979 1,291,979 971,189 971,189 (320,790) Operating and maintenance 11,936 11,936 27,385 27,385 15,449 Premiums and other charges for services 49,164,700 49,164,700 53,680,426 53,680,426 4,515,726 Transfers out — 1,326,627 — — (1,326,627) Total expenses 50,468,615 51,795,242 54,679,000 54,679,000 2,883,758 Change in net position $ 2,802,013 $ 1,475,386 $ — $ — $ 4,292,130 202 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION BUDGET COMPARISON SCHEDULE GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY FUND Year ended June 30, 2023 Budgetary Basis Actual on GAAP basis Actual on budgetary basis Budgeted Amounts VarianceOriginalFinal Revenues and other sources: Interfund service charges $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 20,000 $ 2,020,000 $ 20,000 Property taxes 3,775,947 — 3,944,523 3,944,523 3,944,523 Transfers in 500,000 500,000 — 500,000 — Total revenues 6,275,947 2,500,000 3,964,523 6,464,523 3,964,523 Expenses: Personnel services 987,569 987,569 1,391,344 1,391,344 403,775 Operating and maintenance 718 718 10,000 10,000 9,282 Claims, charges and services 3,210,707 3,210,707 1,768,423 4,268,423 1,057,716 Total expenses 4,198,994 4,198,994 3,169,767 5,669,767 1,470,773 Change in net position $ 2,076,953 $ (1,698,994) $ 794,756 $ 794,756 $ 2,493,750 203 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION BUDGET COMPARISON SCHEDULE LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY FUND Year ended June 30, 2023 Budgetary Basis Actual on GAAP basis Actual on budgetary basis Budgeted Amounts VarianceOriginalFinal Revenues and other sources: Other income $ 668,575 $ 668,575 $ 681,300 $ 681,300 $ 12,725 Interest income 3,664 3,664 — — (3,664) Transfers in 1,174,025 1,174,025 1,174,025 1,174,025 — Total revenues and other sources 1,846,264 1,846,264 1,855,325 1,855,325 9,061 Expenses and other uses: Charges and services 1,275 1,275 5,000 5,000 3,725 Depreciation and amortization 553,228 — — — — Total expenses before debt service 554,503 1,275 5,000 5,000 3,725 Debt service: Principal — 1,120,000 1,210,000 1,210,000 90,000 Interest 497,113 628,847 640,325 640,325 11,478 Total expenses and other uses 1,051,616 1,750,122 1,855,325 1,855,325 105,203 Change in net position $ 794,648 $ 96,142 $ — $ — $ (96,142) 204 This page intentionally left blank. 205 STATISTICAL SECTION (unaudited) This part of the Salt Lake City Corporation’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Report presents detailed information as a context for understanding what the information in the financial statements, note disclosures, and required supplementary information says about the City’s overall financial health. CONTENTS Financial Trends 207 These schedules contain trend information to help the reader understand how the City’s financial performance and well-being have changed over time. Revenue Capacity 216 These schedules contain information to help the reader assess the City’s most significant local revenue source, the property tax. Debt Capacity 220 These schedules present information to help the reader assess the affordability of the City’s current levels of outstanding debt and the City’s ability to issue additional debt in the future. Demographic and Economic Information 225 This schedule offers demographic and economic indicators to help the reader understand the environment within which the City’s financial activities take place. Operating Information 226 These schedules contain service and infrastructure data to help the reader understand how the information in the City’s financial report relates to the services the City provides and the activities it performs. 206 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NET POSITION BY COMPONENT Last Ten Fiscal Years (accrual basis of accounting) (amounts expressed in thousands) Fiscal Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Governmental Activities Net Investment in capital assets $ 529,134 $ 504,457 $ 601,185 $ 621,194 $ 642,013 $ 668,907 $ 563,203 $ 579,048 $ 639,083 $ 692,661 Restricted 32,670 73,564 61,065 45,981 57,371 58,630 83,296 102,077 101,247 194,727 Unrestricted 2,733 (38,242) (96,707) (79,375) (102,160) (86,548) 43,293 98,416 190,799 182,509 Total governmental activities net position $ 564,537 $ 539,779 $ 565,543 $ 587,800 $ 597,224 $ 640,990 $ 640,990 $ 779,542 $ 931,128 $ 1,069,897 Business-type activities Net investment in capital assets $ 1,338,531 $ 1,479,894 $ 1,583,508 $ 1,523,569 $ 1,931,014 $ 1,902,167 $ 2,048,313 $ 2,186,042 $ 2,186,081 $ 2,168,322 Restricted 278,358 333,118 260,356 529,457 290,422 441,593 350,691 308,680 449,725 375,410 Unrestricted 433,252 315,364 373,693 267,204 81,255 70,532 106,912 71,683 (19,978) 179,977 Total business-type activities net position $ 2,050,142 $ 2,128,376 $ 2,217,557 $ 2,320,229 $ 2,302,690 $ 2,414,292 $ 2,414,292 $ 2,566,405 $ 2,615,828 $ 2,723,709 Primary Government Net investment in capital assets $ 1,867,665 $ 1,984,351 $ 2,184,693 $ 2,144,762 $ 2,573,027 $ 2,571,075 $ 2,611,516 $ 2,765,090 $ 2,825,163 $ 2,860,983 Restricted 311,028 406,682 321,422 575,438 347,792 500,223 433,987 410,758 550,972 570,136 Unrestricted 435,986 277,122 276,986 187,829 (20,905) (16,017) 150,205 170,099 170,821 362,486 Total primary government net position $ 2,614,679 $ 2,668,155 $ 2,783,101 $ 2,908,029 $ 2,899,914 $ 3,055,282 $ 3,195,707 $ 3,345,947 $ 3,546,956 $ 3,793,605 207 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION CHANGE IN NET POSITION Last Ten Fiscal Years (accrual basis of accounting) (amounts expressed in thousands) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 EXPENSES Governmental Activities: General Government $ 26,038 $ 8,051 $ 6,740 $ 14,006 $ 10,220 $ 29,168 $ 9,477 $ 14,976 $ 17,266 $ 41,232 City Council 2,345 2,122 3,126 3,565 3,554 3,941 4,116 3,646 3,785 4,333 Mayor 3,013 2,576 3,400 3,773 3,904 4,190 4,001 4,617 3,953 5,569 City Attorney 6,473 5,274 7,008 7,088 7,441 8,232 10,149 7,290 8,210 9,747 Finance 10,861 7,579 9,912 10,223 10,941 11,334 10,523 9,617 9,452 11,052 Justice Court 3,731 3,255 4,237 4,402 4,495 4,576 4,538 3,861 3,786 4,050 Human Resources 1,965 1,697 2,502 2,625 2,163 2,993 3,188 2,917 3,234 3,850 Fire 37,190 34,380 42,822 40,043 42,766 44,885 44,831 40,757 38,335 41,287 Combined Emergency Services (1) 6,991 5,220 7,143 7,121 7,448 8,201 8,293 6,360 7,424 8,600 Police 62,476 47,922 68,901 75,487 72,518 82,722 87,414 80,595 75,368 94,882 Community and Neighborhoods 31,253 29,444 36,799 37,492 36,059 36,751 43,507 59,715 62,242 64,180 Public Services 43,919 46,062 64,203 61,768 62,854 1,724 2,292 67,298 65,281 78,920 Transportation (4) — — — — — — 65,007 — — — Economic Development (2) — — — 1,261 1,677 63,852 389 367 — 8,170 Unallocated infrastructure depreciation 10,531 8,564 8,626 8,671 9,038 9,540 9,769 10,098 11,484 13,143 Interest on long-term debt 12,466 12,950 16,627 12,093 20,857 1,489 10,540 4,938 15,359 10,752 Total governmental activities expenses 259,251 215,097 282,046 289,618 295,935 313,598 318,031 315,035 331,663 399,767 Business-type activities: Airport Authority $ 145,791 $ 135,997 $ 152,432 $ 180,492 $ 198,267 $ 237,030 $ 252,664 $ 310,817 $ 404,480 $ 437,993 Water 58,335 51,497 59,268 63,454 62,761 68,035 68,071 72,582 71,131 82,228 Sewer 17,241 18,456 20,232 21,964 22,857 25,523 27,533 31,851 33,455 48,158 Storm Water 6,781 6,645 7,860 7,515 8,012 8,395 7,935 9,311 9,543 11,020 Street Lighting (1) 2,331 1,984 2,130 2,827 2,641 2,739 3,603 4,394 4,359 5,055 Refuse 11,462 11,428 12,786 13,117 13,114 13,985 14,303 14,631 15,159 15,871 Golf 8,774 5,932 7,460 8,456 8,081 8,389 7,971 8,103 8,684 10,165 Housing and Loan 1,082 1,630 959 888 2,925 1,839 3,423 1,177 28,290 807 Redevelopment Agency 12,238 29,154 37,129 37,455 27,473 28,914 31,124 32,863 37,755 34,513 Total business-type activities expenses 264,035 262,723 300,255 336,168 346,131 394,848 416,628 485,729 612,856 645,810 Total primary government expenses $ 523,286 $ 477,820 $ 582,301 $ 625,786 $ 642,066 $ 708,446 $ 734,659 $ 800,764 $ 944,519 $ 1,045,577 REVENUES Governmental Activities: Charges for Services: General Government $ 16,655 $ 18,185 $ 18,574 $ 16,973 $ 15,105 $ 25,133 $ 23,760 $ 29,164 $ 30,826 $ 30,360 City Council 94 200 198 472 483 437 418 418 422 429 Mayor 493 463 189 369 303 275 274 277 274 1,323 City Attorney 1,228 796 832 911 874 901 896 896 895 1,336 Finance 12,251 12,926 12,820 12,812 26,501 27,457 22,047 19,503 28,192 26,049 Justice Court 3,342 2,964 3,514 3,398 3,296 3,015 2,394 1,795 1,805 2,266 Human Resources 1,298 961 1,017 930 895 1,080 1,036 1,036 1,036 633 Fire 3,358 6,803 9,947 6,500 7,291 7,440 7,084 7,163 8,689 8,442 Combined Emergency Services (1) 897 417 485 468 601 657 1,038 478 816 712 Police 9,301 3,857 4,499 5,518 2,471 6,563 10,628 10,580 11,775 13,779 Community and Neighborhoods 15,034 18,062 21,630 28,385 4,154 1,797 2,025 2,133 1,204 1,146 Economic Development (2) — — — 3,151 4,363 1,916 1,648 2,107 2,202 2,784 Public Services 5,205 9,654 11,645 12,205 9,741 9,735 9,828 8,825 13,428 15,527 Operating Grants and Contributions 22,360 7,069 4,969 2,076 — 10,394 8,079 31,019 53,077 64,853 Capital Grants and Contributions 11,485 14,745 15,772 13,919 16,422 12,800 24,174 19,273 29,545 32,331 Total governmental activities program revenues $ 103,002 $ 97,101 $ 106,092 $ 108,086 $ 92,501 $ 109,599 $ 115,328 $ 134,667 $ 184,184 $ 201,972 208 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Business-type activities: Charges for Services: Airport Authority $ 180,285 $ 188,853 $ 199,451 $ 216,241 $ 224,618 $ 248,598 $ 216,065 $ 197,347 $ 398,019 $ 348,634 Water 65,432 63,275 67,388 75,115 75,940 78,023 83,899 87,003 81,725 92,355 Sewer 19,785 21,026 23,545 25,238 34,346 39,986 45,109 51,485 62,172 76,496 Storm Water 8,152 8,287 8,530 8,445 8,657 9,606 10,579 10,763 14,215 14,065 Street Lighting (1) 3,208 3,280 3,265 4,223 4,208 4,302 4,259 4,231 4,581 4,289 Refuse 10,257 12,419 12,363 15,176 12,387 12,295 11,380 11,686 15,804 16,331 Golf 7,921 8,235 7,475 6,734 7,040 7,044 7,034 10,035 12,295 11,201 Housing and Loan 1,763 421 846 1,025 2,433 595 1,132 1,091 5,459 411 Redevelopment Agency (3) 2,290 2,135 2,215 1,745 5,894 3,622 684 2,389 37,755 2,969 Capital grants and contributions (3) 54,696 67,546 53,162 57,828 45,083 44,767 73,193 140,062 37,755 105,643 Total business-type activities program revenues 353,790 375,475 378,240 411,770 420,608 448,838 453,335 516,092 669,781 672,394 Total primary government program revenues $ 456,792 $ 472,576 $ 484,332 $ 519,856 $ 513,109 $ 558,437 $ 568,663 $ 650,759 $ 853,964 $ 957,301 Net (expense)/revenue Governmental activities $ (156,248) $ (117,996) $ (175,954) $ (181,532) $ (203,434) $ (203,999) $ (202,704) $ (180,368) $ (147,479) $ (197,795) Business-type activities 89,755 112,752 77,985 75,603 74,476 53,991 36,708 30,363 56,925 27,204 Total primary government net expense $ (66,494) $ (5,244) $ (97,969) $ (105,930) $ (128,957) $ (150,009) $ (165,996) $ (150,005) $ (90,554) $ (170,591) General Revenues and Other Changes in Net Position Governmental activities: Taxes: Property taxes, levied for general purposes $ 94,923 $ 98,062 $ 114,685 $ 118,782 $ 119,116 $ 122,282 $ 129,951 $ 136,635 $ 136,635 $ 146,170 Franchise taxes 27,881 28,133 27,973 28,418 27,286 27,238 26,863 11,750 11,750 12,757 Sales tax 57,908 60,849 62,709 65,812 72,208 103,727 120,778 175,106 175,106 188,409 Investment earnings 1,858 1,421 1,996 2,283 3,930 6,698 3,991 (5,693) (5,693) 18,237 Transfers (44,377) 2,627 (5,645) (11,506) (9,683) (12,168) (30,078) (18,734) (18,734) (29,009) Total governmental activities 138,194 191,092 201,718 203,789 212,858 247,778 251,505 299,065 299,065 336,564 Business-type activities: Investment earnings $ 6,602 $ 4,395 $ 5,552 $ 15,563 $ (101,698) $ 45,219 $ 24,838 $ 13,558 $ 13,947 $ 51,668 Transfers 44,377 (2,627) 5,645 11,506 9,683 12,168 30,078 18,734 18,734 29,009 Total business-type activities: 50,979 1,768 11,197 27,069 (92,016) 57,387 54,916 32,292 32,681 80,677 Total primary government $ 189,173 $ 192,859 $ 212,915 $ 230,858 $ 120,842 $ 305,165 $ 306,421 $ 331,356 $ 331,746 $ 417,241 Change in Net Position Governmental activities $ (18,055) $ 73,095 $ 25,764 $ 22,257 $ 9,424 $ 43,778 $ 48,802 $ 118,697 $ 151,586 $ 138,769 Business-type activities 140,734 114,520 89,182 102,672 (17,539) 111,378 91,624 62,655 89,606 107,881 Total primary government $ 122,679 $ 187,615 $ 114,946 $ 124,929 $ (8,115) $ 155,156 $ 140,426 $ 181,351 $ 241,191 $ 246,650 (1) Combined Emergency Services and Street Lighting were created as new departments in 2013. (2) Economic Development was created as a new department in 2017. (3) In 2014, the RDA reclassified Tax Increment revenues from Charges for Services to Contributions. (4) Transportation was created as a new department in 2020. 209 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION FUND BALANCES OF GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS Last Ten Fiscal Years (modified accrual basis of accounting) (amounts expressed in thousands) Fiscal Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 General Fund Non-spendable $ 3,156,500 $ 6,847,368 $ 10,936,767 $ 11,427,654 $ 10,865,289 $ 12,550,163 $ 9,302,914 $ 2,212,414 $ 2,257,746 $ 2,484,423 Restricted — — — — — — — 12,139,443 20,423,209 21,157,932 Assigned 3,789,277 6,691,500 7,098,940 7,298,041 8,731,775 15,891,696 9,899,196 — — — Unassigned 26,649,360 29,434,362 23,056,190 31,945,300 36,507,205 51,372,150 70,040,066 101,934,113 137,442,727 178,933,386 Total General Fund $ 33,595,137 $ 42,973,230 $ 41,091,897 $ 50,670,995 $ 56,104,269 $ 79,814,009 $ 89,242,176 $ 116,285,970 $ 160,123,682 $ 202,575,741 All other governmental funds Non-spendable $ 3,515,958 $ 4,046,895 $ 6,318,978 $ 7,937,221 $ — $ — $ 750 $ 69,352 $ 81,062 $ 148,087 Restricted 80,809,258 80,892,464 66,829,911 50,575,884 70,144,335 72,903,342 72,276,994 95,566,196 125,867,645 223,070,434 Committed 1,803,185 494,867 498,933 807,045 1,490,604 2,305,531 2,733,500 3,666,892 4,782,191 6,190,152 Assigned 25,222,076 31,789,906 41,019,925 43,697,149 31,773,377 31,691,183 33,833,304 37,189,480 51,290,747 72,177,798 Unassigned — — — — — — 410,203 — — — Total all other governmental funds $ 111,350,477 $ 117,224,132 $ 114,667,747 $ 103,017,299 $ 103,408,316 $ 106,900,056 $ 109,254,751 $ 136,491,920 $ 182,021,645 $ 301,586,471 210 This page intentionally left blank 211 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES OF GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS Last Ten Fiscal Years (modified accrual basis of accounting) (amounts expressed in thousands) Fiscal Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Revenues: General property taxes $ 94,923,219 $ 98,061,588 $ 114,684,820 $ 118,781,679 $ 119,116,165 $ 122,282,030 $ 129,950,795 $ 130,832,830 $ 136,635,069 $ 146,170,152 Sales, use and excise taxes 57,908,018 60,849,368 62,709,499 65,812,192 72,208,200 103,726,901 120,778,266 136,182,444 175,106,499 188,409,346 Franchise taxes 27,881,251 28,132,535 27,972,665 28,418,423 27,286,331 27,238,435 26,863,146 23,952,168 11,750,309 12,756,615 Licenses 12,238,009 12,933,000 14,414,308 15,194,896 15,592,788 16,448,180 13,106,709 11,418,021 15,913,519 17,599,344 Permits 13,696,042 19,125,866 16,553,089 19,846,874 17,690,139 28,079,199 32,203,164 36,230,698 45,405,284 39,390,963 Fines and forfeitures 4,993,420 4,806,599 3,632,916 3,524,067 3,516,251 3,429,044 2,802,888 2,034,542 2,528,232 2,375,561 Assessments 1,617,463 1,481,908 1,717,909 1,520,023 1,542,731 2,221,543 553,248 2,382,919 2,120,750 1,581,962 Interest 1,773,241 1,384,400 1,725,498 1,918,902 3,481,352 6,385,907 3,918,928 1,680,001 (5,741,746) 18,238,569 Intergovernmental 30,446,938 21,806,791 27,518,703 28,912,864 20,634,430 23,641,518 26,503,556 43,194,915 71,377,414 83,847,654 Interfund service charges 10,070,874 10,372,337 11,051,279 11,450,521 11,413,982 16,363,849 20,574,064 20,971,348 21,717,361 25,857,520 Parking meter 3,220,203 3,294,774 3,324,616 3,463,592 3,404,582 3,509,898 2,771,331 1,915,888 2,997,333 2,616,329 Parking ticket 2,128,736 2,876,299 2,844,690 3,204,769 2,110,245 1,824,561 1,186,561 1,701,881 1,797,865 1,180,128 Charges for services 6,635,337 6,098,659 5,150,765 5,711,868 6,666,381 5,970,488 1,207,120 870,318 1,379,562 1,629,310 Rental and other income — — 887,017 1,199,688 1,047,047 1,152,867 5,208,006 5,475,845 7,087,172 8,518,771 Contributions 7,285,092 4,367,439 2,083,791 2,333,604 1,009,291 516,568 354,168 588,722 2,541,067 765,787 Miscellaneous 9,598,126 9,191,484 10,288,192 8,986,498 7,602,234 5,790,115 7,958,960 3,576,443 9,186,662 16,545,569 Total Revenues $ 284,415,969 $ 284,783,047 $ 306,559,757 $ 320,280,460 $ 314,322,149 $ 368,581,103 $ 395,940,910 $ 423,008,983 $ 501,802,352 $ 567,483,580 Expenditures: City Council $ 2,299,541 $ 2,426,454 $ 2,721,621 $ 3,201,795 $ 3,137,125 $ 3,573,889 $ 3,759,472 $ 3,910,937 $ 4,178,561 $ 4,725,621 Mayor 2,659,319 2,635,082 2,456,932 2,752,337 2,856,010 3,121,458 3,862,232 3,495,653 4,158,916 5,120,100 City Attorney 5,615,937 5,324,431 5,442,492 5,549,139 5,896,933 6,643,806 6,788,279 6,840,902 7,195,428 8,683,519 Finance 6,850,904 6,146,789 6,367,181 6,658,550 6,759,597 7,596,941 7,827,573 7,872,632 8,519,579 10,039,270 Fire 35,737,908 37,049,088 38,203,990 38,251,674 39,165,845 42,266,968 42,336,507 40,360,501 45,671,210 48,025,803 Combined Emergency Services 6,877,038 6,439,631 6,976,571 6,916,570 7,377,133 8,066,766 8,337,076 7,697,181 8,860,503 10,109,426 Police 60,694,892 57,719,656 60,822,121 64,158,367 66,609,711 74,956,306 82,368,338 80,751,205 83,178,160 103,468,103 Community and Neighborhoods 22,213,755 27,129,564 28,256,219 28,489,773 28,770,263 30,346,901 31,742,909 49,828,864 58,465,624 55,729,459 Economic Development — — — 1,190,020 1,650,691 1,689,398 1,985,238 2,243,608 4,783,862 5,843,602 Justice Court 3,790,482 3,892,584 4,024,112 4,183,738 4,276,010 4,389,467 4,428,065 4,340,743 4,642,516 4,928,656 Human Resources 1,994,718 2,090,499 2,165,444 2,330,599 2,524,603 2,614,565 2,663,132 2,576,008 3,153,725 3,722,452 Public Services 34,577,616 37,806,472 41,567,552 42,053,566 42,647,148 45,880,531 46,703,582 45,952,402 54,190,829 64,167,797 Transportation — — — — — — 273,914 366,807 — — Arts Council (1) 3,555,395 3,315,434 3,114,035 3,449,071 3,075,356 1,570,622 1,391,833 1,699,285 — — Nondepartmental 23,207,263 23,547,487 27,761,151 26,450,242 27,602,288 29,585,365 35,162,898 37,572,779 43,892,793 52,459,213 Capital Improvement 111,087,275 38,074,057 34,340,213 32,506,631 31,823,086 25,425,953 34,081,787 32,643,280 44,913,364 47,211,498 Debt service: Principal 34,360,941 65,642,758 45,471,871 24,024,992 23,745,487 24,845,252 31,991,991 24,804,145 19,856,897 19,273,120 Interest and other fiscal charges 11,687,259 14,226,360 15,194,085 11,194,490 11,416,231 9,721,047 15,360,100 7,859,429 16,741,916 27,203,980 Total Expenditures 367,210,243 333,466,346 324,885,590 303,361,554 309,333,517 322,295,235 361,064,926 360,816,361 412,403,883 453,578,497 Revenues over (under) expenditures $ (82,794,274) $ (48,683,299) $ (18,325,833) $ 16,918,906 $ 4,988,632 $ 46,285,868 $ 34,875,984 $ 62,192,622 $ 89,398,469 $ 113,905,083 (1) Arts Council now reports with Economic Development. 212 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Other financing sources (uses): Issuance of debt $ 65,076 $ 66,795 $ 21,715 $ 6,460 $ 15,572 $ 1,225 $ 20,201 $ 20,455 $ 29,172 $ 86,040 Payment to refunding bond escrow agent — — — (6,431) — — (67,725) — — — Premiums from issuance of debt 568 — 2,925 — — — 4,009 — 4,391 4 Proceeds from sale of property 707 707 3,533 661 1,390 299 419 455 131 63 Transfers in 53,160 35,940 37,895 38,069 39,996 32,410 36,721 41,478 58,981 100,767 Transfers out (35,415) (39,507) (52,179) (57,749) (56,123) (53,018) (80,517) (70,299) (101,260) (143,251) Total other financing sources (uses) 84,097 63,935 13,888 (18,990) 836 (19,084) (86,892) (7,911) (8,585) 43,623 Net change in fund balances $ 1,303 $ 15,252 $ (4,438) $ (2,071) $ 5,824 $ 27,201 $ (52,016) $ 54,281 $ 80,814 $ 157,529 Debt service as a percentage of non-capital expenditures 17.1 % 49.1 % 21.0 % 12.7 % 12.7 % 11.1 % 13.7 % 9.5 % 8.9 % 10.2 % Debt service as a percentage of total expenditures 12.5 % 24.0 % 18.7 % 11.6 % 11.4 % 10.7 % 13.1 % 9.1 % 10.0 % 11.4 % 213 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES TAX REVENUES BY SOURCE Last Ten Fiscal Years (modified accrual basis of accounting) (amounts expressed in thousands) Fiscal Year Real Property Tax Personal Property Tax Motor Vehicle Property Tax Franchise Tax Sales Tax Total 2014 $ 80,298 $ 10,564 $ 4,061 $ 27,881 $ 57,908 $ 180,712 2015 83,513 10,594 4,171 28,133 60,849 187,260 2016 98,279 12,049 4,356 27,973 62,709 205,366 2017 105,927 8,272 4,583 28,418 65,812 213,012 2018 87,552 9,583 4,597 27,286 67,940 196,958 2019 90,172 10,441 4,326 27,238 99,404 231,581 2020 115,920 9,790 4,241 26,863 120,778 277,592 2021 115,093 11,607 4,133 23,952 136,182 290,967 2022 121,128 13,255 2,252 11,750 174,106 322,492 2023 112,416 11,822 4,563 12,757 172,197 313,756 214 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION BUSINESS TYPE ACTIVITIES REVENUES BY SOURCE Department of Airports Last Ten Fiscal Years (modified accrual basis of accounting) (amounts expressed in thousands) Fiscal Year Landing Fees Terminal Space Rentals Other Airline Revenues Car Rental Auto Parking Facilities Terminal Other Revenues Credit Revenue Sharing (1) Total Operating Revenue 2014 $ 25,000 $ 26,812 $ 7,098 $ 18,064 $ 29,228 $ 28,431 $ 2,657 $ (10,290) $ 127,000 2015 23,199 29,019 7,201 19,341 31,117 29,467 2,864 (9,938) 132,270 2016 27,023 28,500 6,931 22,142 33,409 30,859 3,110 (10,941) 141,033 2017 30,020 29,775 6,844 27,186 34,297 35,042 3,811 (12,169) 154,806 2018 32,742 31,028 6,799 29,181 35,323 39,041 4,441 (13,007) 165,548 2019 35,434 33,432 6,769 29,856 36,297 42,046 3,704 (14,077) 173,461 2020 35,638 34,645 7,031 25,372 27,974 37,634 3,129 (10,097) 161,326 2021 35,996 66,680 7,015 24,317 23,491 31,608 3,287 (7,710) 184,684 2022 45,158 83,480 8,182 35,378 48,813 48,015 3,485 (13,566) 258,945 2023 53,497 86,486 8,373 36,053 60,140 49,286 3,336 (13,844) 283,327 Source: Salt Lake City Department of Airports Audited Financial Statements (1) As of FY22, Credit Sharing Revenues have been broken out from Terminal Space Rentals. 215 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION ASSESSED AND ESTIMATED ACTUAL VALUE OF TAXABLE PROPERTY Last Ten Fiscal Years (amounts expressed in thousands) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Taxable Value Real Property (1)$ 17,352,611,888 $ 18,447,638,431 $ 19,620,930,860 $ 21,510,210,091 $ 23,166,703,215 $ 25,742,619,298 $ 28,457,991,692 $ 31,554,370,915 $ 34,035,019,599 $ 41,820,707,447 Taxable Personal Property 1,898,435,962 2,122,489,159 2,132,244,365 2,422,497,725 2,497,760,246 2,655,599,365 3,079,769,010 3,212,675,482 3,446,042,005 3,652,856,862 Total Taxable value (2)$ 19,251,047,850 $ 20,570,127,590 $ 21,753,175,225 $ 23,932,707,816 $ 25,664,463,461 $ 28,398,218,663 $ 31,537,760,702 $ 34,767,046,397 $ 37,481,061,604 $ 45,473,564,309 Estimated actual value $ 25,316,280,083 $ 26,971,066,587 $ 28,594,182,234 $ 31,386,040,131 $ 33,819,886,283 $ 37,255,665,617 $ 41,493,433,320 $ 45,901,481,982 $ 49,835,269,718 $ 61,263,585,394 Ratio of total taxable value to estimated actual value 76.0 % 76.3 % 76.1 % 76.3 % 75.9 % 76.2 % 76.0 % 75.7 % 75.2 % 74.2 % Total Direct Tax Rate 0.005036 0.004893 0.004862 0.004557 0.004286 0.003977 0.003878 0.003540 0.003424 0.003012 Source: Utah State Tax Commission (1) Centrally Assessed Values are included in Real Property Values. (2) All taxable property is assessed and taxed on the basis of its fair market value. Utah law requires that the fair market value of property that is assessed by county assessors using a comparable sales or a cost appraisal method exclude expenses related to property sales transactions. For tax purposes, the fair market value of primary property is reduced by 45% under present law. Does not include Fee-in-lieu. 216 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING PROPERTY TAX RATES Last Ten Fiscal Years (rates per $1 of assessed value) Components of Direct Rate Overlapping Rates Fiscal Year Discharge of Judgement Interest and Sinking Fund General Operations Total Direct Rate Salt Lake City Library Salt Lake City Schools Salt Lake County Mosquito Abatement District Central Utah Water Conservation Metropolitan Water District 2014 0.000007 0.001064 0.003965 0.005036 0.000820 0.006651 0.003180 0.000132 0.000446 0.000409 2015 0.000040 0.001066 0.003787 0.004893 0.000782 0.006303 0.003036 0.000127 0.000422 0.000391 2016 0.000012 0.000989 0.003861 0.004862 0.000749 0.006497 0.002531 0.000121 0.000405 0.000373 2017 0.000030 0.000910 0.003617 0.004557 0.000705 0.006180 0.002371 0.000171 0.000400 0.000349 2018 0.000032 0.000772 0.003482 0.004286 0.000834 0.005748 0.002238 0.000160 0.000400 0.000325 2019 0.000049 0.000692 0.003236 0.003977 0.000766 0.005500 0.002025 0.000141 0.000400 0.000302 2020 0.000025 0.000648 0.003205 0.003878 0.000745 0.005393 0.001933 0.000133 0.000400 0.000289 2021 0.000015 0.000583 0.002942 0.003540 0.000683 0.005047 0.001948 0.000122 0.000400 0.000265 2022 0.000014 0.000556 0.002854 0.003424 0.000652 0.004809 0.001777 0.000115 0.000400 0.000253 2023 0.000037 0.000519 0.002456 0.003012 0.000587 0.003964 0.001394 0.000159 0.000400 0.000200 Source: Utah State Tax Commission 217 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION PRINCIPAL PROPERTY TAX PAYERS Current Year and Ten Years Ago December 31, 2022 taxable valuation December 31, 2013 taxable valuation Taxpayer Taxable Assessed Value Rank Percentage of Total City Taxable Assessed Value Taxable Assessed Value Rank Percentage of Total City Taxable Assessed Value LDS Church (City Creek Reserve, Deseret Title, Property Reserve)$ 1,281,589,549 1 3.06%$ 757,755,991 1 3.94% Pacificorp 551,254,839 2 1.32% 415,304,997 2 2.16% Delta Air Lines 398,635,830 3 0.95% 173,381,070 5 0.90% Oakmont Properties 246,459,636 4 0.59% Wasatch Plaza Holdings LLC 241,324,100 5 0.58% 134,893,400 3 0.70% Questar Gas 219,370,696 6 0.52% 108,951,072 8 0.57% Skywest Airlines 214,271,175 7 0.51% 177,600,484 4 0.92% MPLD Husky LLC 210,682,000 8 0.50% KBSIII 209,208,200 9 0.50% Verizon Communications, Inc 172,784,768 10 0.41% Qwest 161,451,071 7 0.84% Inland Western Salt Lake City Gateway 121,057,400 9 0.63% Boyer Properties 92,936,200 6 0.48% Grand America Hotel 85,609,500 10 0.44% $ 3,745,580,793 $ 2,228,941,185 Total City Taxable Assessed Value $ 41,827,451,750 $ 19,251,047,850 Source: State of Utah and Salt Lake County 218 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION PROPERTY TAX LEVIES AND COLLECTIONS Last Ten Fiscal Years (amounts expressed in thousands) Fiscal Year Ended June 30, Total Tax Levy for Fiscal Year (1) Collected within the Fiscal Year of the Levy Collection in Subsequent Years Total Collections to Date Amount Percentage of Levy Amount Percentage of Levy 2014 $ 96,505 $ 94,032 97.44 %$ 2,327 $ 96,359 99.85 % 2015 101,010 98,763 97.78 % 2,170 100,933 99.92 % 2016 105,826 103,764 98.05 % 1,995 105,759 99.94 % 2017 110,331 107,585 97.51 % 2,736 110,322 99.99 % 2018 110,751 108,500 97.97 % 2,207 110,707 99.96 % 2019 113,989 111,402 97.73 % 2,466 113,867 99.89 % 2020 122,801 120,693 98.28 % 1,812 122,505 99.76 % 2021 124,272 121,630 97.87 % 1,817 123,446 99.34 % 2022 133,935 131,026 97.83 % 1,729 131,026 97.83 % 2023 144,867 141,598 97.74 % — 141,598 97.74 % (1) Property taxes are assessed January 1 and due by November 30. Payments are not considered delinquent until after November 30. 219 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION RATIOS OF OUTSTANDING DEBT BY TYPE Last Ten Fiscal Years (amounts expressed in thousands except per capita amount) Fiscal Year Ended June 30, Governmental Activities Business-type Activities Total Primary Government Debt Debt as a Percentage of Personal Income (1) Per Capita Debt (1) General Obligation Bonds Special Assessment Bonds Revenue Bonds Gov't Bank Notes Payable Lease Revenue Bonds ISF Bank Notes Payable Discounts / Premiums Revenue Bonds Notes Payable Discounts / Premiums 2014 $ 168,468,249 1,403,000 145,656,584 13,697,163 14,679,511 12,908,684 — 127,806,100 13,542,280 — $ 498,161,571 10.24 %$ 2,668 2015 $ 155,383,027 1,092,000 158,659,372 13,446,081 14,637,260 13,992,118 — 133,082,026 18,917,800 — $ 509,209,684 9.94 %$ 2,707 2016 $ 141,774,839 779,000 152,180,076 12,177,210 21,546,804 12,817,493 — 124,306,030 19,672,287 — $ 485,253,739 8.30 %$ 2,564 2017 $ 128,161,987 548,000 141,752,091 10,877,435 30,465,962 12,050,580 — 1,314,528,924 19,447,295 — $ 1,657,832,274 29.39 %$ 8,694 2018 $ 127,100,000 373,000 128,505,000 9,513,210 27,340,000 12,485,463 9,356,662 1,181,180,000 19,023,112 133,674,644 $ 1,648,551,091 30.41 %$ 8,611 2019 $ 113,420,000 190,000 119,035,000 9,225,734 26,550,000 13,782,429 8,873,645 2,023,560,000 17,115,266 205,111,966 $ 2,536,864,040 42.49 %$ 13,064 2020 $ 102,045,000 — 115,845,000 8,263,371 25,465,000 15,247,377 10,577,589 2,014,790,000 16,534,858 197,284,816 $ 2,506,053,011 39.16 %$ 12,495 2021 $ 106,525,000 — 105,310,000 7,259,227 24,345,000 12,253,469 11,256,588 2,157,895,000 280,937,922 228,370,373 $ 2,934,152,579 44.39 %$ 14,691 2022 $ 114,105,000 — 109,235,000 13,321,090 13,710,000 13,208,161 13,231,447 3,390,437,999 12,749,288 (31,092) $ 3,679,966,893 52.86 %$ 18,356 2023 $ 123,320,000 — 168,130,000 11,977,969 12,500,000 10,154,635 15,796,746 3,355,142,190 13,070,833 (27,637) $ 3,710,064,736 38.59 %$ 18,506 Note: Lease and subscription liabilies for governmental and business-type activities are included in the amounts above. Details regarding the City's outstanding debt can be found in Note 6 of the notes to the financial statements. (1) - Demographic information is found on page 210. 220 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION RATIOS OF GENERAL BONDED DEBT OUTSTANDING Last Ten Fiscal Years (amounts expressed in thousands, except per capita amount) Fiscal Year Ended June 30, General Obligation Bonds Less: Amounts Available In Debt Service Fund Total Percentage of Estimated Actual Taxable Value of Property Per Capita 2014 $ 168,468 $ 4,430 $ 164,038 0.65%$ 878 2015 155,383 4,677 150,706 0.56% 801 2016 141,775 1,975 139,800 0.49% 739 2017 128,163 1,829 126,334 0.40% 663 2018 127,100 17,401 109,699 0.32% 573 2019 113,420 19,162 94,258 0.25% 485 2020 102,045 5,252 96,793 0.23% 483 2021 102,045 5,252 96,793 0.21% 485 2022 114,105 4,943 109,162 0.22% 545 2023 123,320 13,449 109,871 0.18% 537 221 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION COMPUTATION OF DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING BONDED DEBT June 30, 2023 Total debt Applicable to City Debt ratios (1) Percentage Amount Total taxable value of (2) Total fair market value of (2) Per capita - population of $45,473,564,309 $61,263,585,394 204,657 Total governmental activities direct debt $ 2,117,456 100.00%$ 298,779,218 0.66%0.49%$1,459.90 Overlapping debt: Salt Lake County (3)125,452,633 26.00% 32,617,685 Central Utah Water Conservancy District (4)123,254,854 16.91%20,842,396 Salt Lake City School District (4) 4,180,000 100% 4,180,000 Total Overlapping debt (5)$ 252,887,487 57,640,080.39 Total debt applicable to the City $ 356,419,298.35 0.78%0.58%$1,741.54 Source: Salt Lake City Department of Finance (1) The State of Utah general obligation debt is not included in the debt ratios because the State of Utah currently levies no ad valorem tax for payment of general obligation bonds. (2) Total taxable and fair market values exclude Fees in Lieu. (3) Salt Lake County GO bonds per ACFR (12/31/22). (4) Salt Lake City School District and Central Utah Water Conservancy District GO bonds per ACFR (6/30/22). (5) Overlapping debt is calculated using all debt from Salt Lake City School District and debt from Salt Lake County allocated by geographical percentage. 222 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION LEGAL DEBT MARGIN INFORMATION Last Ten Fiscal Years (amounts expressed in thousands) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 General Purposes - 4% Debt Limit $ 1,012,651 $ 1,078,843 $ 1,143,767 $ 1,255,442 $ 1,352,795 $ 1,490,227 $ 1,659,737 $ 1,836,059 $ 1,993,411 $ 2,450,543 Less: Total net debt applicable to limit (2) 164,038 150,706 139,800 126,334 109,699 94,258 96,793 96,793 109,162 109,871 Legal Debt Margin $ 848,613 $ 928,137 $ 1,003,967 $ 1,129,108 $ 1,243,096 $ 1,395,969 $ 1,562,944 $ 1,739,266 $ 1,884,249 $ 2,340,672 Total net debt applicable to the limit as a percentage of debt limit 16.20 % 13.97 % 12.22 % 10.06 % 8.11 % 6.33 % 5.83 % 5.27 % 5.48 % 4.48 % Water, sewer and lighting - 4% Debt Limit $ 1,012,651 $ 1,078,843 $ 1,143,767 $ 1,255,442 $ 1,352,795 $ 1,490,227 $ 1,659,737 $ 1,836,059 $ 1,993,411 $ 2,450,543 Total net debt applicable to limit — — — — — — — — — — Legal Debt Margin $ 1,012,651 $ 1,078,843 $ 1,143,767 $ 1,255,442 $ 1,352,795 $ 1,490,227 $ 1,659,737 $ 1,836,059 $ 1,993,411 $ 2,450,543 Total net debt applicable to the limit as a percentage of debt limit — % — % — % — % — % — % — % — % — % — % Total - 8% (1) Debt Limit $ 2,025,302 $ 2,157,685 $ 2,287,535 $ 2,510,883 $ 2,705,591 $ 2,980,453 $ 3,319,475 $ 3,672,119 $ 3,986,822 $ 4,901,087 Total net debt applicable to limit 164,038 150,706 139,800 126,334 109,699 94,258 96,793 96,793 109,162 109,871 Legal Debt Margin $ 1,861,264 $ 2,006,979 $ 2,147,735 $ 2,384,549 $ 2,595,892 $ 2,886,195 $ 3,222,682 $ 3,575,326 $ 3,877,660 $ 4,791,216 Total net debt applicable to the limit as a percentage of debt limit 8.10 % 6.98 % 6.11 % 5.03 % 4.05 % 3.16 % 2.92 % 2.64 % 2.74 % 2.24 % (1) The general obligation bonded debt of the City is limited by statute to 8% of the "reasonable fair cash value" of taxable property in the City. Of this amount, a maximum of 4% may be used for general purposes. The remaining 4% and any unused portion of the 4% available for general purposes up to the maximum 8% may be utilized for sewer and/or water purposes. Legal Debt Margin Calculation for Fiscal Year 2023 Total estimated actual value $ 61,263,585 Debt limit (8% of total estimated actual value) 4,901,087 Debt applicable to limit: (2) The total net debt applicable to limit is netted with Restricted Fund Balance of Debt Service Fund.General obligation bonds 123,320 Less: Amount set aside for repayment of general obligation debt 13,449 Total net debt applicable to limit 109,871 Legal debt margin $ 4,791,216 223 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION PLEDGED-REVENUE COVERAGE Last Ten Fiscal Years (amounts expressed in thousands) Revenue Bonds Special Improvement Bonds Fiscal Year Ended June 30, Gross Revenues (1) Less: Operating Expenses (2) Net Available Revenues Debt Service (5) Coverage Special Improvement Collections Debt Service Principal Interest Principal Interest Coverage Revenue Bonds - Governmental Activities 2014 $ 58,323 — 58,323 6,465 4,531 5.30 %$ 438 559 88 0.68 % 2015 $ 60,943 — 60,943 6,586 4,406 5.54 %$ 371 299 67 1.01 % 2016 $ 63,727 — 63,727 8,110 7,391 4.11 %$ 332 311 54 0.91 % 2017 $ 68,082 — 68,082 9,285 5,128 4.72 %$ 244 313 42 0.69 % 2018 $ 72,322 — 72,322 9,570 6,985 4.37 %$ 241 231 28 0.93 % 2019 $ 108,894 — 108,894 10,020 5,984 6.80 %$ 212 175 18 1.10 % 2020 $ 125,604 — 125,604 10,260 5,737 7.85 %$ 41 190 6 0.21 % 2021 $ 130,859 — 130,859 10,535 3,497 9.33 %$ 33 —— 0.00 % 2022 $ 171,078 — 171,078 2,020 3,267 32.36 %$ 20 —— 0.00 % 2023 $ 180,281 — 180,281 5,360 3,261 20.91 %$ 29 — — 0.00 % Fiscal Year Ended June 30, Gross Revenues (3) Less: Operating Expenses (4) Net Available Revenues Debt Service Principal Interest Coverage Revenue Bonds - Business-type activities 2014 $ 331,683 177,519 154,164 12,860 8,677 7.16 % 2015 $ 341,731 180,960 160,771 12,532 9,541 7.28 % 2016 $ 354,161 210,349 143,812 9,264 8,821 7.95 % 2017 $ 388,238 220,679 167,558 11,572 2,964 11.53 % 2018 $ 406,269 215,619 190,650 11,834 10,868 8.40 % 2019 $ 437,553 222,618 214,935 10,437 10,560 10.24 % 2020 $ 424,623 240,680 183,943 55,910 15,022 2.59 % 2021 $ 408,403 259,097 149,307 18,458 101,034 1.25 % 2022 $ 522,565 283,720 238,845 284,889 154,225 0.54 % 2023 $ 592,878 326,488 266,390 37,897 156,253 1.37 % (1) Gross revenues includes sales, use and excise taxes, Class C Road funds and rental income from the Local Building Authority Fund. (2) Excludes depreciation and amortization. (3) Gross revenues include operating revenues, property tax increments, gains/(losses) on the sale of property and equipment, and passenger facility charges. (4) Excludes depreciation and amortization. (5) Principal payments are net of any defeased or refinanced amounts. 224 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC STATISTICS Last Ten Fiscal Years Fiscal Year Ended June 30, Population Estimate (1) Per Capita Personal Income (1) Total Personal Income (amount expressed in thousands) Number of residents 18 years and older (1) High School Graduates (2) Average Daily School Membership (2) Unemployment Rate (3) 2014 186,740 $ 27,430 $ 5,122,278 144,645 1,367 24,007 3.7 % 2015 188,141 31,065 5,844,600 145,634 1,473 24,447 3.6 % 2016 189,267 29,803 5,640,724 147,619 1,517 24,127 3.4 % 2017 190,679 28,428 5,420,623 149,552 1,499 24,211 3.3 % 2018 191,446 31,188 5,970,818 150,894 1,603 23,726 3.1 % 2019 194,188 32,954 6,399,271 153,512 1,505 23,336 2.7 % 2020 200,567 34,711 6,961,881 160,824 1,651 22,921 7.4 % 2021 199,723 33,095 6,609,833 159,379 1,614 20,782 3.2 % 2022 200,478 34,728 6,962,200 161,986 1,471 20,244 2.5 % 2023 204,657 $ 46,972 $ 9,613,149 167,819 1,520 19,317 2.7 % (1) U.S. Census Bureau, QuickFacts (2) Salt Lake City School District (3) United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics, SLC at June 30. 225 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT CITY GOVERNMENT BY FUNCTIONS Last Ten Fiscal Years 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 DEPARTMENT General Fund Attorney's Office 56.70 53.75 53.25 50.25 51.25 49.25 50.25 50.25 55.25 58.50 City Council 25.88 28.00 28.00 30.00 33.00 33.00 35.00 35.00 35.00 36.00 Communications Bureau 81.00 81.00 81.00 94.00 97.00 97.00 100.00 100.00 108.00 100.00 Community and Neighborhood 193.55 200.25 206.00 190.00 192.00 195.00 207.00 207.00 176.00 190.00 Economic Development — — — 11.00 13.00 15.00 16.00 18.00 18.00 22.00 Finance 57.20 58.20 63.70 64.70 65.70 68.70 69.70 69.70 71.70 76.70 Fire 336.00 340.00 340.00 341.00 345.00 347.00 366.00 366.00 374.00 392.00 Human Resources 22.26 22.56 22.56 22.56 22.66 21.05 22.05 21.20 26.05 31.40 Justice Courts 44.50 47.00 44.00 44.00 44.00 44.00 44.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 Mayor's Office 24.00 25.00 21.00 21.00 23.00 23.00 24.00 26.00 30.00 32.00 Police 533.00 533.00 558.00 555.00 565.00 620.00 711.00 711.00 720.00 750.00 Public Lands — — — — — — — — 117.35 143.35 Public Services (1) 242.13 286.03 294.40 298.75 306.75 332.35 341.35 329.35 249.00 261.00 General Fund Total 1,616.22 1,674.79 1,711.91 1,722.26 1,758.36 1,845.35 1,986.35 1,975.50 2,022.35 2,134.95 Enterprise Funds Airport 557.30 557.30 555.30 555.30 564.80 570.80 563.80 610.80 610.80 619.30 Golf 40.40 40.65 40.65 34.65 33.65 34.65 34.65 34.65 33.65 33.65 Public Utilities 387.00 390.00 392.00 394.00 397.00 411.00 427.00 435.00 452.00 459.00 Redevelopment Agency 14.00 15.80 15.80 16.50 16.00 16.00 19.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 Sustainability 49.60 53.95 53.95 57.95 57.95 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 Enterprise Fund Total 1,048.30 1,057.70 1,057.70 1,058.40 1,069.40 1,095.45 1,107.45 1,175.45 1,191.45 1,206.95 Internal Service Funds Information Management Services 68.25 70.00 70.00 70.00 71.00 71.00 71.00 69.00 84.00 92.00 Fleet Management 41.00 40.00 41.00 42.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 46.00 Government Immunity 6.54 5.50 6.50 6.50 6.50 8.50 8.50 8.50 9.00 9.00 Risk Management 2.80 6.24 5.74 5.74 5.64 6.25 6.25 6.10 7.75 7.40 Internal Service Fund Total 118.59 121.74 123.24 124.24 128.14 130.75 130.75 128.60 145.75 154.40 Funding Our Future Special Revenue Fund Total — — — — — — 3.00 3.00 3.00 — TOTAL POSITIONS 2,783.11 2,854.23 2,892.85 2,904.90 2,955.90 3,071.55 3,227.55 3,282.55 3,362.55 3,496.30 Source: Salt Lake City Mayor's Recommended Budget, Staffing Document Summary. (1) Public Services was split in 2022, creating a Public Lands department. 226 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION PRINCIPAL EMPLOYERS Current Year and Ten Years Ago December 31, 2022 December 31, 2013 Employer Number Employees Rank Percent of all Employees Number Employees Rank Percent of all Employees SALT LAKE COUNTY 7,000 - 9,999 1 1.00% - 1.50%5,000 - 6,999 2 0.90 % - 1.30% UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL**7,000 - 9,999 2 0.70% - 1.00%7,000 -9,999 1 1.30 %-1.90% AMAZON SLC1 4,000 - 4,999 3 0.60% - 0.70% DELTA AIRLINES 4,000 - 4,999 4 0.40% - 0.60%3,000 -3,999 5 0.60 %-0.80% ASSOCIATED REG & UNIV PATHOLOGY 3,000 - 3,999 5 0.40% - 0.60% PREMIER EMPLOYEE SOLUTIONS LLC 3,000 - 3,999 6 0.40% - 0.60% PRIMARY CHILDREN'S MEDICAL CENTER 3,000 - 3,999 7 0.40% - 0.60%3,000 -3,999 8 0.60 %-0.80% DISCOVER PRODUCTS INC.2,000 - 2,999 8 0.40% - 0.60%3,000 -3,999 6 0.60 %-0.80% L3 TECHNOLOGIES, INC.2,000 - 2,999 9 0.30% - 0.40%3,000 -3,999 7 0.60 %-0.80% VA SALT LAKE CITY HEALTH CARE SYSTEM 2,000 -2999 10 — % - — %2,000 -2,999 10 0.40 %-0.60% UNIVERSITY OF UTAH**4,000 - 4,999 3 0.80 %-0.90% C.R. ENGLAND 3,000 - 3,999 4 0.60 %-0.80% UPS 2,000 - 2,999 9 0.40 %-0.60% 37000 -50990 5.51 %- 7.59 %35000 -47990 6.60 %-9.10% * - Estimated total number of people employed in Salt Lake City. 671772 527250 ** - University Hospitals have been separated from the University of Utah. Source: Workforce Services - Based on yearly averages 227 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION OPERATING INDICATORS BY FUNCTION Last Ten Fiscal Years 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Function Fire Medical Calls 23,277 23,030 24,297 24,024 22,045 21,417 22,086 22,292 25,363 26,100 Fire Calls 5,385 5,542 5,777 6,406 6,776 6,891 7,132 7,884 8,978 8,923 Average dispatch time on medical emergencies :56 :58 :49 :46 :55 :53 :52 :53 1:34 1:29 Average time responding to life threatening emergencies 4:38 3:54 2:11 4:00 4:00 3:49 4:54 N/A 2:39 2:53 Police (calendar year) Median Priority 1 Response Time In Minutes (1)5:44 5:44 5:40 6:00 6:19 6:02 5:36 12.55 11:34 10:15 Community Development Percent of business license inspections conducted within 30 days TBD 100 100%100 1 100%100 %100 %100 %100 % Number of building inspections conducted per day 134 136 161 160 167 207 239 195 182 218 Percent of transportation service requests completed within 10 working days 91%81%84%80%82%92%87 %84%86%81% Public Services Forestry - Number of trees pruned per month (average)463 325 244 392 278 266 442 292 281 353 Water Total million gallons water delivered 30,168 27,853 25,991 24,491 25,438 23,954 24,423 25,127 21,196 22,845 Per capita delivered - gallons per day 242 185 207 193 198 184 186 191 157 166 Airport Total enplaned passengers (in thousands)10,294 10,834 11,293 11,850 12,420 13,090 10,096 7,710 12,802 13,143 Cargo pounds (in thousands)325,535 330,712 350,906 367,050 380,286 407,899 399,971 424,521 404,492 359,431 Sewer Total Plant Flow (million gallons)10,212 10,087 10,418 10,554 10,211 12,217 11,849 10,492 10,945 10,842 Total influent (TBOD) biochemical oxygen demand (in thousand pounds)17,401 17,864 18,765 19,659 26,985 29,729 21,333 22,869 17,890 20,061 Housing & Loan Rehab Loans 109 108 80 72 113 60 35 26 17 7 Rehab units 124 125 89 217 113 74 35 26 31 29 First Time Home Buyer projects 10 8 4 4 8 7 7 2 5 1 Storm Water Utility Line Installation (Linear Feet)12,547 5,872 5,960 11,039 11,940 6,899 13,013 13,541 25,427 16,560 Refuse Collection Recycling Contamination Rate in Curbside Cans 7%5.7%7%7%15%23.5%19.7%16%15.8%15.3% Percentage of waste stream recycled 16%17%17.2%17%15%12.8%12.1%12.1%12.2%12.2% Golf Number of golf rounds (9 holes equivalent)423,432 415,831 365,671 343,670 355,655 350,550 374,139 455,556 441,087 425,698 Source: Internal department records (1) The measurement basis for this metric has been changed to be more consistent with the reporting of other local agencies. Previously, the measurement reflected time from dispatch to arrival on-scene. Now the measurement reflects time from initial call to arrival on-scene. 228 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION CAPITAL ASSET STATISTICS BY FUNCTION Last Ten Fiscal Years Function 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Fire Number of stations 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 Sworn fire fighters 323 323 328 328 324 329 338 345 347 361 Non-sworn civilian employees.13 13 13 13 17 18 18 23 27 31 Police protection: Number of officers with power of arrest 437 417 447 457 508 589 589 589 604 604 Number of other police employees 96 111 111 108 120 122 122 117 124 146 Public Services Recreation and culture: Number of municipal parks (2)126 126 130 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 Number of municipal playgrounds 58 65 67 71 71 77 77 77 77 77 Number of municipal golf courses 9 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Number of municipal swimming pools (1)5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Lane miles of city owned streets 1,858 1,855 1,849 1,850 1,840 1,854 1,863 1,873 1,888 1,893 Street Lighting Number of Street Lights 15,511 16,405 15,533 15,565 15,615 15,668 15,677 15,690 15,851 15,883 Municipal water plants: Number of service connections 90,435 90,451 91,467 91,545 91,802 92,026 94,013 92,374 91,990 92,034 City 56,700 56,710 55,409 55,435 55,577 55,656 55,772 55,958 56,147 56,258 County 33,735 33,741 36,058 36,110 36,225 36,370 38,241 36,416 35,843 35,776 Water supplied to conduits (gallons/year) per thousand 30,168,610 27,853,330 25,990,768 24,490,890 26,231,120 32,840,422 29,331,670 31,027,510 26,023,720 27,442,799 Water shed managed (square miles)190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 Number of fire hydrants 10,384 10,441 10,494 9,687 9,747 9,835 9,899 9,768 9,870 10,160 City 6,519 6,547 6,592 6,361 6,387 6,460 6,496 6,552 6,628 6,751 County 3,865 3,894 3,902 3,326 3,360 3,375 3,403 3,216 3,242 3,409 Sewer Utility Number of sewer connections 49,779 49,835 49,917 49,924 50,019 50,119 50,235 50,310 50,394 50,515 Miles of sanitary sewer lines 653 653 654 655 655 656 667 677 679 679 Storm Water Utility: Miles of storm water lines 341 342 343 345 348 351 351 356 359 364 Public Libraries 5 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 (1) City owns 5 but they are operated by Salt Lake County (2) Beginning in FY17, the City no longer counts medians, greenways, off ramps or open space locations in the parks inventory. Source: Internal department records Miscellaneous Statistics - Most current information available Date of Incorporation January 5, 1851 Form of government (adopted January 7, 1980)Council/Mayor Area (square miles)110.34 Election data: (Presidential Election) Registered (active voters), November 2016 106,504 Number of votes cast in 2016 local election 95,947 Percentage of registered voters voting 90.09% 229 Federal Awards Reports in Accordance with the Uniform Guidance and State of Utah Compliance Report June 30, 2023 Salt Lake City Corporation Salt Lake City Corporation Table of Contents June 30, 2023 Independent Auditor’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards .......................................................................................................................... 1 Independent Auditor’s Report on Compliance and Report on Internal Control over Compliance as Required by the State Compliance Audit Guide ................................................................................................ 3 Independent Auditor’s Report on Compliance for Each Major Federal Program; Report on Internal Control Over Compliance; and Report on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards Required by the Uniform Guidance .................................................................................................................................... 6 Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards ....................................................................................................... 9 Notes to the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards ..................................................................................14 Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs ........................................................................................................15 1 Independent Auditor’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Salt Lake City Corporation Salt Lake City, Utah We have audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, the discretely presented component units, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of Salt Lake City Corporation, as of and for the year ended June 30, 2023, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise Salt Lake City Corporation’s basic financial statements, and have issued our report thereon dated December 29, 2023. Internal Control over Financial Reporting In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered Salt Lake City Corporation’s internal control over financial reporting (internal control) as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of Salt Lake City Corporation’s internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of Salt Lake City Corporation’s internal control. A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance. Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies and therefore, material weaknesses or significant deficiencies may exist that have not been identified. We identified a certain deficiency in internal control, described in the accompanying Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs as item 2023-001 that we consider to be a material weakness. 2 Report on Compliance and Other Matters As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether Salt Lake City Corporation’s financial statements are free from material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the financial statements. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards. Salt Lake City Corporation’s Response to Findings Government Auditing Standards requires the auditor to perform limited procedures on Salt Lake City Corporation’s responses to the findings identified in our audit and described in the accompanying Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs. Salt Lake City Corporation’s responses were not subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the financial statements and, accordingly, we express no opinion on them. Purpose of this Report The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s internal control or on compliance. This report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the entity’s internal control and compliance. Accordingly, this communication is not suitable for any other purpose. Salt Lake City, Utah December 29, 2023 3 Independent Auditor’s Report on Compliance and Report on Internal Control over Compliance as Required by the State Compliance Audit Guide To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Salt Lake City Corporation Salt Lake City, Utah Report on Compliance We have audited Salt Lake City Corporation’s compliance with the applicable state compliance requirements described in the State Compliance Audit Guide, issued by the Office of the State Auditor, for the year ended June 30, 2023. State compliance requirements were tested for the year ended June 30, 2023 in the following areas: Budgetary Compliance Fund Balance Justice Court Restricted Taxes and Other Related Restricted Revenue Fraud Risk Assessment Governmental Fees Open and Public Meetings Act Opinion on Compliance In our opinion, Salt Lake City Corporation complied, in all material respects, with the state compliance requirements referred to above for the year ended June 30, 2023. Basis for Opinion We conducted our audit of compliance in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAS); the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States (Government Auditing Standards); and the State Compliance Audit Guide (Guide). Our responsibilities under those standards and the State Compliance Audit Guide are further described in the Auditor's Responsibilities for the Audit of Compliance section of our report. We are required to be independent of Salt Lake City Corporation and to meet our other ethical responsibilities, in accordance with relevant ethical requirements relating to our audit. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our opinion. Our audit does not provide a legal determination of Salt Lake City Corporation's compliance with the compliance requirements referred to above. 4 Responsibilities of Management for Compliance Management is responsible for compliance with the requirements referred to above and for the design, implementation, and maintenance of effective internal control over compliance with the requirements of laws, statutes, regulations, rules, and provisions of contracts or grant agreements applicable to Salt Lake City Corporation’s government programs. Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of Compliance Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether material noncompliance with the compliance requirements referred to above occurred, whether due to fraud or error, and express an opinion on Salt Lake City Corporation's compliance based on our audit. Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance but is not absolute assurance and therefore is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with GAAS, Government Auditing Standards, and the Guide will always detect material noncompliance when it exists. The risk of not detecting material noncompliance resulting from fraud is higher than for that resulting from error, as fraud may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions, misrepresentations, or the override of internal control. Noncompliance with the compliance requirements referred to above is considered material if there is a substantial likelihood that, individually or in the aggregate, it would influence the judgment made by a reasonable user of the report on compliance about Salt Lake City Corporation's compliance with the requirements of the government program as a whole. In performing an audit in accordance with GAAS, Government Auditing Standards, and the Guide, we: Exercise professional judgment and maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit. Identify and assess the risks of material noncompliance, whether due to fraud or error, and design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks. Such procedures include examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding Salt Lake City Corporation’s compliance with the compliance requirements referred to above and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Obtain an understanding of the Salt Lake City Corporation’s internal control over compliance relevant to the audit in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances and to test and report on internal control over compliance in accordance with the State Compliance Audit Guide but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of Salt Lake City’s internal control over compliance. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed. We are required to communicate with those charged with governance regarding, among other matters, the planned scope and timing of the audit and any significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in internal control over compliance that we identified during the audit. Other Matters The results of our auditing procedures disclosed instances of noncompliance, which are required to be reported in accordance with the Guide and which are described in the accompanying Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs as items 2023-003 and 2023-004. Our opinion on compliance is not modified with respect to these matters. 5 Government Auditing Standards require the auditor to perform limited procedures on the Salt Lake City Corporation’s response to the noncompliance findings identified in our audit described in the accompanying Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs. Salt Lake City Corporation’s response was not subjected to the other auditing procedures applied in the audit of compliance and, accordingly, we express no opinion on the response. Report On Internal Control over Compliance Our consideration of internal control over compliance was for the limited purpose described in the Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of Compliance section above and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over compliance that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in internal control over compliance. Given these limitations, during our audit we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over compliance that we consider to be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies, as defined above. However, material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in internal control over compliance may exist that were not identified. A deficiency in internal control over compliance exists when the design or operation of a control over compliance does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent or to detect and correct noncompliance with a state compliance requirement on a timely basis. A material weakness in internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control over compliance, such that there is a reasonable possibility that material noncompliance with a state compliance requirement will not be prevented or detected and corrected on a timely basis. A significant deficiency in internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over compliance with a state compliance requirement that is less severe than a material weakness in internal control over compliance, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance. Our audit was not designed for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over compliance. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed. Purpose of Report The purpose of this report on internal control over compliance is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and compliance and the results of that testing based on the requirements of the Guide. Accordingly, this report is not suitable for any other purpose. Salt Lake City, Utah December 29, 2023 6 Independent Auditor’s Report on Compliance for Each Major Federal Program; Report on Internal Control Over Compliance; and Report on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards Required by the Uniform Guidance The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Salt Lake City Corporation Salt Lake City, Utah Report on Compliance for Each Major Federal Program Opinion on Each Major Federal Program We have audited Salt Lake City Corporation’s compliance with the types of compliance requirements subject to audit in the OMB Compliance Supplement that could have a direct and material effect on each of Salt Lake City Corporation’s major federal programs for the year ended June 30, 2023. Salt Lake City Corporation’s major federal programs are identified in the summary of auditor’s results section of the accompanying Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs. In our opinion, Salt Lake City Corporation complied, in all material respects, with the compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on each of its major federal programs for the year ended June 30, 2023. Basis for Opinion on Each Major Federal Program We conducted our audit of compliance in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAS); the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States (Government Auditing Standards); and the audit requirements of Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance). Our responsibilities under those standards and the Uniform Guidance are further described in the Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of Compliance section of our report. We are required to be independent of Salt Lake City Corporation and to meet our other ethical responsibilities, in accordance with relevant ethical requirements relating to our audit. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our opinion on compliance for each major federal program. Our audit does not provide a legal determination of Salt Lake City Corporation’s compliance with the compliance requirements referred to above. Responsibilities of Management for Compliance Management is responsible for compliance with the requirements referred to above and for the design, implementation, and maintenance of effective internal control over compliance with the requirements of laws, statutes, regulations, rules and provisions of contracts or grant agreements applicable to Salt Lake City Corporation‘s federal programs. 7 Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of Compliance Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether material noncompliance with the compliance requirements referred to above occurred, whether due to fraud or error, and express an opinion on Salt Lake City Corporation’s compliance based on our audit. Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance but is not absolute assurance and therefore is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with GAAS, Government Auditing Standards, and the Uniform Guidance will always detect material noncompliance when it exists. The risk of not detecting material noncompliance resulting from fraud is higher than for that resulting from error, as fraud may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions, misrepresentations, or the override of internal control. Noncompliance with the compliance requirements referred to above is considered material, if there is a substantial likelihood that, individually or in the aggregate, it would influence the judgment made by a reasonable user of the report on compliance about Salt Lake City Corporation’s compliance with the requirements of each major federal program as a whole. In performing an audit in accordance with GAAS, Government Auditing Standards, and the Uniform Guidance, we: Exercise professional judgment and maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit. Identify and assess the risks of material noncompliance, whether due to fraud or error, and design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks. Such procedures include examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding Salt Lake City Corporation’s compliance with the compliance requirements referred to above and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Obtain an understanding of Salt Lake City Corporation’s internal control over compliance relevant to the audit in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances and to test and report on internal control over compliance in accordance with the Uniform Guidance, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of Salt Lake City Corporation’s internal control over compliance. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed. We are required to communicate with those charged with governance regarding, among other matters, the planned scope and timing of the audit and any significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in internal control over compliance that we identified during the audit. Report on Internal Control over Compliance Our consideration of internal control over compliance was for the limited purpose described in the Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of Compliance section above and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over compliance that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in internal control over compliance and therefore, material weaknesses or significant deficiencies may exist that were not identified. We did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over compliance that we consider to be material weaknesses. However, as discussed below, we did identify certain deficiencies in internal control over compliance that we consider to be significant deficiencies. A deficiency in internal control over compliance exists when the design or operation of a control over compliance does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program on a timely basis. 8 A material weakness in internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over compliance, such that there is a reasonable possibility that material noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. A significant deficiency in internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over compliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program that is less severe than a material weakness in internal control over compliance, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance. We consider a deficiency in internal control over compliance described in the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs as item 2023-002 to be a significant deficiency. Our audit was not designed for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over compliance. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed. Government Auditing Standards requires the auditor to perform limited procedures on Salt Lake City Corporation’s response to the internal control over compliance findings identified in our compliance audit described in the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs. Salt Lake City Corporation’s response was not subjected to the other auditing procedures applied in the audit of compliance and, accordingly, we express no opinion on the response. The purpose of this report on internal control over compliance is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over compliance and the results of that testing based on the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Accordingly, this report is not suitable for any other purpose. Report on Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards Required by the Uniform Guidance We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, the discretely presented component units, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of Salt Lake City Corporation as of and for the year ended June 30, 2023, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise Salt Lake City Corporation’s basic financial statements. We issued our report thereon dated December 29, 2023, which contained unmodified opinions on those financial statements. Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that collectively comprise the basic financial statements. The accompanying schedule of expenditures of federal awards is presented for purposes of additional analysis as required by the Uniform Guidance and is not a required part of the basic financial statements. Such information is the responsibility of management and was derived from and relates directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements. The information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and certain additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements or to the basic financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. In our opinion, the schedule of expenditures of federal awards is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the basic financial statements as a whole. Salt Lake City, Utah December 29, 2023 Se e N o t e s t o S c h e d u l e o f E x p e n d i t u r e s o f F e d e r a l A w a r d s 9 Sa l t L a k e C i t y C o r p o r a t i o n Sc h e d u l e o f E x p e n d i t u r e s o f F e d e r a l A w a r d s Ye a r E n d e d J u n e 3 0 , 2 0 2 3 Se e N o t e s t o S c h e d u l e o f E x p e n d i t u r e s o f F e d e r a l A w a r d s 1 0 Sa l t L a k e C i t y C o r p o r a t i o n Sc h e d u l e o f E x p e n d i t u r e s o f F e d e r a l A w a r d s Ye a r E n d e d J u n e 3 0 , 2 0 2 3 Se e N o t e s t o S c h e d u l e o f E x p e n d i t u r e s o f F e d e r a l A w a r d s 1 1 Sa l t L a k e C i t y C o r p o r a t i o n Sc h e d u l e o f E x p e n d i t u r e s o f F e d e r a l A w a r d s Ye a r E n d e d J u n e 3 0 , 2 0 2 3 Se e N o t e s t o S c h e d u l e o f E x p e n d i t u r e s o f F e d e r a l A w a r d s 1 2 Sa l t L a k e C i t y C o r p o r a t i o n Sc h e d u l e o f E x p e n d i t u r e s o f F e d e r a l A w a r d s Ye a r E n d e d J u n e 3 0 , 2 0 2 3 Se e N o t e s t o S c h e d u l e o f E x p e n d i t u r e s o f F e d e r a l A w a r d s 1 3 Sa l t L a k e C i t y C o r p o r a t i o n Sc h e d u l e o f E x p e n d i t u r e s o f F e d e r a l A w a r d s Ye a r E n d e d J u n e 3 0 , 2 0 2 3 14 Salt Lake City Corporation Notes to Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards Year Ended June 30, 2023 Note 1 – Basis of Presentation The accompanying schedule of expenditures of federal awards (the schedule) includes the federal award activity of Salt Lake City Corporation under programs of the federal government for the year ended June 30, 2023. The information is presented in accordance with the requirements of Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance). Because the schedule presents only a selected portion of the operations of Salt Lake City Corporation, it is not intended to and does not present the financial position, changes in net position or fund balance, or cash flows of Salt Lake City Corporation. Note 2 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies Expenditures reported in the schedule are reported on the modified accrual basis of accounting, except for subrecipient expenditures, which are recorded on the cash basis. When applicable, such expenditures are recognized following the cost principles contained in the Uniform Guidance, wherein certain types of expenditures are not allowable or are limited as to reimbursement. Note 3 – Indirect Cost Rate Salt Lake City Corporation has not elected to use the 10% de minimis cost rate. Note 4 – Loan Programs Expenditures reported under the HOME Investments Partnership Program in the schedule consist of advances made on the loans during the year. The amount advanced during the year ended June 30, 2023, was $140,000. Expenditures reported under the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation program in the schedule consist of the beginning of the year outstanding loan balance plus advances made on the loan during the year. The outstanding balance at June 30, 2023 was $13,112,999. 15 Salt Lake City Corporation Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs Year Ended June 30, 2023 Section I – Summary of Auditor’s Results FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Type of auditor's report issued Unmodified Internal control over financial reporting: Material weaknesses identified YesSignificant deficiencies identified not considered to be material weaknesses None Reported Noncompliance material to financial statements noted?No FEDERAL AWARDS Internal control over major program: Material weaknesses identified NoSignificant deficiencies identified not considered to be material weaknesses Yes Type of auditor's report issued on compliance for major programs:Unmodified Any audit findings disclosed that are required to be reported in accordance with Uniform Guidance 2 CFR 200.516 Yes Identification of major programs: Federal Financial Assistance Listing Airport Improvement Program 20.106Emergency Rental Assistance 21.023Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund 21.027 Dollar threshold used to distinguish between type A and type B programs $3,000,000 Auditee qualified as low-risk auditee?No Name of Federal Program 16 Salt Lake City Corporation Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs Year Ended June 30, 2023 Section II – Financial Statement Findings 2023-001 Account Reconciliation Material Weakness in Internal Control Criteria:Salt Lake City Corporation and its management are responsible for the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States, whether due to fraud or error. Condition: During the audit we identified multiple audit adjustments that in aggregate represent a material adjustment to the financial statements. Audit adjustments were proposed that impacted property tax receivable, housing loans receivable and subscription asset and liability. Cause: Multiple schedules supporting financial statement balances contained errors leading to inaccurate financial reporting. These issues were not reconciled or reviewed by an appropriate individual prior to the initial financial close or during the financial statement preparation process. Effect: If the audit adjustments had not been made, the financial statements could have material misstatements. Recommendation: We recommend that management review the process and timing of reconciliation of year end items, as well as continuing to provide training to those performing considered qualified to review all journal entries and year end reconciliations. Views of Responsible Officials: Management has reviewed the errors with the responsible employees. Some of these errors occurred due to a lack of review by those responsible. Management is developing plans to ensure each failure is fixed and processes identified to ensure adjustments and reconciliations are complete and accurate. These plans include review by division leaders and secondary review by the accounting reporting team. Their performance will be monitored to ensure they are able to perform their tasks. If those tasks cannot be accomplished, the tasks will be reassigned. 17 Salt Lake City Corporation Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs Year Ended June 30, 2023 Section III – Federal Award Findings and Questioned Costs 2023-002 Department of Treasury Federal Financial Assistance Listing 21.027 Award number SLT-4512 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund Reporting Significant Deficiency in Internal Control and Immaterial Instance of Noncompliance Criteria: The quarterly Project and Expenditure Report should include all expenditures made in the reporting period. Condition: The original project and expenditure reports provided to the auditors did not include all expenditures made during the reporting periods selected for testing. Cause: The City’s internal controls related to preparation of the reports did not identify all expenditures made in the reporting periods selected for testing. Effect: The original reports submitted to the Department of Treasury were not complete. Questioned Costs: None reported Context/Sampling: We examined all four quarterly Project and Expenditure Reports for the audit period. We noted errors in one report. Repeat Finding from Prior Year(s): No Recommendation: We recommend that the City enhance internal controls to ensure all program expenditures are appropriately reported. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. 18 Salt Lake City Corporation Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs Year Ended June 30, 2023 Section IV – State of Utah Compliance Findings 2023-003 Open and Public Meetings Act Immaterial Instance of Noncompliance with State Compliance Requirements Criteria:Under UCA 52-4-201 and UCA 52-4-203(4)(f), the City is required to post minutes and any public materials for work meetings to the Utah Public Notice Website within three days of the minutes being approved. Condition: There were two instances where meeting minutes were not posted to the Utah Public Notice Website within three days of the minutes being approved. Cause: The City’s process for posting work meeting minutes to the Utah Public Notice Website was not sufficient to meet the required timeframe. Effect: The City was not in compliance with UCA 54-4-201 and UCA 52-4-203(4)(f) in relation to posting work meeting minutes to the Utah Public Notice Website. Recommendation: We recommend that the City review it’s processes for timely posting of work minutes to the Utah Public Notice Website. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. 2023-004 Fund Balance Immaterial Instance of Noncompliance with State Compliance Requirements Criteria: Under UCA 10-6-116(2), the City’s unrestricted (committed, assigned, and unassigned) general fund balance should not exceed 35% of the total revenue of the general fund for the fiscal year under audit. Condition: The unrestricted general fund balance exceeded 35% of the total revenue of the general fund. Cause: The City’s process for maintaining the proper unrestricted general fund balance in proportion to total revenue was not sufficient to ensure compliance. Effect: The City was not in compliance with UCA 10-16-116(2). Recommendation: We recommend that the City review it’s processes to ensure the unrestricted general fund balance does not exceed 35% of the total revenue of the general fund. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. What inspires you, inspires us. | eidebailly.com 5 Triad Center, Ste. 600 | Salt Lake City, UT 84180-1106 | T 801.532.2200 | F 801.532.7944 | EOE 1 December 29, 2023 To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Salt Lake City Corporation Salt Lake City, Utah We have audited the financial statements of Salt Lake City Corporation (the City) as of and for the year ended June 30, 2023, and have issued our report thereon dated June 30, 2023. Professional standards require that we advise you of the following matters relating to our audit. Our Responsibility in Relation to the Financial Statement Audit under Generally Accepted Auditing Standards and Government Auditing Standards and our Compliance Audit under the Uniform Guidance As communicated in our letter dated September 15, 2022, our responsibility, as described by professional standards, is to form and express an opinion about whether the financial statements that have been prepared by management with your oversight are presented fairly, in all material respects, in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America and to express an opinion on whether the City complied with the types of compliance requirements described in the OMB Compliance Supplement that could have a direct and material effect on each of the City’s major federal programs. Our audit of the financial statements does not relieve you or management of your respective responsibilities. Our responsibility, as prescribed by professional standards, is to plan and perform our audit to obtain reasonable, rather than absolute, assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit of financial statements includes consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, as part of our audit, we considered the internal control of the City solely for the purpose of determining our audit procedures and not to provide any assurance concerning such internal control. Our responsibility, as prescribed by professional standards as it relates to the audit of the City’s major federal program compliance, is to express an opinion on the compliance for each of the City’s major federal programs based on our audit of the types of compliance requirements referred to above. An audit of major program compliance includes consideration of internal control over compliance with the types of compliance requirements referred to above as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances and to test and report on internal control over compliance in accordance with the Uniform Guidance, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over compliance. Accordingly, as a part of our major program compliance audit, we considered internal control over compliance for these purposes and not to provide any assurance on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control over compliance. 2 We are also responsible for communicating significant matters related to the audit that are, in our professional judgment, relevant to your responsibilities in overseeing the financial reporting process. However, we are not required to design procedures for the purpose of identifying other matters to communicate to you. We have provided our comments regarding internal controls during our audit in our Independent Auditor’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards dated December 29, 2023. We have also provided our comments regarding compliance with the types of compliance requirements referred to above and internal controls over compliance during our audit in our Independent Auditor’s Report on Compliance with Each Major Federal Program and Report on Internal Control Over Compliance Required by the Uniform Guidance dated December 29, 2023. Planned Scope and Timing of the Audit We conducted our audit consistent with the planned scope and timing we previously communicated to you. Compliance with All Ethics Requirements Regarding Independence The engagement team, others in our firm, as appropriate, our firm, and other firms utilized in the engagement, if applicable, have complied with all relevant ethical requirements regarding independence. Significant Risks Identified As stated in our auditor’s report, professional standards require us to design our audit to provide reasonable assurance that the financial statements are free of material misstatement whether caused by fraud or error. In designing our audit procedures, professional standards require us to evaluate the financial statements and assess the risk that a material misstatement could occur. Areas that are potentially more susceptible to misstatements, and thereby require special audit considerations, are designated as “significant risks.” We have identified the following as significant risks: • Management Override of Controls – Professional standards require auditors to address the possibility of management overriding controls. Accordingly, we identified as a significant risk that management of the Salt Lake City Corporation may have the ability to override controls that the City has implemented. • Revenue Recognition – Exchange Revenue – We identified revenue recognition as a significant risk because the possibility of errors in recording exchange revenue due to incorrect calculations or over/under billing. • Revenue Recognition – Non-Exchange Revenue – We identified grant and intergovernmental revenue recognition as a significant risk because of possible misstatements due to errors in determining if eligibility, timing or other grantor restrictions have been met. • Improper Capitalization – Given the dollar amount and volume of capital asset expenditures, we considered there is a significant risk that capital expenditures are not properly reconciled and classified as a capital asset additions. 3 Qualitative Aspects of the Entity’s Significant Accounting Practices Significant Accounting Policies Management has the responsibility to select and use appropriate accounting policies. A summary of the significant accounting policies adopted by the City is included in Note 1 to the financial statements. As described in Note 1, the City changed accounting policies related to accounting for software subscriptions to adopt the provisions of GASB Statement No. 96 , Subscription-Based Information Technology Arrangements. Accordingly, the accounting change has been retrospectively applied to the financial statements beginning July 1, 2022. No matters have come to our attention that would require us, under professional standards, to inform you about (1) the methods used to account for significan uusual transactions and (2) the effect of significant accounting policies in controverisial or emerging areas for which there is a lack of authoritative guidance or consensus. Significant Accounting Estimates Accounting estimates are an integral part of the financial statements prepared by management and are based on management’s current judgments. Those judgments are normally based on knowledge and experience about past and current events and assumptions about future events. Certain accounting estimates are particularly sensitive because of their significance to the financial statements and because of the possibility that future events affecting them may differ markedly from management’s current judgments. The most sensitive accounting estimates affecting the financial statements are: • Environmental Remediation Liability - Management’s estimate of the environmental remediation liability is based on estimated costs, including equipment, labor, and monitoring, to remediate all future obligations. We evaluated the estimated remaining costs, including supporting engineering estimates, and considered the key factors and assumptions used to develop the estimate and determined that it is reasonable in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole. • Pensions - Management’s estimate of the net pension liability is an allocation of an amount determined by the Utah Retirement Systems (URS) in accordance with the parameters of GASB Statement No. 68. The estimate is prepared by the URS for all of Salt Lake City Corporation and then allocated to the various funds within the Salt Lake City Corporation. We evaluated the report provided by the URS and the allocation made by Salt Lake City Corporation detailing the key factors and assumptions used to develop the estimate and determined that it is reasonable in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole. Financial Statement Disclosures Certain financial statement disclosures involve significant judgment and are particularly sensitive because of their significance to financial statement users. The most sensitive disclosures affecting the City’s financial statements relate to Long-Term Obligations and Pension Plans in Note 6 and 14, respectively, to the financial statements. Significant Difficulties Encountered during the Audit We encountered no significant difficulties in dealing with management relating to the performance of the audit. 4 Uncorrected and Corrected Misstatements For purposes of this communication, professional standards require us to accumulate all known and likely misstatements identified during the audit, other than those that we believe are trivial, and communicate them to the appropriate level of management. Further, professional standards require us to also communicate the effect of uncorrected misstatements related to prior periods on the relevant classes of transactions, account balances or disclosures, and the financial statements as a whole. Uncorrected misstatements or matters underlying those uncorrected misstatements could potentially cause future-period financial statements to be materially misstated, even though the uncorrected misstatements are immaterial to the financial statements currently under audit. There were no uncorrected misstatements. The following misstatements that we identified as a result of our audit procedures were brought to the attention of, and corrected by, management: Overstatement of Property Tax Receivable (General Fund) $13,950,746 Understatement of Deferred Property Taxes (General Fund) 13,950,746 Overstatement of Subscription Asset (Govt Wide) $820,705 Overstatement of Subscription Liability (Govt Wide) 820,705 Disagreements with Management For purposes of this letter, professional standards define a disagreement with management as a matter, whether or not resolved to our satisfaction, concerning a financial accounting, reporting, or auditing matter, which could be significant to the City financial statements or the auditor’s report. No such disagreements arose during the course of the audit. Circumstances that Affect the Form and Content of the Auditor’s Report For purposes of this letter, professional standards require that we communicate any circumstances that affect the form and content of our auditor’s report. As described in Note 1 to the financial statements, the City has adopted the provisions of GASB Statement No. 96, Subscription-Based Information Technology Arrangements (SBITAs). We have included an emphasis of matter paragraph in our report regarding this adoption. Representations Requested from Management We have requested certain written representations from management which are included in the management representation letter dated December 29, 2023. Management’s Consultations with Other Accountants In some cases, management may decide to consult with other accountants about auditing and accounting matters. Management informed us that, and to our knowledge, there were no consultations with other accountants regarding auditing and accounting matters. 5 Other Significant Matters, Findings, or Issues In the normal course of our professional association with the City, we generally discuss a variety of matters, including the application of accounting principles and auditing standards, significant events or transactions that occurred during the year, operating and regulatory conditions affecting the entity, and operational plans and strategies that may affect the risks of material misstatement. None of the matters discussed resulted in a condition to our retention as the City’s auditors. Other Information Included in Annual Reports Pursuant to professional standards, our responsibility as auditors for other information, whether financial or nonfinancial, included in the City’s annual reports, does not extend beyond the financial information identified in the audit report, and we are not required to perform any procedures to corroborate such other information. However, in accordance with such standards, we have: • Read the information and considered whether such information, or the manner of its presentation, was materially inconsisitent with its presentation in the financial statements. We did not note any material inconsistencies during our review. Our responsibility also includes communicating to you any information which we believe is a material misstatement of fact. Nothing came to our attention that caused us to believe that such information, or its manner of presentation, is materially inconsistent with the information, or manner of its presentation, appearing in the financial statements. The financial statements include the financial statements of the Department of Airports, Water Utility Fund and Sewer Utility Fund, departments of Salt Lake City, the Redevelopment Agency Fund, and Local Building Authority, blended component units of the City, and the Salt Lake City Library, a discretely presented component unit of the City. We consider these entities to be significant components of the consolidated financial statements. Consistent with the audit of the consolidated financial statements as a whole, our audit included obtaining an understanding of the above organizations and their environments, including internal control, sufficient to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements of the City and completion of further audit procedures. The financial statements include the equity method investment in the Joint Venture City/County Landfill with Salt Lake County and the Utah Performing Arts Center Agency (UPACA), a discretely presented component unit, which are considered to be a significant components of the financial statements of the City. The financial statements of Salt Lake County were audited by other auditors. Eide Bailly assumed responsibility for the audit of the financial statements of Salt Lake County and no reference is made in the auditor’s report to the other auditor. Consistent with the audit of the financial statements as a whole, our audit included obtaining an understanding of Salt Lake County and its environment, including internal control, sufficient to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements of the Joint Ventures with the City and completion of further audit procedures. Additionally, our audit procedures included required correspondence with the other auditor, obtaining and reading their auditor’s report and the related financial statements, and other procedures as considered necessary. 6 The financial statements include the equity method investment in the Sugarhouse Park joint venture between the City and Salt Lake County as well as the Arts Council, which for the purpose of our audit, we did not consider to be a significant component of the financial statements of the City. The financial statements of Salt Lake County and the Arts Council were audited by other auditors. Eide Bailly assumed responsibility for the audit of the financial statements of Salt Lake County and the Arts Council and no reference is made in the auditor’s report to the other auditors. Consistent with the audit of the financial statements as a whole, our audit included obtaining an understanding of the investment in Salt Lake County and the Arts Council, sufficient to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements of the City and completion of further audit procedures, as determined necessary. This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Mayor and Members of the City Council, and management of the City and is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than these specified parties. Salt Lake City, Ut Management’s Response to Auditor’s Findings: Summary Schedule of Prior Audit Findings and Corrective Action Plan June 30, 2023 Prepared by Management of Salt Lake City Corporation Summary Schedule of Prior Audit Findings Finding 2022-001 Initial Fiscal Year Finding Occurred: 2022 Finding Summary: During the audit there were multiple audit adjustments identified that in the aggregate represented a material adjustment to the financial statements. Status: Management implemented an additional step in the annual close process where additional testing was done on all unreconciled cash items at the end of the year. In addition, all property sales were subjected to undergo a formal review with the City Finance Team in order to ensure all sales are properly recorded. Ongoing training with Treasury staff was also implemented in the current year to ensure reconciliations were done in a timely manner. Finding 2022-002 Initial Fiscal Year Finding Occurred: 2022 Finding Summary: During the audit there was a lease identified that was not properly accounted for in accordance with GASB 87. Status: Management has continued to review and monitor all new lease/rental agreements for GASB 87 compliance. We have also added a review step to the lease calculation process whereby an additional review of the calculation is done by another staff member. Finding 2022-003 Initial Fiscal Year Finding Occurred: 2022 Finding Summary: The original SEFA provided to the auditors for major program determination did not include the loan received under the WIFIA program. Status: Management added a step to the annual close process of contacting each department throughout the City to determine if there were any new Federal programs that needed to be considered for the SEFA. Finding 2022-004 Initial Fiscal Year Finding Occurred: 2022 Finding Summary: Total expenditures in the Arts Council Fund exceeded the appropriated expenditures in the final adopted budget. Status: Management worked closely with the Arts Council to ensure they were aware of their budget and expenditures throughout the year to avoid going over budget in the current year. The Arts Council successfully ended the year under their allotted budget. Corrective Action Plan Finding 2023-001 Finding Summary: Eide Bailly LLP identified multiple audit adjustments that in the aggregate resulted in a material adjustment to the financial statements. Responsible Individuals: Russell Sundquist Corrective Action Plan: Management agrees that the financial statements would have been misstated without the audit adjustments. Management believes the errors would have been corrected during the final reconciliations. However, due to staff resources and time constraints, account reconciliations and audit review occur simultaneously. Although the goal is to have everything reconciled, sometimes auditors will review work that has not yet been reconciled resulting in a similar comment. Anticipated Completion Date: December 2023 Finding 2023-002 Federal Agency Name: Department of the Treasury Program Name: COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund CFDA #21.027 Finding Summary: The original project and expenditure reports provided to the auditors did not include all expenditures made during the reporting periods they selected for testing. Responsible Individuals: Aaron Price Corrective Action Plan: This is the result of an end of year timing issue wherein the reporting deadline to the Federal Government occurred prior to year-end close, resulting in a reconciling item being accurately reported within the City’s fiscal year despite being reported to the Federal Government in a subsequent quarter, but still accurately within the Federal Government’s fiscal year. Moving forward, greater efforts will be used to reconcile year end grant transactions prior to federal reporting, however, this is considered to be a non-recurring issue given the nature of the grant. Anticipated Completion Date: December 2023 Finding 2023-003 Finding Summary: Eide Bailly LLP identified two instances where meeting minutes were not posted to the Utah Public Notice Website within three days of the minutes being approved. Responsible Individuals: Cindy Lou Trishman, City Recorder Corrective Action Plan: The Recorder’s Office will adjust the process for approved minutes to be uploaded after a signature is obtained, to upload them to UPNW prior to signature completion but with approval date. The signed record with the seal will be maintained in the City’s permanent repository. Anticipated Completion Date: Training is occurring, and the implementation is immediate. Finding 2023-004 Finding Summary: The unrestricted general fund balance exceeded 35% of total revenue of the general fund. Responsible Individuals: Mary Beth Thompson, CFO Corrective Action Plan: The Finance Department has put into place a monthly projection model for both revenues and expenditures. This model will help the department monitor both the revenues received and the expenditures spent in a timely manner to ensure that the City of Salt Lake won’t be over the 35% unrestricted fund balance in the future. Anticipated Completion Date: December 2023 Item C1 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY tinyurl.com/SLCFY24 TO:City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke, Sylvia Richards, Jennifer Bruno, and Kira Luke DATE:February 6, 2024 UPDATED 4:23 PM RE: Budget Amendment Number Three FY2024 MOTION 1 – ADOPT TWO ITEMS I move that the Council adopt an ordinance amending the Fiscal Year 2024 final budget of Salt Lake City including the employment staffing document only for items as shown on the motion sheet and move to authorize release of the condition regarding the temporary sanctioned campground funding. Staff note: Council Members do not need to read the individual items being approved below; they are listed for reference. Note that four urgent items were adopted on December 12, 2023. The Council adopted most other items on January 16 and kept the amendment open to consider a few remaining items. The amendment remains open to consider a single remaining item A-10. A-12: Police Officer Overtime Related to the Sanctioned Campground Pilot Program ($500,000 from ARPA Funds Unused in Prior Fiscal Years) I-2: Releasing Funds for Temporary Sanctioned Campground ($500,000 from Nondepartmental Holding Account; Conditional Appropriation is satisfied) MOTION 2 – ADOPT DOWNTOWN PARKING PAY STATION REPLACEMENTS I further move that the Council also approves item A-10 as shown on the motion sheet. A-10: Downtown Parking Pay Station Replacements ($135,993 from General Fund Balance) MOTION 3 – NOT ADOPT I move that the Council proceed to the next agenda item. COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY tinyurl.com/SLCFY24 TO:City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke, Sylvia Richards, Jennifer Bruno, and Kira Luke DATE: January 16, 2024 RE: Budget Amendment #3 of Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 NEW INFORMATION At the January 16 briefing, the Council received a General Fund revenues update from the Finance Department. As of November, sales tax revenues are $3 million below budget projections. Sales tax receipts have a two-month delay between the purchase and the revenue coming in. The Council reviewed all remaining items proposed by the Administration. At the January 16 formal meeting, the Council adopted most remaining items except for two items (A-10 and A-12) that had follow up questions. Additional information responding to Council Member questions on these two items is shown below. There is also a follow up item to release funds from an existing holding account to support the temporary sanctioned campground which is shown as item I-2 below. The Council may vote on some or all these three items at the February 6 formal meeting. A-10: Downtown Parking Pay Station Replacements ($135,993 from General Fund Balance) Administration Responses to Council Follow Up Questions Below are the Council’s follow up questions from earlier briefings and the Administration’s responses: Question: How will the public, downtown businesses, and other organizations learn about the new parking pay stations? Response: The vendor will assist the City in producing an information campaign that will inform users of changes. This will occur both online and in person.   Question: Will the existing ParkSLC mobile app continue or would a new app be needed? Response: At this time ParkSLC will continue to be used. Both the app vendor and the pay station vendor have assured us that an integration is possible between the two systems, just like the one that exists now. It is possible in the future the City may explore other app options, but there are no immediate plans to so. Question: Would the new stations allow the City to improve parking demand management practices? Would additional funding be needed for some technology features not currently expected to be included in the new kiosks but would be beneficial for the City? (For example, variable pricing during peak hours, paying for shorter or longer time periods, real-time information on where parking spaces are available (public and private), reservation-based parking spaces, vending zones like food trucks, and supporting the potential pedestrianization of closing Main Street during certain times). Response: The selection committee strongly desired to future proof the pay stations and thus special attention was given to all aspects of this question. The potential new stations have the capability to have a variable rate structure, paying for shorter or longer time periods, and the vending zone mentioned. They can also support providing regional information (items of interest nearby), advertising (events, local businesses, etc.) payment of parking citations, and sale and reloading of public transportation cards. It is expected that current practices Project Timeline: Set Date: November 14, 2023 1st Briefing: December 5, 2023 2nd Briefing, Public Hearing, and Adopted Urgent Items: December 12, 2023 3rd Briefing: January 9, 2024 4th Briefing and Adopted Some Items: January 16, 2024 5th Briefing: February 6, 2024 and Potential Vote Potential Action: February 6, 2024 for reserving a parking spot will continue. (User will need to request a reservation from Transportation, and the meter spot will then be bagged.) There is no additional funding anticipated for any of these services as the contract with the vendor provides support services that would be utilized as decisions are made to implement the parking management practices. There is the option to purchase an occupation module with a web portal as well as pollution sensors that could be installed on each pay station. The stations could also be upfitted to manage electrical car charging at additional costs. Question: Is information available about what percentage of users interact with kiosks vs the parking app? Other metrics about also be useful context for the Council to consider this funding request. Council Member Puy mentioned during the briefing that some cities have no physical kiosks so all customers use the app. Has that option been explored and are there pros and cons that could be shared? Response: In 2022 Transportation commissioned a parking study performed by an outside party. This study found that 41%-60% is the pay-by-app share of transactions for most pay stations. Due to this variance, the plan is to only remove about 10 pay stations or so. However, Transportation is hoping to slightly expand the footprint of paid parking spots, thus the net change will be negligible. While app usage is increasing, there are still enough cash/card transactions carried out at the pay stations to retain them. Pay stations also ensure equity of access to parking for those who prefer to use cash, or don’t want to use the app. The study also found that the average number of transactions in 2022 per pay station was 3,015. Parking Meter Study and Two New Attachments The Public Services Department and Transportation Division shared two new attachments that informed this budget request: Attachment 3 is a Salt Lake City Metered Parking Analysis Executive Summary Presentation, and Attachment 4 is the final report from November 2022. The study raises several policy topics for possible future consideration such as: - Expanding parking meters in new areas, o In the short-term possible west downtown, Station Center, Granary District, Central Ninth, parts of Central City, o In the medium-term the Sugar House business district), - Updating the fee schedule and fines including potentially new zones with different fees and rate structures - Changing time limits, reducing free parking times, and increasing days of the week and time of the day for enforcement, and - New policies for special events and special overlay areas. The Council may wish to consider scheduling a separate briefing on the parking meters study findings. A-12: A-12: Police Officer Overtime Related to the Sanctioned Campground Pilot Program ($500,000 from ARPA Funds Unused in Prior Fiscal Years) In response to Council questions about where police officers are located during overtime shifts related to the temporary sanctioned campground, the Police Department clarified that officers “are in the surrounding area of the sanctioned campground including the area of the downtown security initiative. Officers are not staffed inside the sanctioned campground but will respond to calls for service inside the sanctioned campground as needed.” The Council also asked for information about the Department’s overtime budget, vacancy savings, and personnel services budget. The Department responded that actual expenses for overtime are nearly $2.8 million so far in FY2024 which exceeds the $1.8 million overtime budget. Note there is a related $1.8 million request in Budget Amendment #4 for police officer overtime. The Department stated that the personnel services budget numbers will be available later because of pending financial system report validations. I-2: General Operations Support for the Temporary Sanctioned Campground ($500,000 from Nondepartmental Holding Account) This is a follow up item to release $500,000 to the State for general operations at the temporary sanctioned campground (not reimbursement for specific incurred expenses). The total estimated cost to operate the campground is $860,000 from December through April. Note that the $860,000 operating cost doesn’t include the City’s expenses to prepare the site to host the campground such as utility upgrades and the State’s cost to purchase the Foldum micro shelter units. The campground is anticipated to operate until April 30, 2024. The State is evaluating ongoing funding options and preparing a permanent location for the campground several blocks away from the temporary site. FY2024 Conditional Appropriation Ordinance Text The Council previously put $1.5 million from the General Fund into a holding account for potential expenses related to the temporary sanctioned campground. All those funds remain in the holding account. The Council included the below conditional appropriation language in the FY2024 annual budget adoption ordinance. The Council could vote on this condition being satisfied and releasing $500,000 from the holding account at the February 6 formal meeting. “Conditional Appropriation -- Sanctioned Camping Catalytic Grant Fund – $500,000 for sanctioned camping/RV parking into a holding account, pending future discussion with Administration, fact-finding on best practices from other cities, and local and State considerations.” Policy questions: ➢Additional Funding Needs – The Council may wish to ask the Administration whether additional funding requests related to the temporary sanctioned campground are anticipated. ➢Coordinating Closure of Temporary Site and Opening of Permanent Campground – The Council may wish to ask the Administration what preparations are underway to coordinate tenants moving from the temporary site to the State’s permanent campground.  Information below was provided to the Council at earlier briefings  At the January 9 briefing, the Council discussed the modified proposal for item A-1 from the Fire Department which requests four civilian single-role paramedics. The Council took a unanimous straw poll in support of the proposal. Item A-1 has a related resolution that would request admission to the Tier 2 Firefighters Retirement System for emergency medical personnel including paramedics and social workers. The retirement system resolution and the budget adoption ordinance will be listed separately on the formal meeting agenda for individual votes. The Finance Department has provided a General Fund revenues update presentation that will be given at the January 16 briefing. Council Members had requested the update as context to consider the remaining items in Budget Amendment #3. On January 16, the Council will continue reviewing items that were not yet discussed at earlier briefings. The Council may consider voting on item A-1, the related resolution, and remaining budget items in this amendment at the January 16 formal meeting.  Information below was provided to the Council at earlier briefings  At the December 12 briefing, the Council reviewed four items previously discussed with time sensitive deadlines (e.g., the upcoming Utah Legislature’s General Session, anticipated price increases, winter shelter needs, and manufacturer order windows). At the formal meeting later that day, the Council closed the public hearing and adopted the four urgent items listed below. The budget amendment remains open. Some Council Members expressed a preference to receive a General Fund Balance update as confirmed by the annual financial audit and revenue projections as context for considering remaining items in this budget amendment. The Finance Department is expected to be available to present these updates at the January 16 briefing. The Fire Department submitted a modified proposal for item A-1 which is summarized below. At the time of publishing, details were pending on remaining funds from prior year appropriations related to item I-1 for physical security improvements to City Hall. Urgent Items Adopted on December 12 - A-4: City Attorney’s Office Legislative Division Request for Four New FTEs ($317,190 from General Fund Balance of which $20,000 is one-time for workspaces, and $12,000 to the IMS Fund one-time) - A-15: Mill & Overlay Pilot Program for Street Pavement Maintenance ($205,177 from the Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Transportation Fund Balance, and Transferring $955,177 to the Fleet Fund) - A-16: The Road Home’s Family Hotel Winter Interim Plan ($300,000 from General Fund Balance) - D-2: IMS FY2023 Encumbrance Reappropriation ($4,269,083 from IMS Fund Balance) Modified Proposal for A-1: Fire Department Medical Response Civilian Single Role Paramedics Request for Two New FTEs and Reclassify Two Vacant Entry-level Firefighter FTEs (Budget Neutral in FY2024 Using Vacancy Savings; $133,266 New Ongoing General Fund Cost in FY2025) After the Council’s initial discussion on December 5, the Fire Department submitted a modified proposal for this item. The table below compares the original and modified proposals. The Department considers staffing civilian single role paramedics in the existing Medical Response Teams to be a pilot program. Currently, firefighter EMTs staff the Medical Response Teams. If the pilot program creates operational efficiencies as expected, then additional civilian single role paramedics may be requested in the next annual budget. Proposal FTEs (full-time employees)FY2024 Budget Impact FY2025 Budget Impact Original 4 new FTEs $160,519 from General Fund Balance $292,638 Modified Reclassify 2 vacant entry-level firefighter FTEs, and 2 new FTEs Budget neutral; using vacancy savings $133,266  Information below was provided to the Council at earlier briefings  At the first briefing, the Council discussed time sensitive items and the three items requesting new full-time employees (FTEs). The other items will be discussed at the follow-up briefing on December 12. The Council may consider adopting some or all items in Budget Amendment #3 after the public hearing is held, although standard practice would be to consider only the time sensitive items. In addition to the amendment adoption ordinance, the Council could also act on another ordinance that is proposed for item A-4 to codify a Legislative Affairs Division in the City Attorney’s Office and the duties and functions of that department. Item A-1 also has a resolution proposed requesting admission to the Tier 2 Firefighters Retirement System for emergency medical personnel including social workers. Straw Polls The Council took the following nonbinding straw polls at the first briefing: - A-4: City Attorney’s Office Legislative Division Request for Four New FTEs ($317,220 from General Fund Balance): o Six in favor, none against, and one absent to support a division director FTE appointed ($85,510) and a senior city attorney merit ($117,676). o Three in favor, three against, and one absent to support a special projects analyst ($61,707) and administrative assistant ($52,297). o Note the amounts above in parenthesis are half-year costs for salary, benefits, $3,000 per employee for electronic devices (e.g., computers), and $5,000 per employee to establish workspaces. - A-15: Mill & Overlay Pilot Program for Street Pavement Maintenance ($205,177 from the Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Transportation Fund Balance and Transferring $955,177 to the Fleet Fund) o Six in favor, none against, and one absent to support the additional funding request, transfer to the Fleet Fund, and funding source swap. - A-16: The Road Home’s Family Hotel Winter Interim Plan ($300,000 from General Fund Balance) o Six in favor, none against, and one absent to support the one-time appropriation for motel and hotel vouchers available to families experiencing homelessness.  Information below was provided to the Council at earlier briefings  Budget Amendment Number Three includes 31 proposed amendments, $3,103,054 in revenues and $15,244,714 in expenditures of which $1,738,732 is from General Fund Balance and requesting changes to eight funds. Additionally, the transmittal indicates there is an increase of nine FTE’s. Four of the nine FTEs are being requested in Item A-1 for the Fire Department and four FTEs are being requested in A-4 for the City Attorney’s new Legislative Division. The other new FTE is being requested in A-13 in the Finance Department. Fund Balance If all the items are adopted as proposed, then General Fund Balance would be projected at 14.3% which is $5,784,487 above the 13% minimum target of ongoing General Fund revenues. Note: this figure includes both General Fund and Funding our Future fund balances. The Administration’s chart of projected Fund Balance later in this report was prepared before the Council voted in item I-1 of Budget Amendment #2 to return $1 million to General Fund Balance from an affordable housing development grant that did not proceed. This increased the projected percentage from the 14.08% to 14.3%. 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 14.3% 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. 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. #3 A-1: Fire Department (4 New FTEs)$292,638 4 New Medical Response Paramedic FTEs Annual cost #3 A-4 City Attorney’s Office Legislative Division (4 New FTEs) $594,441 Legislative Affairs Director (E34) • Senior City Attorney (E39) • Special Projects Analyst (E26) • Administrative Assistant (N21) Focus on legislative affairs, with special emphasis on the legislative session Annual cost #3 A-9: Adding Multimodal Specialized Road Markings $200,000 Budget Amendment Item Potential Cost to FY2025 Annual Budget Full Time Employee (FTEs)Notes Maintenance Funding into the Streets Division’s Base Budget #3 A-10: Downtown Parking Pay Station Replacements $271,985 Would be paid annually over six fiscal years from FY2025 – FY2030 TOTALS $4,715,199 28 FTEs of which 24 are New Revenue for FY 2023-24 Budget Adjustments The Administration indicates that there are no revenue projection updates yet for FY2024. An updated is anticipated in the next budget amendment after the comprehensive annual financial audit is completed. 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 #3. Based on those projections the adjusted fund balance is projected to be at 14.08%. After this chart was developed, the Council added $1 million to Fund Balance in Budget Amendment #2 which increased the estimated percentage to 14.3%. 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. The table below 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: Fire Department Medical Response Paramedics Request for Four New FTEs ($160,519 from General Fund Balance) The Administration is proposing a further evolution to staffing for the Medical Response Teams (MRTs). The proposal would increase the scope and efficiency of the team while reducing the cost of staffing each of four (4) SUV-based light response MRT units throughout Salt Lake City. The proposal adds four civilian Paramedic FTEs to the Fire Department. Each would be classified as Single-Role Paramedics (SRP’s) and would be allocated specifically to MRT positions currently held by firefighter/EMT’s. The displaced firefighters would fill daily vacancies throughout the department, and staff additional apparatus as the department grows. This will likely result in overtime budget savings although the exact amount is unknown at this time. In its current form the MRT is a successful program, but from a budgetary perspective, staffing the MRTs exclusively with firefighter/EMTs is not the most efficient use of resources. Civilian Paramedics are a less costly position than a sworn firefighter, and the training time to onboard is significantly shorter (2 weeks rather than 16). The request for FY2024 would be $150,119 plus some startup costs of $10,400. Full year funding for FY25 would be $292,638. Approving this shift mid-year would enable the department to start the hiring process for SRP’s in January and incorporate them into the MRT’s as soon as February 2024. The department plans to continue gathering data on the budgetary impact of this shift on the MRT program in order to inform the FY25 budget plan. Background - The Salt Lake City Fire Department (SLCFD) currently operates three Medical Response Teams (MRTs) with another funded at the Salt Lake City Airport beginning in January of 2024 for a total of four MRTs staffed by 16 firefighter/EMTs. This initiative was initially funded by the Council in 2014, in part to realize fuel and staffing efficiencies. Having been proven successful over the years both from a sustainability and staffing perspective, it was expanded in 2022 to include social workers when available. When a social worker is combined with an MRT the City refers to this as a Community Health Access Team (CHAT). The department has indicated that when all social worker positions are filled, their goal is to have a social worker on 2 MRT teams (becoming a CHAT), 6 days a week. Staff has included Attachment 3 showing relevant data for the first full year of CHAT operations. ➢Policy question – In addition to the relevant data collected on the MRT program, the Council may wish to ask the Administration to also collect data on any potential department-wide overtime savings of this shift. A-2: American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Grant Management Employee Expenses ($14,225 from ARPA) The Economic Development Department is requesting $14,225 of ARPA funds budgeted in previous fiscal years that was not used. The funds would cover expenses for an existing employee supporting the Department’s administration of ARPA local business direct assistance grants and local nonprofit pass-through assistance grants. The Department hired two FTEs to administer the programs through FY2023. However, the program implementation has taken longer than anticipated. One of the FTEs has left employment with the City and the position is no longer needed. This additional funding would provide a total of $125,000 for the second position through the end of FY2024. The two grant assistance programs are expected to be completed at the end of FY2024 so the second FTE would no longer be needed next fiscal year. A-3: Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal A-4: City Attorney’s Office Legislative Division Request for Four New FTEs ($297,220 from General Fund Balance) The Administration is proposing to add four new FTEs to create a Legislative Division within the City Attorney’s Office. According to the transmittal, “The primary focus of this division will be on legislative affairs, with special focus on the legislative session and the various impacts to Salt Lake City.” The amount requested for FY2024 (6 months of funding) is $297,220.40, which includes one-time startup costs such as computers ($12,000, to be budgeted as a transfer to IMS), and funding to establish workspaces and necessary equipment ($20,000). The full year cost for the four positions is $594,440.79. Note: The Administration would like to gauge Council support on this item at the first briefing such as a straw poll and consider whether to approve this item at the December 12 meeting, so that positions can be advertised/onboarded prior to the 2024 State Legislative Session which begins Tuesday, January 16, 2024. The four proposed positions are as follows: •Legislative Affairs Division Director (Grade E34 - appointed) •Senior City Attorney (Grade E39 - merit) •Special Projects Analyst (Grade E26 - merit) •Administrative Assistant (Grade N21 - merit) The proposal also includes an ordinance to amend the City Code to document this as a new division and to clarify that the City Attorney’s Office and Legislative Division report equally to both branches of government. The Administration notes that the ordinance: •Establishes that because the City Attorney manages the legal affairs of both the executive and legislative branches of government, she reports to both the Mayor and Council Chair, and can be removed at the discretion of the Mayor. •Clarifies that the City Attorney supervises the Recorder’s Office, Risk Management Division, and Division of Legislative Affairs. •Clarifies that the City Attorney may retain outside counsel on behalf of the City, if she concludes that the City Attorney’s Office has a conflict of interest, is unable, or is unavailable to perform that legal work for the City. •Creates the Division of Legislative Affairs, which will be responsible for monitoring state and federal legislation and engaging in advocacy, collaboration, and tracking of all legislative matters for the City. •Establishes the director of legislative affairs, who will work with both branches of government on the City’s legislative agenda and will report to both branches of government on legislative priorities and policies. Staff is working with the Attorney’s Office on several clarifying edits to the ordinance to ensure it matches the intent of the bullet points listed above. See Attachment 1 for the approved as to form version of the ordinance and Attachment 2 for the redlined version (showing edits in track changes format). A-5: Additional Funding for 2100 South Reconstruction in Sugar House ($3,323,950 from Transportation Impact Fees) This request would maximize the eligible use of transportation impact fees for complete streets elements in the 2100 South reconstruction project. The total estimated cost for reconstructing 2100 South through the Sugar House Business District (from 700 East to 1300 East) continues to increase due to inflation, supply chain issues, and an expanded scope in response to community-desired elements. Construction level designs are anticipated to be completed this winter. Then the project would go out to bid after which exact costs would be known. Construction may begin in 2024. The table below summarizes budget line items for this project including the additional funding requested in this budget amendment. No further funding requests are anticipated for this project. Source Amount Original 2100 South Bond Amount $8,000,000 Transportation Impact Fees $660,410 Class C $814,027 (minimum, could increase) Remaining contingency from 300 West project that can be applied to 2100 South $850,000 2022-2023 CIP Complete Streets $300,000 2023-2024 CIP Complete Streets $2,750,000 (of $3,293,000 – the remainder goes to Virginia Street) Additional Streets Reconstruction Bond Funds from Budget Amendment #1 $1,500,000 Requested additional transportation impact fees in Budget Amendment #3 $3,323,590 Total $18,198,027 Note: Public Utilities elements are funded separately and not reflected in the table The project webpage is publicly available at www.2100southslc.org A-6: Additional Funding for 600/700 North Reconstruction ($3,204,371 from Transportation Impact Fees) This request would almost maximize the eligible use of transportation impact fees for complete streets elements in the 600/700 North corridor reconstruction and transformation project. It is eligible for another $400,000 of transportation impact fees however the current unallocated available balance is not enough to cover that additional amount. The Council may see a request in a future budget opening for the additional $400,000 if enough transportation impact fee revenue comes in later this fiscal year or next. The total estimated cost for reconstructing the corridor (from Redwood Road to 800 West) continues to increase due to inflation, supply chain issues, and an expanded scope in response to community- desired elements. The 2022 Sales Tax Revenue Bond included $9,753,000 for this project. The Council also approved $1,879,654 in FY2022 CIP from Funding Our Future transit dollars for this project. A frequent (every 15 minutes) bus service route runs along this corridor. Several other smaller funding sources are also anticipated to be used for the project such as Class C funds, remaining Streets Reconstruction bond funds unused from completed projects, grants, and CIP complete streets funds. Construction level designs are anticipated to be completed this winter. Then the project would go out to bid after which exact costs would be known. Construction may begin in 2025. The project webpage is publicly available at www.600northslc.org A-7: Security Access Control System Upgrades ($400,000 from General Fund Balance) Additional one-time funding is needed to continue transitioning City buildings to an upgraded S2 control access system as the citywide standard. The back-end software was recently upgraded for the Public Safety Building and City Hall. This item would allow the same upgrade for Plaza 349 and the Justice Court buildings. The funding also includes card readers and proximity cards (sometimes called smart badges or access cards) for employees using the four buildings. The Council could discuss this item in a closed session since the topic relates to security devices, personnel, and/or systems. A-8: Additional Funds to Purchase Electric Trucks instead of Sedans for the Compliance Division ($20,000 from General Fund Balance) Current funding would allow the Fleet Division to purchase two electric sedans. One sedan to replace a jeep that is past useful life and another sedan for three new FTEs added in the annual budget to create the RV and Long-term Parking Enforcement Team. This funding request would allow both vehicles to be electric trucks instead of sedans. The larger vehicles would provide greater capabilities for the team to operate during the winter, inclement weather, and in neighborhoods with steep roads. The trucks also have larger cargo space for equipment and supplies such as pay station kiosks. A-9: Adding Multimodal Specialized Road Markings Maintenance Funding into the Streets Division’s Base Budget ($200,000 from General Fund Balance) The Council did not fund this item in FY2024 CIP but requested the Administration evaluate adding this ongoing maintenance need to the ongoing base budget for the Public Services Department or the Transportation Division in the Community and Neighborhoods Department. The Council previously funded this item in CIP for a couple years. The Administration recommends increasing the Streets Division’s base budget by $200,000. This item would be a one-time appropriation from General Fund Balance. The next annual budget would then include the $200,000 as ongoing. Council Members discussed the competitive CIP process, and that basic maintenance and safety funding better belongs in the annual operating budgets of some departments. Any unused funds at the end of the fiscal year would lapse to General Fund Balance. The funding will be used for hiring contractors with specialized equipment. Examples of city-owned assets that could be maintained include 1,010 bike racks, over three miles of green painted pavement, bike lanes, enhanced crosswalks, and radar feedback signs. The Public Services Department and Transportation Division will develop optimal maintenance schedules for these assets and evaluate potential equipment and staffing costs to bring the work in-house vs. the current approach of using outside contractors. A-10: Downtown Parking Pay Station Replacements ($135,993 from General Fund Balance) The blue tower parking pay stations in the downtown are over a decade old and past the recommended useful life. This is causing increasing maintenance costs and operations issues. The Administration issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) and is evaluating the bid submissions. This item is being included in a budget amendment because of timeliness challenges around equipment ordering and delivery windows. Based on the RFP responses, the Administration estimates a seven- year payment schedule would be best. An initial half year payment would be this fiscal year and then larger payments evenly spread across years two through seven (fiscal years 2025 – 2030). A shorter payment schedule or a one-time lump- sum payment could result in savings because the total cost would be less than the seven-year payment schedule. However, the larger upfront costs for a shorter schedule or one-time lump-sum payment would also reduce the General Fund Balance more in the short-term. New parking pay stations are expected to have features not available on the current older equipment such as pay by license plate capabilities, public service information like events in the area, business and organization sponsored parking validations, pay parking citations at a station, multiple languages, and pollution sensors. The old meters would be recycled to the extent possible. New meters may be in new locations based on revenue evaluations for old station locations. Policy Questions: ➢Public Education – The Council may wish to ask the Administration how the public, downtown businesses, and other organizations will learn about the new parking pay stations. The Council may also wish to ask whether the existing ParkSLC mobile app will continue, or a new app would be needed. ➢Parking Demand Management – The Council may wish to ask the Administration would the new stations allow the City to improve parking demand management practices and whether funding would be needed to study options such as variable pricing during peak hours, paying for shorter or longer time periods, real-time information on where parking spaces are available (public and private), reservation-based parking spaces, vending zones like food trucks, and supporting the potential pedestrianization of closing Main Street during certain times. A-11: Reappropriation for Rail Spur Removal ($205,000 from General Fund Balance to CIP Fund) The Council originally approved this funding in Budget Amendment #1 of FY2023. A reappropriation is needed because the funds were not used by the end of last fiscal year and lapsed to General Fund Balance. The rail spur at 600 West and 500 South was conveyed in 1997 by the City to a private party, with partial consideration for this conveyance being an easement to construct, operate, and maintain a railroad spur and associated facilities. Since the rail spur has not been used for over one year, the City is contractually obligated to remove it. There have been a couple similar rail spur removals in recent years. The Administration stated this is believed to be the last rail spur removal in the area. Note that the budget spreadsheet in the Administration’s transmittal mistakenly identifies this item as ongoing when the funding is one-time. A-12: Police Officer Overtime Related to the Sanctioned Campground Pilot Program ($500,000 from ARPA Funds Unused in Prior Fiscal Years) This item would provide one-time funding for police officer overtime shifts at and in the area around the sanctioned campground pilot program (“temporary shelter community”) at approximately 300 South and 600 West. It is expected to operate until April 30, 2024. The overtime shifts would be voluntary so some might go unfilled. The overtime rate would be $65/hour as an incentive for shifts to be filled. The Police Department will evaluate staffing levels to determine how many officers are needed by shift (e.g., days, evenings, and nights). The Department will also utilize vacancy savings to fund additional overtime shifts as needed. Over the five months of December through April, the $500,000 could provide an average of five police officers working 10-hour overtime shifts per day. The actual staffing levels per day and time of day will vary based on officers signing up for voluntary shifts, the volume of calls for service, proactive patrols, and other factors. At the time of publishing this staff report an ARPA reconciliation was pending to show which budgets were unused in prior fiscal years and whether any more ARPA funding remains available for repurposing. The Council previously put $1.5 million from the General Fund into a holding account for potential expenses related to the temporary sanctioned campground. All those funds remain in the holding account. Policy Questions: ➢Where would officers be for overtime shifts? – The Council may wish to ask the Administration would officers be inside the sanctioned campground, immediately around it, and/or how wide of an area around it would be proactively patrolled? ➢Additional Funding Needs – The Council may wish to ask the Administration whether more funding is anticipated to be needed for the temporary sanctioned campground’s operations, mitigating public safety issues, or other related costs. A-13: New Financial Grant Analyst FTE in the Finance Department for Grants Administered by the Housing Stability Division ($46,643 from CDBG and $14,548 from ARPA) This request would fund one FTE for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2024. The position is intended to oversee grants administered by the Housing Stability Program. The proposed grant analyst will work under the direction of the Deputy Director of Finance and will assist in the financial monitoring of multiple grants to ensure compliance with city financial processes as well as state and federal grant requirements. The position will be split across two grant funding sources – 75% CDBG and 25% from ARPA. A job description for this position was included in the Administration’s transmittal. The City has experienced a significant increase in the number and complexity of grant applications and grant awards over the past few years. This trend is expected to continue as departments apply for more grants such as billions of dollars in federal grants spread over multiple years from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act. Historically, the City has not used all the available funding from CDBG to cover the costs of administering the program as allowed under U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations. There is anticipated to be enough ongoing CDBG funding to help cover most costs related to this new FTE over the long-term. The remaining 25% of the costs may be covered by other grant funding depending on how much the FTE directly works on those programs. The ability to use grant funds for personnel expenses is often limited to hours spent working directly on the grant programs. ➢Policy question: The Council may wish to ask the Administration to provide metrics on the number of grant applications and awards in recent years and are additional resources (e.g., software, FTEs, trainings) needed to improve management of grants. A-14: Consulting for Enterprise Billing Systems ($250,000 from the IMS Fund Balance) This item was previously appropriated in Budget Amendment 5 of FY2023 but, due to delays in the RFP process, was ineligible to be encumbered prior to the fiscal year end and fell to IMS’s fund balance. The RFP process is underway, and the Department wishes to reappropriate this funding. The Public Utilities Billing System (PUBS) was developed and expanded by IMS over the past two decades. The system is reaching the end of life and needs to be replaced. In addition to Public Utilities, some General Fund departments use the system, like Sustainability and Community and Neighborhoods. This funding is to hire a consultant to evaluate the City’s needs and identify the best path for a smooth implementation of the system’s replacement. Microsoft support for the current system is expected to end as soon as July 2024. A-15: Mill & Overlay Pilot Program for Street Pavement Maintenance ($205,177 from the Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Transportation Fund Balance and Transferring $955,177 to the Fleet Fund) The Council approved $750,000 in FY2024 CIP from quarter cent sales tax for transportation funds to purchase an asphalt paver and a cold-milling machine that do this type of pavement maintenance. In the FY2024 annual budget, the Council also approved $130,000 ongoing from Funding Our Future for program supplies. The Public Services Department was notified that the manufacturer increased prices after these appropriations were approved. $205,177 is needed in addition to the $750,000 in CIP to purchase the two machines. The Department has previously rented these machines. Purchasing the machines is estimated to be a more cost-effective option in the long term than continuing to rent. This item would also swap the funding sources for two projects to better align funding eligibilities with project uses. At the time of publishing this report, staff has requested information on the allowable uses of quarter cent sales tax for transportation funds as equipment purchases were previously thought to be eligible. The Mill & Overlay equipment would be shifted away from quarter cent sales tax for transportation funds to General Fund dollars and Class C (gas tax) funds that were also approved by the Council in FY2024 CIP. An equivalent $750,000 for complete streets reconstruction projects would be shifted away from General Fund dollars and Class C (gas tax) funds to the quarter cent sales tax for transportation funds. The Mill and Overlay provides a pavement maintenance option that is greater than filling a pothole or chip & slurry surface treatments and less than a full street reconstruction. For example, cutting down a few inches into deteriorated asphalt and removing a several foot stretch and then backfilling with new asphalt. ➢Policy question: The Council may wish to consider a straw poll for this item so the Department could proceed with drafting contracts before the next price increase which is anticipated to be in mid-December. A-16: The Road Home’s Family Hotel Winter Interim Plan ($300,000 from General Fund Balance) This item would provide one-time funding to assist the State and The Road Home’s efforts to provide motel rooms to families experiencing homelessness from December 2023 to June 2024. The motel vouchers could be considered a stopgap option until a new family non-congregate shelter opens next spring / summer. This new facility will be in addition to the existing Midvale Family Recourse Center or MFRC. The average cost is estimated at $600-800 per week for a hotel room serving a family of four. Actual costs could be more or less depending on the size of a family and variable rates at different hotels. A one-page summary of the plan is shown as the last page of the Administration’s transmittal. The Road Home stated there are existing contracts with motels for 12 rooms and one case manager assigned to the program. Additional case managers would be hired per 12 hotel rooms that are contracted to ensure adequate staffing to workload ratios. A supportive services manager is also anticipated to be hired. The Administration has requested a straw poll on this item to facilitate contract development in advance of the final Council vote. ➢Policy Question: The Council may wish to ask the Administration what is the funding gap for the overall plan and would the City’s $300,000 fill the existing funding gap? Adding up all the costs on the one-page summary indicates the total cost could exceed $1 million. The Council may also wish to task what other entities are contributing funding towards the plan? Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources (None) Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources (None) Section D: Housekeeping D-1: Moving Funding for Downtown Central Precinct Tenant Improvements for North Temple Substation and Downtown Central Project ($513,208 from CAN to Public Services) Funding for the Downtown Central Precinct Tenant Improvements for North Temple Sub Station and Downtown Central Project in the amount of $513,208 was added by the Council to the CAN budget during the budget decision making process. However, this funding should have gone to Public Services since it will be the Facilities division that will be managing the improvements. This item does not allocate any additional funding, but simply moves funding from one department to another for the same work. D-2: IMS FY 2023 Encumbrance Roll Forward ($4,269,083) IMS has encumbered money that was expected to be paid out of the FY23 funds and either will need to be paid, or has already been paid in FY24. These encumbrances are listed in the Carry Over Encumbrance reports. All of these items have been approved for purchase by central finance in a prior year. These expenses will be paid for by the annual allocation that IMS uses to collect its revenue on an annual basis. D-3: Move Cultural Core Funding to Non-Departmental from Arts Council Cost Center ($250,000) This item is to move funds from the Art’s Council Division to the Economic Development’s Non-Departmental budget. This is an effort to align funding with the appropriate cost center within the new financial system. Section E: Grants Requiring No Staff Resources (None) Section F: Donations (None) Section G: Grant Consent Agenda G-1: Utah Department of Natural Resources/Forestry ($200,000 from Misc. Grants) The Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands (FFSL) has awarded Salt Lake City $200,000 for the purposes of removing navigational hazards, including downed trees, garbage, and other debris from the Jordan River from 2100 South to 2400 North. This funding will provide for safer conditions on the river channel for recreational boaters. A public hearing was held on September 19, 2023. G-2: Department of Workforce Services-- Know Your Neighbor ($100,000 from Misc. Grants) DWS is extending the Salt Lake City's Know Your Neighbor contract. The original contract was for $100,000 to pay for the salary and benefits of a full-time volunteer coordinator from October 1, 2022, to September 30,2023. The extension will include an increase of $100,000 to extend the period for one year starting October 1, 2023, and ending September 30, 2024. Thus, making the total amount of the contract $200,000. This is a refugee volunteer program that runs through the Mayor’s office. This program benefits refugee clients as well as people from the larger community who volunteer to help. Public Hearing will be held November 7, 2023. No match is required. G-3: EPA Salt Lake City Schovaers Electronics Cleanup ($495,200 from Misc. Grants) This is one of two Brownfields grants awarded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the Salt Lake City area for the purpose of cleaning up land of hazardous substances, pollutant or contaminants for the revitalization of the properties. These grants are part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). This grant has been awarded to Salt Lake City in the amount of $495,200 to conduct remediation activities at the former Schovaers site (22 South Jeremy Street) in Salt Lake City. A second grant for $1 million was awarded to Salt Lake County for the assessment and cleanup projects in Magna Township. A public hearing was held on December 13, 2022. No match is required. G-4: Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) ($38,000 from Misc. Grants) The Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) provides state, local, tribal and territorial emergency management agencies with the resources required for implementation of the National Preparedness System and works toward the National Preparedness Goal of a secure and resilient nation. This is the annual allocation from the state and will be used to support Emergency Management functions and programs. A public hearing was held on May 16, 2023. A 50% match is required. G-5: Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) - SLCPD Victim Advocates ($346,132 from Misc. Grants) The Salt Lake City Police Department is requesting continuation funding for our SLCPD VOCA grant funded Victim Advocate positions. Additionally, there are emergency funds for assisting victims included in the application. The grant will continue to fund 2.69 existing FTEs and includes emergency funds that will be used to help victims. This is a two-year grant. The period of performance starts July 1, 2023, and ends June 30,2025. A public hearing was held on November 7, 2023. No match is required. G-6: Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant ($386,620 from Misc. Grants) The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program (JAG) allows states and local governments to support a broad range of activities to prevent and control crime and to improve the criminal justice system, some of which could have environmental impacts. The Salt Lake City Police Department will use this money for the following: •Professional Travel Training for Sworn and Civilian Staff - $40,125 • Pole Cameras - $20,000 • High Speed License Plate Recognition (+Accessories) - $22,970 • Climbing Equipment - $20,160 • Night Vision Goggles and Mounts - $49,098 • Optics - $11,192 • Ballistic Rated Windshields - $19,500 • Surveillance Trailer Maintenance and Replacement - $14,000 • K9 GPS and Narcotics Enforcement Supplies - $6,132 • Community Policing and Targeted Enforcement Overtime - $76,100 • Subaward to Salt Lake County (BJA allocation) - $53,672 • Subaward to Unified Police Department (BJA allocation) - $53,671 No new staff members are proposed as part of this item. A public hearing was held on September 19, 2023. No match is required. G-7: Rocky Mountain Power Make Ready Rosewood Park ($29,508 from Misc. Grants) This item supports necessary infrastructure for the installation of one (1) approved dual port charger at Rosewood Park, located at 1400 North 1200 West in Salt Lake City. This charger will be available to the public 24/7. There is no cost related to the charger in this incentive. Accepting the incentive payment obligates the participant to maintain functioning chargers and allow public access 24/7 for a minimum of five years, starting from the date of the incentive payment. The maintenance cost of this item is the lesser of the following: $29,507.51 or 80% of the total project cost. A public hearing was held on July 18, 2023 No match is required. G-8: Rocky Mountain Power Make Ready Riverside Park ($20,517 from Misc. Grants) This item supports necessary infrastructure for the installation of one (1) dual port AC Level 2 charger at Riverside Park, located at 1450 West Leadville Avenue in Salt Lake City. This charger will be available to the public 24/7. There is no cost related to the charger in this incentive. Accepting the incentive payment obligates the participant to maintain functioning chargers and allow public access 24/7 for a minimum of five years, starting from the date of the incentive payment. No new staff positions. The maintenance cost of this item is lesser of the following: $20,517.38 or 80% of the total project cost. A public hearing was held on July 18, 2023. No match is required. G-9: Rocky Mountain Power Make Ready Regional Athletic Complex ($12,882 from Misc. Grants) This item supports the necessary infrastructure for the installation of one (1) approved dual port AC Level 2 charger at the Regional Athletic Complex, located at 2080 Rose Park Lane in Salt Lake City. This charger will be available to the public 24/7. There is no cost related to the charger in this incentive. Accepting the incentive payment obligates the participant to maintain functioning chargers and allow public access 24/7 for a minimum of five years, starting from the date of the incentive payment. No new staff members. The maintenance cost of this item is the lesser of the following: $12,881.77 or 80% of the total project cost. A public hearing was held on July 18, 2023. No match is required. G-10: Rocky Mountain Power Make Ready Day Riverside Library ($22,642 from Misc. Grants) This item supports the necessary infrastructure for the installation of two (2) approved dual port AC Level 2 chargers at the Day Riverside Library, located at 1575 West 1000 North in Salt Lake City. The project will result in a total of four (4) charging ports. The chargers will be available to the public 24/7. There is no cost related to the charger in this incentive. Accepting the incentive payment obligates the participant to maintain functioning chargers and allow public access 24/7 for a minimum of five years, starting from the date of the incentive payment. No new staff members. The maintenance cost of this item is the lesser of the following: $22,642.33 or 80% of the total project cost. A public hearing was held on July 18, 2023. No match is required. G-11: FEMA Power Poles Cameras ($15,000 from Misc. Grants) FEMA is providing funding to the Fire Department for the temporary installation of cameras onto existing powers poles as needed. A public hearing was held May 16, 2023. No match is required. G-12: Utah Crimes Against Children Task Force The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) has created the Utah Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force Program, which is a national network of state and local law enforcement cybercrime units. The national ICAC program assists state and local law enforcement agencies to develop an effective response to cyber enticement, sexual exploitation of a minor, and other child sexual abuse material cases. The Police Department will utilize this funding to support its ongoing efforts to protect children from cybercrime. Public Hearing was held on August 15, 2023. No match is required. Section I: Council-Added Items I-1: Releasing Funds for Physical Security Improvements to City Hall ($154,000 from CIP Holding Account) In Budget Amendment #5 of FY2023, the Council put $1 million into a Capital Improvement Program or CIP Fund holding account for one-time to be determined physical security improvements to City Hall. The Public Services Department is requesting these funds in a budget amendment so the improvements could be done in tandem with current earthquake repairs to minimize disruptions in the building. The total project cost is estimated at $240,886. The FY2023 annual budget included funding for building security which is $86,886 of the project cost. If the Council approves this item, then the holding account would have a remaining balance of $846,000. The Council could discuss this item in a closed session since the topic relates to security devices, personnel, and/or systems. ATTACHMENTS 1. Division of Legislative Affairs Ordinance Approved as to Form 2. Division of Legislative Affairs Ordinance Redline 3. Salt Lake City Metered Parking Analysis Executive Summary Presentation 4. Salt Lake City Metered Parking Analysis Final Report November 2022 ACRONYMS CAN – Department of Community and Neighborhoods CIP – Capital Improvement Program Fund EPA – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FTE – Full Time Employee FY – Fiscal Year GF – General Fund FOF – Funding Our Future IMS – Information Management Services Misc. – Miscellaneous OJJDP – Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention RDA – Redevelopment Agency SAA – Special Assessment Area TBD – To Be Determined VOCA – Victims of Crime Act SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. ______ of 2024 (Third 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 therein. The City Council adopted certain proposed amendments at the City Council meetings held on December 12, 2023, and January 16, 2024, while reserving consideration of other proposed amendments until a later date. Additional proposed amendments to the duly adopted budget, including any necessary amendments to the employment staffing document 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: 2 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 staffing changes specifically stated herein, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including any amendments to the employment staffing document described above, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2023 and ending June 30, 2024, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-128 of the Utah Code. SECTION 3. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments, including any amendments to the employment staffing document, in the office of said Budget Officer and in the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon adoption. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of __________, 2024. ________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on __________________ Mayor’s Action: ____ Approved ____ Vetoed _________________________ MAYOR ATTEST: _______________________________ 3 CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. _________ of 2024. Published: ___________________. Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Approved As To Form ___ _______ Jaysen Oldroyd Salt Lake City Metered Parking Analysis Executive Summary Presentation Why We’re Doing This •Downtown and other key neighborhoods have seen growth and other changes that have affected on-street parking occupancy and usage habits. •Salt Lake City will soon replace its existing parking meters with all-new equipment. •As part of the replacement process, parking planning staff wanted to evaluate the current system to understand existing operating efficiencies, trends in meter usage, changes in land use and density, and how existing policies, rates, and fees compare to peer cities. •Based on information gathered and data analyzed, the number and locations of meters in the existing paid area can be right-sized and adjusted to fit current needs. •That information can also be combined with an analysis of future growth areas to provide quantity and cost estimates for potential future expansion of parking meters outside of the existing paid area. •Finally, the information can help Salt Lake City to adjust their policies, rates, and fees in order to optimize operations, streamline enforcement, and potentially increase revenue by bringing policies, rates, and fees more in line with peer city averages and best practices. Summary of Existing Conditions HISTORICAL TRENDS 8%12% 18% 24% 30% 38% 45% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 2015 - 2016 2016 - 2017 2017 - 2018 2018 - 2019 2019 - 2020 2020 - 2021 2021 - 2022 Number of Meters* 280 CURRENT USAGE (2021 –2022) Average Number of Meters per Block Face (By Land Use) 1.80 -2.74 Pay-by-App Share of Transactions for Most Meters 41% -60% 852,998 Total Transactions (Including Pay-by-App) Average Number of Transactions per Meter (Including Pay-by-App) 3,015 Average Number of Transactions per Meter (Including Pay-by-App) * Number of deployed and operational meters as of August 2022 (278 in November 2022) METER REQUIREMENTS* Requirements & Thresholds CRITERIA FOR KEEPING METERS Minimum Number of Transactions 1,300 Maximum Share of Pay-by-App Transactions 60% 250 Feet Max DistanceM A I N S T A T E 2 per Block Face * Minimum requirements. May differ in some land use contexts. Growth Areas Cost & Quantity Estimates 27 Total Number of Meter Locations Identified as Potential Candidates for Removal Cost Estimate Range for Replacement of Meters for… 280 Meters 263 Meters $1.4 – $2.2M $1.3 – $2.1M MID-TO LONG-TERM * Sugar House block faces are shorter than Downtown ones (360 feet) Cost Estimate Range for Installation of New Meters at 2 Meters per Block Face $1.6 – $2.5M Number of Meters to Cover Mid/Long-Term Area at 1 Meter per Block Face* 143 Number of Meters to Cover Mid/Long-Term Area at 2 Meters per Block Face 310 Cost Estimate Range for Installation of New Meters at 1 Meter per Block Face $715k – $1.1M Downtown Sugar House EXISTING/ CURRENT Number of Meters Needed to Cover Short/Mid-Term Area at 2 Meters per Block Face 488 Cost Estimate Range for Installation of New Meters at 2 per Block Face $2.4M – $3.9M SHORT-TO MID-TERM Existing Policies, Rates, & Fees SELECTED EXISTINGSLC HOURS OF ENFORCEMENT RATES TIME LIMITS DAYS OF THE WEEK ZONE STRUCTURE CITATION FINES $ $ No specific overnight management policy is currently in place $2.25 per hour (flat rate for entire system). 2 hours per day (across entire system). 8 AM –8 PM, Mon –Sat (across entire system). Mon –Fri. Single zone (same rates, hours across entire paid area). Flat fine structure, lower fines for some violations than peer city average. Schedule of Selected Fines No special event rates or hours of enforcement are currently in place Selected On-Street Violation & Other Violation Metric Salt Lake City Overtime Meter $35 Meter Violation*$75 Parking Outside of Allowed Hours $23 "Feeding the Meter"$23 Accessible Space Violation $150 Graduated Fines?No Notes * Section 12.56.150 (D) of the Salt Lake City Code specifies that the presence of a vehicle in a parking space for which the paid time expired at least two hours prior to the issuance of the parking citation shall be considered a willful or egregious violation. Future Policies, Rates, & Fees HOURS OF ENFORCEMENT RATES TIME LIMITS DAYS OF THE WEEK ZONE STRUCTURE CITATION FINES $ $ Tiered rate system. $2.50 per hour (for first two hours), $5 per hour (3rd hour), $10 per hour (4th hour). 4 hours per day. Consider lower time limit in some very high demand spaces. Extend to 10 PM in existing paid area. Consider later end time for areas with high late-night demand and earlier end time for areas with low evening demand. Mon –Sat to align with enforcement hours. Tiered or graduated rate structure with multiple zones based on demand/activity. Sugar House should be its own zone with different rate structure. Increase fines to be in line with peer city averages and Utah Uniform Fine Schedule. Consider graduated fine structure. SUGGESTED ACTIONS In the future, consider establishing special zone or overlay around Vivint Arena where special event rates and hours of enforcement would apply during events to incentivize use of off-street parking No specific overnight management policy action recommended at this time Project # WALKER CONSULTANTS | 1 Salt Lake City Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) Prepared for: Salt Lake City Corporation November 18, 2022 Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 1 Table of Contents Executive Summary 5 Introduction 5 Existing Metered Parking 5 Evaluation of Metered Parking 5 Potential Expansion of Parking Meters 6 Metered Parking Policies, Rates, & Fees 7 Introduction & Study Area 9 Introduction 9 Study Area 10 Existing Metered Parking Key Takeaways 16 Existing Metered Parking 17 Historical Systemwide Trends 17 Analysis of Multi-Space Meter Usage 18 Methodology 18 Total Transactions by Multi-Space Meter Location 19 Pay-by-App vs. Multi-Space Meter Transactions 24 Metered Parking Evaluation Key Takeaways 27 Evaluation of Metered Parking 28 Evaluation Criteria 28 Removing Meters in Existing Paid Areas 29 Adding Meters in Existing Paid Areas 29 Installing Meters in Existing Unpaid Areas 29 Requirements & Thresholds 30 Requirements 30 Thresholds for Keeping Meters 31 Thresholds for Adding Meters 32 Existing Meters with Thresholds Applied 33 Recommendations 36 Adding Meters 36 Removing Existing Meters 36 Replacement Cost and Quantity Estimates 38 Potential Expansion of Parking Meters Key Takeaways 40 Potential Expansion of Parking Meters 41 Short to Mid Term 41 Cost and Quantity Estimates 43 Mid to Long Term 43 Cost and Quantity Estimates 48 Metered Parking Policies, Rates, & Fees Key Takeaways 51 Metered Parking Policies, Rates, & Fees 52 Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 2 Existing Policies, Rates, & Fees in Salt Lake City 52 On-Street Parking Time Limits 52 On-Street Parking Rates 52 On-Street Parking Hours and Days of Enforcement 52 Special Events 53 Overnight Parking 53 “Move-It” Policy 53 Metered Parking Violations and Fines 54 Peer City Benchmarking 55 On-Street Parking Time Limits 55 On-Street Parking Rates 56 On-Street Parking Hours and Days of Enforcement 56 Special Events 57 Overnight Parking 57 “Move-It” Policy 58 Metered Parking Violations and Fines 58 Peer City Benchmarking Key Takeaways 60 Selected Off-Street Parking Rates & Fees 61 Recommendations & Other Suggested Items 63 On-Street Parking Time Limits 63 On-Street Parking Rates 63 On-Street Hours and Days of Enforcement 65 Special Events 66 Overnight Parking 66 Move-It Policy 66 Violations & Fines 67 Appendix 69 Evaluation of Metered Parking 69 Recommendations 69 Potential Expansion of Parking Meters 70 Mid to Long Term 70 Figures and Tables Figure 1. Study Area 11 Figure 2. Existing Paid Area and Multi-Space Meter Locations 13 Figure 3. Existing Land Uses/Zoning and Multi-Space Meter Locations 14 Figure 4. Pay-by-App vs. Multi-Space Meter Transactions by Year (July 2015 – June 2022) 17 Figure 5. Pay-by-App vs. Multi-Space Meter Transactions by Month (July 2021 – June 2022) 18 Figure 6. Proportional Transaction Volume by Multi-Space Meter (July 2021 – June 2022) 20 Figure 7. Percent Distribution of Multi-Space Meters by Transaction Volume (July 2021 – June 2022) 21 Figure 8. Transaction Volume by Station with Land Uses/Zoning 22 Figure 9. Average Number of Meters per Block Face by Zone 23 Figure 10. Average Number of Meters per Block Face by General Land Use Category 23 Figure 11. Total Transactions & Pay-by-App Percentage by Meter (July 2021 – June 2022) 24 Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 3 Figure 12. Multi-Space Meters by Pay-by-App Percent Share (July 2021 - June 2022) 25 Figure 13. Evaluation Matrix for Removing Meters in Existing Paid Areas 29 Figure 14. Evaluation Matrix for Adding Meters in Existing Paid Areas 29 Figure 15. Evaluation Matrix for Installing Meters in Existing Unpaid Areas 30 Figure 16. Minimum Requirements for Meters 30 Figure 17. Thresholds for Keeping Existing Meters 31 Figure 18. Summarized Equation for Determining Break-Even Number of Transactions per Year 32 Figure 19. Thresholds for Adding Meters to Block Faces with Existing Meters 32 Figure 20. Total Transactions and Pay-by-App Usage Over/Under Established Thresholds 34 Figure 21. Average Number of Meters per Block Face that Meet Transaction Threshold by Zone 35 Figure 22. Average Number of Meters per Block Face that Meet Transaction Threshold by Land Use Category 35 Figure 23. Multi-Space Meter Candidates for Removal in Existing Paid System 37 Figure 24. Estimated Cost Range for Replacing Existing Meters 38 Figure 25. Future Downtown Developments (July 2022) 41 Figure 26. Short-Term and Mid-Term Downtown Growth Area and Existing Paid Parking Area 42 Figure 27. Cost Estimates for Expansion of Paid Area into Short- and Mid-Term Downtown Growth Areas 43 Figure 28. Future Land Uses Generalized and Consolidated 45 Figure 29. Number of Meters by Land Use Density and General Land Use 46 Figure 30. Mid-Term & Long-Term Growth Areas 47 Figure 31. Block Face Quantity Estimates in Mid- and Long-Term Growth Area (Downtown) 48 Figure 32. Cost Estimates for Metered Parking Expansion into Mid- and Long-Term Growth Area (Downtown) 48 Figure 33. Block Face Quantity Estimates in Mid- and Long-Term Growth Area (Sugar House) 49 Figure 34. Cost Estimates for Metered Parking Expansion into Mid- and Long-Term Growth Area (Sugar House) 49 Figure 35. On-Street Parking Time Limits (Salt Lake City) 52 Figure 36. On-Street Parking Rates (Salt Lake City) 52 Figure 37. On-Street Hours of Enforcement (Salt Lake City) 52 Figure 38. Special Event Parking Metrics (Salt Lake City) 53 Figure 39. Overnight Parking Metrics (Salt Lake City) 53 Figure 40. Move-it Policies (Salt Lake City) 53 Figure 41. Metered Parking Violations and Fines (Salt Lake City) 54 Figure 42. On-Street Parking Time Limits (Peer Cities) 55 Figure 43. On-Street Parking Rates (Peer Cities) 56 Figure 44. On-Street Hours of Enforcement (Peer Cities) 56 Figure 45. Special Event Parking Metrics (Peer Cities) 57 Figure 46. Overnight Parking Metrics (Peer Cities) 57 Figure 47. Move-it Policies (Peer Cities) 58 Figure 48. Metered Parking Violations and Fines (Peer Cities) 58 Figure 49. Metered Parking Violations and Fines - Summary Statistics (Peer Cities) 59 Figure 50. Selected Off-Street Parking Rates in Downtown Salt Lake City (Day Parking) 61 Figure 51. Selected Off-Street Parking Rates (Day Parking) – Summary Statistics 62 Figure 52. Selected Off-Street Parking Rates in Downtown Salt Lake City (Monthly Permit Parking) 62 Figure 53. Selected Off-Street Parking Rates (Monthly Parking) – Summary Statistics 62 Figure 54. Candidates for Removal in Existing Paid Area 69 Figure 55. Specific Land Uses per Neighborhood Plan and Corresponding Generalized Land Uses 70 Figure 56. Composite of Future Land Use Maps/Plans onto Study Areas 71 Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 4 Executive Summary 01 Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 5 Executive Summary Introduction Salt Lake City is currently in the process evaluating the multi-space parking meter system to understand existing operating efficiencies, trends in existing meter usage, changes in land uses and density, and how existing hours of operation, rates, and fees compare to peer cities. In total, there were 280 multi-space meters across the system that are deployed and operational as of August 2022. It should be noted that as of November 2022, there were 278 meters in operation. Currently, paid parking is limited to the central business district and immediately adjacent areas, as well as two additional small paid that are not contiguous to the main paid area along “main street”-type corridors located to the east of the CBD. Existing Metered Parking The total number of transactions went down in 2020 but has started to increase again in 2021. Between July 2021 and June 2022, there were 852,998 transactions, down from 1,299,735 from 2015 to 2016. The share of all transactions conducted with pay-by-app, instead of at the meter, has increased from 8% in 2015 to 45% today. Currently, the highest-usage meters were clustered along the 300 S. corridor within the CBD as well as along 100 S. and at certain key intersections. Most meters saw between 1,000 and 5,000 transactions from 2020 – 2021. The average number of meters per block face ranged from 1.80 to 2.74, depending on land use. No clear correlation between certain areas/land uses and pay-by-app usage was observed. However, a few “hotspots” and “coldspots” were apparent where pay-by-app use was notably higher or lower than average. The pay-by-app share of total transactions was between 41% and 60% for most meters, with only 6% falling under 20% pay-by-app or exceeding 60% pay-by-app. Evaluation of Metered Parking Walker has established different criteria for evaluating whether parking meters should be considered for removal, addition, or keeping in existing paid areas, as well as for determining whether an existing unpaid area may be a candidate for installing meters Criteria established include setting a minimum number of meters per block face and a maximum distance between meters along a block face, determining the minimum number of transactions per year for a meter to be financially self-sufficient, and determining a minimum percentage of transactions that occur at the meter. Using evaluation matrices and associated criteria, Walker has determined specific minimum requirements that should be met for all meters, as well as thresholds for determining whether a meter may be a candidate for removal. The established requirements for all meters are as follows: Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 6 • A minimum of two meter per block face with paid parking. • A maximum of 250 feet distance between a meter and the farthest parking space. • That maximum decreases to 150 feet for human services land uses. • For accessible spaces, meters should be located as close as possible to such spaces. The established thresholds for keeping meters are as follows: • A minimum of 1,300 transactions per year (at the meter + pay-by-app. • Percent share of transactions at the meter is at least 40%. The established threshold for adding meters is if least one meter on a block face sees frequent “congestion.” When applying thresholds, 85 of 280 meters do not currently meet the transaction threshold. Also, 9 out of 279 see use of pay-by-app at or above 60%. By land use, the average number of meters per block face that met the transaction threshold ranged from 0.44 for Residential Mixed Use to 2.74 for high-activity areas in the CBD. After evaluating the existing paid area, and after considering established requirements, Walker iden tified 27 meters that may be candidates for removal. At this time, Walker did not identify any block faces where more meters are needed. Further evaluation is recommended for suggested candidates for removal, such as whether there is accessible parking on the block face. In terms of cost estimates, to replace all 280 existing meters, Walker estimates an initial, up-front cost range of between about $1.4 million and $2.2 million. To replace all meters minus the meters identified as potential candidates for removal, the initial, up-front cost range is estimated to be between $1.3 million and $2.1 million. By moving from 280 to 263 meters, the City would save between 85k and $136k. Potential Expansion of Parking Meters In the short to mid term, there are about 68 developments in or near downtown that are planned or under construction. A contiguous area that encompasses all new developments would represent about a 2.4x increase in the size of the existing metered parking area, or an increase of 488 meters (at 2 meters per block face). The cost range per meter for such an expansion is estimated to range from about $2.4 million to $5.9 million, depending on where the cost per meter would fall within the given cost range. In the mid to long term, future land use maps for neighborhood areas show potential increases in mid- and high- density residential, commercial, and mixed-use development beyond the area that encompasses known future development planned or under construction. If the City were to create paid parking zones within future mid- and high-density residential, commercial, and mixed-use areas, for all such areas except high-activity commercial, Walker would recommend an average of about 2 meters per block face. For high-activity commercial, Walker would recommend an average of about 3 meters per block face. In the Downtown study area, if parking meters were to be extended to the area defined as the short/mid-term growth area, about 310 meters would be needed in all (at 2 meters per block face). The cost range per meter for such an expansion is estimated to range from about $1.6 million to $2.5 million, depending on where the cost per meter would fall within the given cost range. Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 7 In the Sugar House study area, if parking meters were to be extended to the area defined as the short/mid-term growth area, 143 meters would be needed in all (at 1 meter per block face). The cost range per meter for such an expansion is estimated to range from about $715k to $1.1 million, depending on where the cost per meter would fall within the given cost range. For this area, Walker recommends 1 meter per block face instead of 2 due to block faces that are much shorter than in downtown. Metered Parking Policies, Rates, & Fees Compared to peer cities, in general, Salt Lake City is the only city to have uniform time limits in place for metered parking, to have a flat hourly rate for all paid parking that does not vary by area, length of stay, or tier, to not charge for parking on Saturdays, and to have uniform hours of enforcement in place for all paid areas. Salt Lake City also lacks special event pricing and time limits, and the city’s fine for accessible parking space violations is less than half the average fine for peer cities examined and is less than the suggested fine published by the Utah State Court System. Selected recommendations are as follows: • Increase time limit for most paid parking spaces from 2 to 4 hours. • Increase base rate from $2.25 to $2.50 per hour within existing paid area. • Move to a tiered rate structure where the first two hours are $2.50 per hour, the third hour is $5, and the 4th hour is $10. • Expand paid parking into Saturdays, which would align paid parking hours with current enforcement hours across the week. • Extend the enforcement period for all days to 10 PM. • Increase fines for all parking violation types discussed in this study to be more in line with peer city averages and the suggested fines listed in the Utah State Courts’ 2022 Uniform Fines Schedule. Other suggested items to consider are as follows: • A tiered or graduated rate structure for some or all paid parking areas. • Increase or eliminate time limits in conjunction with other suggested items regarding parking rates. • Time limits of less than 2 hours for certain spaces in very high demand areas or in other special contexts • Consider zone-based pricing based on demand patterns, with higher rates in high-demand areas and lower rates in lower-demand areas. o Sugar House should be its own zone when or if paid parking were to be extended to that area. o The existing paid area should be divided into 2 or more zones. o More zones could be added if the existing paid area downtown were to be enlarged. • Adopt a later stop time for enforcement in areas and on days where on-street parking usage is elevated past 10 PM, such as night life areas, and an earlier stop time for enforcement where parking usage decreases after a certain hour, such as office • Establish a special overlay zone around Vivint Arena where special event rates and hours would apply during large events • Increase time period for which a vehicle may not be allowed to return to the same parking space or block face to at least 4 hours if time limits are expanded to 4 hours. • Graduated fine structure where fines increase for subsequent violations within a calendar year. Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 8 Introduction & Study Area 02 Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 9 Introduction & Study Area Introduction In 2012, the City of Salt Lake City began replacing its single -space meter infrastructure with a new system of multi-space meters. In the new system, 1 to 4 meters per block face, along with a handful located along mid- block alleys and in certain high-activity off-street areas, serve all individual paid parking spaces along the block face within paid parking areas. Since multi-space meters were first implemented, downtown Salt Lake City and other key neighborhoods and areas within the City have seen growth, development, redevelopment, and land use changes. These changes have potentially affected on-street parking occupancy and usage habits within existing paid parking areas and currently unmanaged and/or free parking areas. Within the existing paid parking areas, such changes have also potentially influenced usage at existing meters. Some block faces within the paid area may have seen increased use of on-street paid parking, while others have seen decreases. In addition, managed parking technology has dramatically advanced within the last decade. In 2012, the major change of note was the ability for customers to use a credit card to furnish payment, though the system also allowed for the use of payment via a smartphone app. In 2012, such app usage to render payment represented only a small fraction of total transactions. However, over the last decade, the use of pay-by-app using a smartphone as a payment option has grown considerably. For Salt Lake City’s multi-space meter system, pay-by- app services are provided through the Passport platform. While the use of pay-by-app relative to other multi- space meter payment methods has increased across the system, the relative increase may be higher within some areas and for some multi-space meters compared to others. While one upgrade to the multi-space system has been performed since the initial installation, the existing contracts for the current system, provided by IPS Smart Meters, are expiring soon. As such, the City is looking to revamp and overhaul its decade-old multi-space infrastructure with a new, state-of-the-art metered parking system. Understanding trends in parking habits and multi-space meter usage, as well as changes in land uses and density that have occurred and may occur in the near future, will help to inform data-driven decisions on changes that can be made to the paid parking system when it is overhauled that will allow the system to operate more efficiently, providing the right balance of multi-space meters for customer use while reducing the cost of operations and maintenance and reducing sidewalk clutter. To help the City understand these trends and changes, and also to accomplish its goals pertaining to the paid parking system, Walker Consultants (“Walker”) has been retained to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the City’s existing multi-space metered parking system. In addition to evaluating the system to determine where existing meters may be removed or added, if necessary, Walker will also provide a high-level overview of selected existing unmanaged/unpaid parking areas, with recommendations on specific neighborhoods or areas that may need to have multi-space meters installed in the future. These high-level recommendations will be informed by future known land use changes and developments Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 10 of note, as provided by the City, and/or development/redevelopment. Also, they will include suggested criteria that will enable the City to identify where and how many multi-space meters could be installed in the future. Walker has also been retained to evaluate existing paid parking rates and fees, including fines for violating existing parking rules relating to paid on-street parking. Also, the hours of operation for the paid parking system will be analyzed. Based on this evaluation and analysis, in conjunction with a review of parking rates, fees, fines, and hours of operation for selected peer cities for benchmarking purposes, Walker will provide recommendations for changes that could help to streamline further and optimize both the existing system as well as any expansions in the system that may occur in the future. Study Area The overall study area for this study is defined by two rectangles that are non-contiguous with each other. One area is a rectangle approximately bounded by 600 West to the west, 200 North to the north, University St. to the east, and 1000 South to the south. This area contains all existing paid/metered parking areas in the City. Neighborhoods entirely or partially falling within this area include Downtown, Central City, Fairpark, Capitol Hill, East Central, Ball Park, Liberty-Wells, East Liberty Park, Greater Avenues, and Glendale. The other area is a rectangle approximately bounded by 700 East to the west, 2000 South to the north, 1300 East to the east, and the 80 Freeway to the south. This study area represents the core of the Sugar House Neighborhood. Figure 1 on the next page depicts the two study areas considered as part of this study, with paid and free parking areas within the study areas shown. Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 11 Figure 1. Study Area Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 12 The existing paid parking areas where existing conditions were evaluated in detail are shown in Figure 2 on the next page. The maximum extent of the main contiguous paid area is 100 North to the north, 400 E to the east, 700 South to the south, and 500 West to the west. In addition, there is paid parking along South Temple St. between 400 East and E Street, as well as along 1300 E. between East 500 and 600 South. These areas are not contiguous with the main paid area or each other. City records show a total of about 280 existing multi-space meters that are deployed and operational as of August 2022. Out of that total, 268 meters are within the main contiguous area, 11 are located in the 1300 E. non- contiguous area, and 1 is located along S. Temple between 400 and 500 East. These 280 multi-space meters serve 1,591 individually numbered paid parking spaces across the system. Of those, 63 spaces are located in the 1300 E. non-contiguous area, and 6 are located along S. Temple between 400 East and E Street. Figure 2 below depicts the paid parking areas and shows existing multi-space meter locations within them. Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 13 Figure 2. Existing Paid Area and Multi-Space Meter Locations Figure 3 below shows the multi-space meter locations with land uses/zoning overlain. Only land uses for which a block face with at least one multi-space meter is present are shown in the legend. Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 14 Figure 3. Existing Land Uses/Zoning and Multi-Space Meter Locations Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 15 Existing Metered Parking 03 Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 16 Existing Metered Parking Key Takeaways P HISTORICAL TRENDS Number of Meters 280 CURRENT USAGE (2021 – 2022) 852,998 Average Number of Transactions per Meter (Including Pay-by-App) 3,015 Average Number of Meters per Block Face (By Land Use) 1.80 - 2.74 Pay-by-App Share of Transactions for Most Meters 41% - 60% Proportional Transaction Volume by Meter and High-Activity Areas Total Transactions (Including Pay-by-App) Pay-by-App Usage 8%12%18%24%30%38%45% 0% 20% 40% 60% 2015 - 2016 2016 - 2017 2017 - 2018 2018 - 2019 2019 - 2020 2020 - 2021 2021 - 2022 * Number of deployed and operational meters as of August 2022 Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 17 Existing Metered Parking Historical Systemwide Trends When Salt Lake City’s existing multi-space meter technology was first implemented, transactions via pay-by-app constituted only a small fraction of total transactions. However, every year since then, the relative share of transactions taking place via pay-by-app has increased relative to transactions at the multi-space meter. Based on monthly transaction and revenue data furnished to Walker by the City dating back to 2015, Walker was able to chart the total overall volume of transactions from year to year and determine the percent share of pay- by-app versus multi-space meter transactions between 2015 and 2022. This data is shown in Figure 4 below. Note that each time period shown is from July through the following June. Figure 4. Pay-by-App vs. Multi-Space Meter Transactions by Year (July 2015 – June 2022) In 2015, pay-by-app transactions represented 8% of the total number. By 2022, they represented nearly half of total transactions. Note that overall transactions decreased starting in 2019 – 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, the average revenue per transaction has been steadily increasing. The annual average increased from $2.21 per transaction in the June 2015 – 2016 period to $3.00 in 2021 – 2022, with a positive year-over-year increase occurring yearly. It should be noted that the per-hour rate increased from $2.00 to $2.25 per hour in July 2019.1 1 https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2019/05/08/salt-lake-city-mayor/ 92%88%82% 76% 70% 62%55% 8%12%18% 24% 30% 38% 45% 1,299,735 1,296,808 1,290,156 1,194,614 811,740 590,428 852,998 0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 2015 - 2016 2016 - 2017 2017 - 2018 2018 - 2019 2019 - 2020 2020 - 2021 2021 - 2022 To t a l N u m b e r o f T r a n s a c t i o n s At the Meter Pay-by-App Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 18 Figure 5 below shows total transactions by month, and percent share of multi-space meter versus pay-by-app transactions, for the July 2021 – June 2022 period. Figure 5. Pay-by-App vs. Multi-Space Meter Transactions by Month (July 2021 – June 2022) By month, March had the greatest number of transactions while January had the fewest. The total number of transactions for the period ranged from a little over 57,000 to 82,667. Analysis of Multi-Space Meter Usage Methodology For purposes of analysis and comparison of multi-space meters and transactions by individual meter location, it was necessary to examine individual transaction data for each multi-space meter location. Data containing all individual transactions by meter was provided to Walker between July 2021 and June 2022. As a result, this is the period of time for which meter usage analysis by location was conducted. In all, two different sets of data for all multi-space meter transactions were furnished to Walker, described in detail below. One set of data contained, by month, every transaction that took place physically at each individual multi-space meter across the system within the time period for which data was available. In this set, both the individual space number as well as the multi-space meter at which the transaction took place were identified, making it possible to aggregate individual transactions by their associated multi-space meter. Walker then performed analysis using geographical information systems (GIS) software that enabled it to associate transaction information at the multi- space meter level with the spatial location of each meter. The other data set contained all individual pay-by-app transactions across the system within the same period. While data on the total number of transactions that physically took place at the multi-space meter identified both 59%59%58%56%56%55%53%52% 53%54%55%54% 41%41%42%44%44%45% 47% 48% 47% 46%45%46% 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 2021 2022 To t a l N u m b e r o f T r a n s a c t i o n s At the Meter Pay-by-App Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 19 the individual space number as well as the meter at which the transaction took place, making it possible to aggregate individual transactions by their associated meter, pay-by-app transactions only identified the individual space number to which the transaction is linked, and not an associated multi-space meter. This is because pay- by-app transactions bypass the multi-space meter entirely. As a result, to compare pay-by-app transactions to multi-space meter transactions at the multi-space meter level, and to spatially plot the data in GIS, Walker was required to perform some additional analysis to associate one multi-space meter to every individual parking space. To do this, Walker looked at the total number of transactions associated with all multi-space meters for each individual parking space within the set of data that contained transactions that physically took place at the meter. The multi-space meter/space combination with the greatest volume of transactions per individual space was then used to assign to that space a single multi- space meter that most closely matched or was most strongly associated with the space. For example, if 99% of total transactions for a given space were associated with one multi-space meter, and fewer than 1% were associated with other multi-space meters, that space was assigned the first multi-space meter for all pay-by-app transactions associated with that space. In general, the closest multi-space meter match was likely to be the most convenient and/or closest multi-space meter to a given individual parking space. Transactions associated with other multi-space meters may have been due to, for example, people who started to walk to their destination and made it a block or two before remembering to pay. For such transactions, Walker carried over the transaction to associate with the closest match multi-space meter instead. Total Transactions by Multi-Space Meter Location There was an average of 3,015 transactions per multi-space meter overall (1,671 at the meter and 1,362 pay-by- app for spaces associated with each meter). There was a median of 2,221 transactions per multi-space meter overall (1,277 at the meter and 964 pay-by-app for spaces associated with each meter). Figure 6 shows the total transactions per multi-space meter proportionately across the system, with the size of the circles corresponding to the number of transactions per station. Note that data was not available for ten multi-space meters that were shown to exist according to City data records provided. For this analysis, two additional meters were excluded as the total number of transactions fell under 20. Some or all of these meters may have been newly installed and/or out of service during the time period. Therefore, out of 290 total meters shown in City records, 280 had a number of transactions associated with them greater than 0 and 278 had more than 20 transactions. Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 20 Figure 6. Proportional Transaction Volume by Multi-Space Meter (July 2021 – June 2022) The multi-space meters with the highest activity, in terms of the total number of transactions, were found along E. 300 S. between 200 W. and 300 E., and along W. 100 S. between West Temple St. and State St. The two blocks Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 21 bounded by 300 S. to the north, 400 S. to the south, West Temple to the west, and State St. to the east saw the highest volume of multi-space meter activity. Other areas with higher usage than others included W. 200 S. between 300 and 400 W., the area around the E. 200 S. and S 200 E. intersection, 100 S. west of 400 W., the area around the South Temple and West Temple intersection, S. State St. south of 600 S., and the 1300 E. non -contiguous paid area. Figure 7 shows the percentage distribution of meters by total number of transactions. Figure 7. Percent Distribution of Multi-Space Meters by Transaction Volume (July 2021 – June 2022) About 24% of multi-space meters reported a total number of transactions (at the meter and pay-by-app) that fell below 1,000. Most multi-space meters reported a volume of between 1,000 and 5,000 total transactions. The remainder reported a volume greater than 5,000, with only 3 multi-space meters reporting a number greater than 10,000. Figure 8 on the next page shows the total transactions per multi-space meter proportionately across the system with land uses overlain. Also, high-activity areas within the CBD have been highlighted with a box. 1%2% 21% 54% 21% 1% Under 10 Between 10 and 100 Between 101 and 1,000 Between 1,000 and 5,000 Between 5,000 and 10,000 Over 10,000 Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 22 Figure 8. Transaction Volume by Station with Land Uses/Zoning Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 23 By Block Face and Land Use Figure 9 below shows the average number of multi-space meters per block face for all land uses/zones that have paid parking on at least one adjacent block face. Note that block faces with at least one multi-space meter that are divided between two or more zones were excluded from the calculations; only full block faces adjacent to one single zone were included. Figure 9. Average Number of Meters per Block Face by Zone Selected Zone with Existing Metered Parking Average Number of Meters per Full Block Face Average (Rounded) Gateway Mixed Use 1.80 2 Secondary CBD 2.00 2 Residential Mixed Use 2.22 2 High-Density Residential 2.00 2 Urban Institutional 2.00 2 CBD 2.18 2 CBD (High Activity Areas) 2.74 3 Public Lands 2.50 3 Library 2.67 3 Downtown Support District 2.50 3 Community Business 2.67 3 Moderate/High-Density MF Residential 2.00 2 Overall, the average number of multi-space meters per complete block face, for block faces not divided between two or more zones, ranged from 1.80 in the Gateway Mixed Use District to 2.74 for high-activity areas within the CBD. The CBD itself overall had an average of about 2.18. Outside the CBD high-activity area, Community Business and Library zones had the highest at an average of 2.67 per complete block face. If generalizing the figures presented above to represent more general land use categories and density, it was first necessary to establish the specific selected land use, as identified by existing zoning within the paid area, that best corresponds to the given general land use category/density combinations. Figure 10 below shows existing specific land uses and zones used to correspond with mid-density and high-density residential areas, non- residential areas, and mixed-use areas respectively. Figure 10. Average Number of Meters per Block Face by General Land Use Category Density General Land Use Category Corresponding Selected Zone Average Number of Meters per Full Block Face Mid-Density Residential Moderate/High-Density MF Residential 2.00 Non-Residential Secondary CBD 2.00 Mixed-Use Gateway Mixed Use 1.80 High-Density Residential Moderate/High-Density MF Residential 2.00 Non-Residential CBD 2.18 Mixed-Use Downtown Support District 2.50 Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 24 Pay-by-App vs. Multi-Space Meter Transactions Figure 11 shows the total transactions per multi-space meter and the share of those transactions for spaces associated with each meter that was conducted via pay-by-app instead of at the multi-space meter. Figure 11. Total Transactions & Pay-by-App Percentage by Meter (July 2021 – June 2022) Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 25 While there is no clear correlation between certain areas/land uses and pay-by-app usage as a function of percentage share, a few “hot spots” and “cold spots” are apparent. 200 W. between 100 and 200 S., the area bounded by 200 S. to the north, 300 E. to the east, 400 S. to the south, and State St. to the west, South Temple between 200 E. and 300 E., and 300 E. south of South Temple all featured multi-space meters recording over 60% pay-by-app usage. Relatively speaking, areas of low pay-by-app usage included most multi-space meters north of 100 S. west of 200 E. and between 400 S. and 500 S. Figure 12 below shows the total distribution of multi-space meters by the percent share of transactions conducted via pay-by-app. Figure 12. Multi-Space Meters by Pay-by-App Percent Share (July 2021 - June 2022) Overall, for most multi-space meters, the division between transactions at the meter versus through pay-by-app is relatively even, with the share of pay-by-app transactions ranging from 41% to 60% for 67% of all multi-space meters. Only 6% of all multi-space meters have a pay-by-app percentage falling under 20% or exceeding 60%. 3% 27% 67% 3% Under 20% Between 21% and 40% Between 41% and 60% Over 60% Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 26 Metered Parking Evaluation 04 Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 27 Metered Parking Evaluation Key Takeaways 250 Feet Max Distance METER REQUIREMENTS* CRITERIA FOR KEEPING METERS Maximum Share of Pay-by-App Transactions Minimum Number of Transactions 1,300 60% MA I N ST A T E 2 per Block Face Candidates for Potential Removal 27 Total Candidate Locations for Removal * Minimum requirements. May differ in some land use contexts. Cost Estimate Range for Replacement for… 280 Meters $1.4M – $2.2M $1.3M – $2.1M 263 Meters Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 28 Evaluation of Metered Parking Evaluation Criteria To evaluate the existing paid parking area, Walker first needed to establish the criteria by which meters are evaluated. These evaluation criteria can also be used when determining the meter density , or number of meters per block face, in locations the City may deem appropriate for establishing future paid parking areas that currently do not have it. Walker, with the input and agreement of Salt Lake City staff, has established the following criteria for evaluating where meters should potentially be added or removed within existing paid parking areas/block faces, as well as for assessing whether an existing unpaid area or block face may be a candidate for new metered parking. The criteria are as follows: minimum number of meters, distance between meters, number of total transactions, and percent share of transactions that are pay-by-app. The first two criteria are defined as requirements, which should be satisfied regardless of any other factors, while the third and fourth criteria are defined as minimum thresholds. For the threshold-defined criteria, the total number of transactions should be considered the primary criterion, instead of or equally in conjunction with share of Passport transactions, to consider a meter as a suitable candidate for removal. Meters with high usage will still have an absolute high number/volume of transactions at the meter, even if the relative share of such transactions compared to Passport is greater than 50% or 60%. Also, Passport/smartphone app usage is a metric that is more likely to vary depending on the season and other factors. Finally, it is possible that such usage of the app versus the multi-space meter may begin to plateau in the future, with at-meter transactions always representing a certain minimum percentage of all transactions despite smartphone and app saturation in the marketplace. Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 29 Removing Meters in Existing Paid Areas Figure 14 below shows the evaluation criteria for removing meters in existing paid areas/along existing paid block faces. Figure 13. Evaluation Matrix for Removing Meters in Existing Paid Areas Criteria Category Order of Priority Criteria Description Other Considerations & Notes Minimum Number of Meters 1 By removing meter(s), the resulting number of meters does not fall below an established minimum for the number of meters that is required per block face. Distance between Meters 2 By removing one or more meters, the distance from any parking space along a block face to any meter does not exceed the maximum allowed. Maximum distances allowed may differ for certain land uses, such as commercial land uses offering human services. Number of Total Transactions 3 The number of transactions is lower than a particular established critical threshold. Percent Share Pay- by-App 4 The percentage of pay-by-app transactions for parking spaces associated with a multi-space meter exceeds a certain established critical threshold. Adding Meters in Existing Paid Areas Figure 13 below shows the evaluation criteria for adding meters in existing paid areas/along existing paid block faces. Figure 14. Evaluation Matrix for Adding Meters in Existing Paid Areas Criteria Category Order of Priority Criteria Description Other Considerations & Notes Minimum Number of Meters 1 Per block face where paid parking exists, an established minimum for the number of meters that is required per block face is not met. Distance between Meters 2 Per block face, the distance between a parking space and a multi-space meter exceeds an allowed maximum. Maximum distances allowed may differ for certain land uses, such as commercial land uses offering human services. Number of Total Transactions 3 The number of transactions is higher than a particular established critical threshold, and/or wait times during peak demand times at a meter are causing undue inconvenience to meter users. Percent Share Pay- by-App 4 The percentage of pay-by-app transactions for parking spaces associated with a multi-space meter falls below a certain established critical threshold. Installing Meters in Existing Unpaid Areas Figure 15 below shows the evaluation criteria for installing new meters in existing unpaid areas/along unpaid block faces. Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 30 Figure 15. Evaluation Matrix for Installing Meters in Existing Unpaid Areas Criteria Category Order of Priority Criteria Description Other Considerations & Notes Land Use Changes N/A There is a change in land use from undeveloped, industrial, or low-density residential land uses to any combination of commercial, office, mid/high-density residential, or retail. Assuming that specific meter requirements, such as the minimum number of meters per block face and maximum distance allowed between meters, are met Spillover Parking N/A Spillover parking is occurring from high parking demand land uses/activity centers into adjacent lower-density areas, such as residential neighborhoods. Alternative strategies to manage spillover parking could also be considered, such as a residential parking permit program. Requirements & Thresholds Requirements Figure 16 below summarizes the established requirements for evaluating all meters in both the existing paid parking system as well as for determining baseline requirements for new meters in potential future paid parking areas. Figure 16. Minimum Requirements for Meters Criteria Category Requirements Minimum Number of Meters Minimum of 2 meters per block face Distance between Meters Maximum of 250 feet between the meter and parking space (150 feet for human services) Minimum Number of Meters Walker has determined that there should be a minimum of two meters per block face, regardless of the length of a paid parking block face or any other factors. Because this requirement establishes that meters must be located on the same block face, parking meters that may fall within the maximum distance of a parking space but that are located on an adjacent block face, or directly across the street, cannot count towards meeting this required minimum requirement. This minimum of two meters per block face was established with input from Salt Lake City staff, who determined that each paid block face should have at least two meters to provide for redundancy in case one of the meters is out of service or not working correctly. Under such conditions, people who choose to pay at the meter may still do so without having to cross a street. Distance Between Meters If a block face falls within the paid area and has paid parking along the block face, there should typically always be a minimum of at least one multi-space meter per 250 feet of parking frontage within the paid area. For distances beyond 250 feet, the average parker may find that the path of travel to the nearest meter is inconvenient. Even in a scenario where use of pay by app may be encouraged, or where the parker does not have to return to his/her vehicle to place a paid parking receipt on their dashboard, it is recommended that parkers should not have to Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 31 walk more than one minute to reach a parking meter. At a conservatively estimated walking speed of 3 miles per hour, it would take just under one minute to access a meter located about 250 feet away. As the standard block face length for a typical Salt Lake City block (within the CBD) is about 660 feet, this means that, in general, there would need to be at least two multi-space meter per block face to satisfy this distance requirement, regardless of other factors. In such cases, the meters should optimally be positioned at even intervals, about 1/4 and 3/4ths up the length of a full-sized block face (660 feet). For longer block faces, more than two may be required. At such intervals, there would be a meter at 165 feet and 495 feet when measured from a point of origin at the end of one block face, assuming that there are paid parking spaces located along the entire block face. This would make each meter about 165 feet away from the farthest parking space. Alternatively, for meters placed 1/3 and 2/3rds up the length of the full-sized block face, there would be a meter at 220 and 440 feet when measured from a point of origin at the end of one block face. This would make each meter a maximum of 220 feet away from the farthest parking space, assuming that there are paid parking spaces located along the entire block face. For block faces with paid parking that services specific land uses, such as human services, that may command a need for closer parking multi-space meters than usual, the maximum distance from a meter to a parking space should be about 150 feet. This shorter distance can make it easier for parkers with mobility issues to access meters and/or ensure that meters are available for populations that may not have pay -by-app technology available to them. For any accessible on-street parking spaces within the paid area, Walker recommends that a meter be located as close to the accessible spaces as possible. Thresholds for Keeping Meters Figure 17 below summarizes the established thresholds for keeping existing meters. Figure 17. Thresholds for Keeping Existing Meters Criteria Category Thresholds for Keeping Meters Number of Total Transactions Minimum of 1,300 transactions per year (at meter + pay-by-app) Percent Share Pay-by-App The percent share of transactions at the meter is at least 40% (60% pay-by-app) Minimum Number of Transactions Meter usage per meter by block face should be such that the revenue and number of transactions make the individual meter profitable, or at least break-even in terms of cost, while not so high as to cause undue burden on persons attempting to use the meter to pay for parking. From a financially feasible perspective, a multi-space meter should support a minimum of approximately 1,300 transactions annually. This derives from an assumed 3-year return on the initial capital investment in a multi- space meter of approximately $8,000 and an average ongoing operations and maintenance cost of $1,000 annually per multi-space meter. With 260 paid parking days enforced per year, over the 3-year period, each multi- Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 32 space meter should generate approximately $14 per day. With an average transaction value paid at the multi- space meter of $2.79, this represents approximately 5 transactions per day or 1,300 per year. Figure 18 summarizes the equation described above that results in the break-even number of transactions per multi-space meter per year, as determined by Walker. Figure 18. Summarized Equation for Determining Break-Even Number of Transactions per Year Multi-space meters with fewer than 1,300 associated transactions per year are less likely to generate the minimum revenues necessary to support their initial installation cost and/or ongoing operations and maintenance. This minimum threshold is used as the base for identifying multi-space meters for potential removal. Percent Share Pay-by-App In terms of the percentage of transactions that are pay-by-app versus at the meter, Walker has established the critical threshold at 60% pay-by-app usage. Multi-space meters for which the percentage of pay-by-app transactions is under 60% are meters for which physically paying at the meter is still a popular payment choice. Thresholds for Adding Meters Figure 19 below summarizes the established thresholds for keeping existing meters. Figure 19. Thresholds for Adding Meters to Block Faces with Existing Meters Criteria Category Thresholds for Adding New Meter Number of Total Transactions At least one meter on a block face sees frequent “congestion,” defined as parkers who need to queue up at the meter in order to use the meter to pay for a parking space. Meters should be added to a block face or area if at least one meter along the block face has a high enough average number of transactions at the meter across the paid parking period per day where paid parking is in effect to where the meter may see “congestion.” In this context, congestion is defined as parkers needing to queue up in order to use the meter to pay for a parking space. = ( ) $8k + $1k Year (260 Days) x (3 Years) ) = 5 Transactions 1 Day ( 1,300 Transactions 1 Year (260 Days) Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 33 Note that, for this context, only the number of transactions at the meter is relevant, as transactions associated with a meter that take play via pay-by-app do not result in physical “congestion” at the meter. In this study, there were a total of 6,721 at-the-meter transactions at the multi-space meter with the highest recorded number of at-the-meter transactions (Meter #34199). When divided by 260 paid parking days and 12 hours per day where paid parking is in effect, this resulted in an average of 2.15 at-the-meter transactions per hour. While this average does not account for variance per hour in meter usage, the average time it takes to conduct an at-the-meter transaction is likely under 28 minutes. At 10,000 at-the-meter transactions per year, the average number of transactions per hour would be about 3.20, or about one every 19 minutes. It is likely that a single meter would not have frequent “congestion” unless the meter had an average of one transaction every 15 or fewer minutes. Currently, no meter in the existing system sees such a high level of transactions per hour, on average. Existing Meters with Thresholds Applied Figure 20 below shows all multi-space meters in the existing system with the total transaction volume and percent pay-by-app use thresholds applied that were established above. Note that meters are only shown where data for total number of transactions and pay-by-app usage was available. Squares in red indicate that the meter fails the established threshold for the total number of transactions needed for the meter to break even in terms of revenue. In the case of pay-by-app usage, the threshold is expressed in terms of multi-space meter usage, with circles in red representing meter usage falling under 60%. Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 34 Figure 20. Total Transactions and Pay-by-App Usage Over/Under Established Thresholds Out of this set of active multi-space meters shown, 85 out of 280 did not meet the 1,300-transaction threshold. Nine meters met the pay-by-app usage threshold (percent of transactions through the pay-by-phone app was at or above 60%). Two meters both did not meet the transaction threshold and met the pay-by-app threshold. Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 35 By Block Face & Land Use Figure 21 below shows the average number of multi-space meters meeting the 1,300-transaction threshold per block face for all land uses/zones that have paid parking on at least one adjacent block face. When compared with the total number of meters per block face for each given specific land use/zone, the difference between figures can help to highlight selected specific land uses where there may be too many meters or about the correct number, on average, to achieve financial feasibility. Note that block faces with at least one multi-space meter that are divided between two or more zones were excluded from the calculations; only full block faces adjacent to one single zone were included. Figure 21. Average Number of Meters per Block Face that Meet Transaction Threshold by Zone Selected Zone with Existing Metered Parking Average Number of Meters per Full Block Face that Meet Threshold Average (Rounded) Gateway Mixed Use 1.80 2 Secondary CBD 1.22 1 Residential Mixed Use 0.44 0 High-Density Residential 1.00 1 Urban Institutional 0.80 1 CBD 1.69 2 CBD (High Activity Areas) 2.74 3 Public Lands 1.50 2 Library 1.50 2 Downtown Support District 2.00 2 Community Business 2.00 2 Moderate/High-Density MF Residential 1.00 1 Overall, the average number of multi-space meters with an annual transaction total equal to or exceeding 1,300 per complete block face, for block faces not divided between two or more zones, ranged from 0.44 in the Residential Mixed-Use District to 2.74 for high-activity areas within the CBD. The CBD itself had an average of 1.69 multi-space meters per full block face with at least 1,300 transactions. Outside the CBD, Gateway Mixed Use had the highest average at 1.80 meters per block face with at least 1,300 transactions. Figure 22 below shows the average number of multi-space meters per block face that met the transaction threshold of 1,300 transactions per year according to more generalized land uses and densities discussed in the previous section according to the selected corresponding specific land use/zone that best fits the more general category. Figure 22. Average Number of Meters per Block Face that Meet Transaction Threshold by Land Use Category Density General Land Use Category Corresponding Selected Zone Average Number of Meters per Full Block Face that Meet Threshold Mid-Density Residential Moderate/High-Density MF Residential 1.00 Non-Residential Secondary CBD 1.22 Mixed-Use Gateway Mixed Use 1.80 High-Density Residential Moderate/High-Density MF Residential 1.00 Non-Residential CBD 1.69 Mixed-Use Downtown Support District 2.00 Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 36 Recommendations Adding Meters Currently, no meter in the existing system likely sees a high-enough level of transactions per hour, on average, to warrant the need for an additional meter along a block face with existing meters. Therefore, Walker does not currently recommend adding more meters along any block faces within the existing paid parking zone. Walker does recommend that the City consider feedback from citizens, business owners, and paid parking users along a block face in order to evaluate the potential need for additional meters along that block face on a case-by- case basis. If feedback is consistently received that identifies long wait times or queues at a particular meter, the block face upon which the meter is located should be evaluated for the addition of a meter. Removing Existing Meters Given the above established requirements and threshold of 1,300 transactions per year, Walker has evaluated the existing paid parking system by block face in order to identify potential block face candidates for removal of a meter, as shown in Figure 23 below. Note that meter candidates identified for potential removal may not be meters that recorded fewer than 1,300 transactions. For instance, consider an existing block face with three meters that are located about a quarter, half, and three-fourths up a block face where one of the three meters recorded fewer than 1,300 transactions. If the meter not meeting the threshold is the one located either ¼ or ¾ the way up the block face, Walker would suggest that the meter ½ way up the block face would be the most suitable candidate for removal, even if it recorded more than 1,300 transactions. This is because the removal of that meter would result in more even spacing between meters and a shorter distance from any meter to the farthest parking space on the block face, and therefore better satisfy all the criteria established previously. Also note that the figure below does not account for any on-street accessible parking within the paid system, if any exists. Finally, note that meters for which no transactions were recorded were not included in this evaluation. Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 37 Figure 23. Multi-Space Meter Candidates for Removal in Existing Paid System In all, Walker has identified 27 out of 280 currently deployed and operational multi-space meters that may be candidates for removal, excluding meters with no recorded transactions that may not have been operational and deployed during the time period for which data was analyzed in this study. Note that some of the meters may be Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 38 located off-street and/or in a mid-block alley. In all cases, these represent associated block faces with three or more existing meters where at least one meter does not meet the 1,300 -meter transaction threshold. Candidates were selected that appeared to leave the most even spacing between meters on a block face, with meters satisfying the 250-foot maximum distance requirement. Walker recommends that block faces with meters identified as candidates for removal be evaluated further before being considered for removal. Criteria for further evaluation may include whether the block face is to see notable densification or redevelopment in the future that may increase parking use on that block face, or whether the meter is located near a particular institutional use where more meters may be warranted. Also, if accessible parking spaces are located near a meter identified as a candidate for removal, Walker would recommend that the meter remain. A detailed list of the meter locations identified for potential removal is located in the Appendix. Replacement Cost and Quantity Estimates Figure 24 below shows the estimated cost range for replacement of the existing meter inventory (deployed and operational meters). Figures are shown for both complete replacement of the entire existing deployed and operational inventory as well as replacement minus the meter locations identified as candidates for removal in the previous section. Figure 24. Estimated Cost Range for Replacing Existing Meters Cost Range of Meter in 2022 Projected Cost of Replacement Estimated Initial Cost Difference Existing Inventory Existing Inventory Minus Candidates for Removal For 280 Meters For 263 Meters $5,000 $1,400,000 $1,315,000 $85,000 $8,000 $2,240,000 $2,104,000 $136,000 The estimated cost for replacing all existing 280 deployed and operational meters ranges from about $1.4 million to $2.2 million. However, if replacement were to occur without replacing all 27 meters locations identified as candidates for removal, the cost would range from about $1.3 million to $2.1 million. As a result, total initial, up- front cost savings would range from $85k to $136k. Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 39 Potential Expansion of Parking Meters 05 Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 40 Potential Expansion of Parking Meters Key Takeaways SHORT- TO MID- TERM MID- TO LONG- TERM Sugar House Downtown Downtown Number of Meters Needed to Cover Short/Mid-Term Area at 2 per Block Face 488 Number of Meters Needed to Cover Mid/Long-Term Area at 2 per Block Face 310 Cost Estimate Range for Installation of New Meters at 2 per Block Face $2.4M – $3.9M Cost Estimate Range for Installation of New Meters at 2 per Block Face $1.6M – $2.5M Number of Meters Needed to Cover Mid/Long-Term Area at 2 per Block Face (1 per Block Face) 143 Cost Estimate Range for Installation of New Meters at 1 per Block Face $715k – $1.1M Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 41 Potential Expansion of Parking Meters As Salt Lake City continues to grow, densify, and diversify, the City may wish to expand the location(s) where parking meters are installed. In this section, Walker provides a high-level framework for formulating a roadmap for future expansions based on an evaluation and consolidation of future known developments in the short and mid-term, as well as future land uses in the long term, as informed by various applicable sub-area and neighborhood plans. Short to Mid Term The City furnished to Walker a map, current as of July 2022, of known future downtown developments that are under construction, soon to be under construction, or that planned/proposed. Developments range from residential to commercial/retail and are mid-density to high-density in nature. Figure 25 below shows the locations of these various developments. By Walker’s count, there are about 68 developments shown. Figure 25. Future Downtown Developments (July 2022) Source: City of Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 42 Figure 26 below shows the existing paid parking areas and study areas for this project along with a contiguous area in yellow that outlines and encompasses the future downtown developments shown above. Note that the area has been drawn such that whole blocks are included if at least one new development is contained within. Figure 26. Short-Term and Mid-Term Downtown Growth Area and Existing Paid Parking Area Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 43 In all, an area that encompasses all known new development downtown and adjacent to downtown would represent about a 2.4% increase in the number of block faces covered compared to the existing paid parking area shown above. There are about 102 block faces currently that are within the paid area while the growth area represents an area of about 244 block faces as drawn. Also, for each block or partial block within the area, only the block faces interior to the respective block were counted. Block faces on the opposite side of the street, or exterior to the block face, along the periphery of the area were not counted. Cost and Quantity Estimates If the City were to extend the paid parking area to this whole area, it would therefore represent about a 2.4x increase in the size of the paid parking area, not including Sugar House. If assuming about 2 meters per block face, regardless of land use, this would equal to an increase in the total number of multi-space meters in the system of about 488 meters, give or take. If assuming about 3 meters per block face, it would result in an increase of about 732 meters, give or take. As of 2022, the average cost of a multi-space parking meter, including installation and other up-front costs such as hardware, software, and configuration, ranges from about $5,000 to about $8,000, depending on v endor and other factors. These costs do not include ongoing capital costs such as maintenance and software/platform subscriptions. Figure 27 below provides high-level cost range estimates for an expansion of the paid area into the areas shown in yellow in Figure 26. Estimates are shown assuming 2 meters per block face, as this is both the minimum requirement outlined in the analysis on existing metered parking as well as the average number of recommended meters per Downtown- length block face for all general land uses except high-activity, high-density commercial. It should be noted that the number of meters recommended for new high-density, high-activity commercial areas would be 3 meters per block face, consistent with the average number of meters that met transaction criteria for such areas. As a result, Walker has provided estimated costs assuming both 2 and 3 meters per block face for illustrative purposes. Figure 27. Cost Estimates for Expansion of Paid Area into Short- and Mid-Term Downtown Growth Areas Cost Range per Meter in 2022 Projected Cost for New Meters (Downtown) Estimated Cost Difference At 2 per Block Face At 3 per Block Face $5,000 $2,440,000 $3,660,000 $1,220,000 $8,000 $3,904,000 $5,856,000 $1,952,000 In all, a high-level cost estimate for increasing the size by 2.4x of the current metered parking area, as indicated in Figure 26, would range from about $2.4 million to $3.9 million, assuming 2 meters per block face, and would range from about $3.7 million to $5.9 million, assuming 3 meters per block face. Mid to Long Term Future land uses as planned and displayed in the various neighborhood and sub-area plans that have been officially adopted for all the neighborhood and community areas that are covered by the study areas are also included within the study area. These applicable sub-area, neighborhood, or community plans are the following: Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 44 • The Avenues Master Plan • Capitol Hill Master Plan • Central Community Master Plan • Sugar House Master Plan • Gateway District Land Development and Master Plan In order to provide a framework for understanding the number of parking meters and density that may be required of the future land uses, Walker has evaluated the applicable future land use plans and maps and created a composite of all future land uses across the study areas. This composite is shown in Figure 56 in the Appendix. After compiling the map shown in Figure 56, Walker then dissolved the various land uses, labels, zone/use nomenclatures, and legend/map colors shown in each plan and map into the same common general land use category/density combinations that were used in the Existing Metered Parking section of this report (Figures 10 and 21) in order to make comparison of future land uses across plans possible. Note that only mid-density and high-density commercial, residential, and mixed-use specific categories were considered. A detailed table that displays all specific land use categories and colors used in each of the land use maps shown in the composite above, and the general land use/density category(ies) to which they were associated/matched by Walker, is provided in the Appendix. A map of all future land uses with generalized land use/density categories is shown in Figure 28 on the next page. For purposes of this map, Walker included mid- and high-density land uses that straddled the study area boundaries. For Sugar House, Walker included and mapped generalized land uses falling within a quarter-mile buffer of the study area boundary. Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 45 Figure 28. Future Land Uses Generalized and Consolidated Figure 29 below shows the number of meters that should be considered per full block face for each generalized land use/density combination shown above. Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 46 Figure 29. Number of Meters by Land Use Density and General Land Use Density General Land Use Category Generalized Land Use Color Average Number of Meters per Full Block Face Across Area that Meet Threshold Minimum Number of Meters per Block Face Mid-Density Residential 1.00 2 Non-Residential 1.22 2 Mixed-Use 1.80 2 High-Density Residential 1.00 2 Non-Residential 1.69 2 Non-Residential (High Activity Area) 2.74 3 Mixed-Use 2.00 2 The average number of meters that meet the 1,300-transaction minimum threshold, as reiterated above, ranged from about 1 to 2 per block face (2.74 average for high-activity, high-density commercial areas). However, since the City has specified that a minimum of two meters per full block face should always be installed regardless of usage or other factors, this means that the number of meters per downtown block face for all general uses and densities should be 2 for all land uses with an average of 2.00 or below. For high-activity, high-density commercial areas, 3 meters per block face are recommended as the average number of meters meeting the transaction threshold is above 2.00 (2.74). It should be noted that for certain institutional and human resource land uses, a minimum of 3 or 4 meters per block face should be installed. Also, as shown in the table, for high-activity areas within the high-density commercial area, the average number of meters per block face where the threshold is met exceeds two. As a result, for such areas, 3 meters per block face should be considered. Figure 30 on the next page shows the existing paid area combined with the short- and mid-term growth area in yellow, as shown in Figure 25 above, along with an additional area that outlines additional mid- and high-density residential, mixed use, and commercial growth areas as determined from the consolidated future land uses shown in Figure 28. These additional areas are shown in orange. In the case of Sugar House, such future land uses that fall within a quarter-mile buffer of the study area were included. Note that future mid- and high-density land uses contained within the study areas for this project do not necessarily account for whether or not the given density and land use falls within an urban or a suburban/car- orientated context. For instance, the medium-density residential located immediately east of the Forest Dale Golf Course, in Sugar House, is an existing suburban-style apartment complex that lacks internal on-street parking and may not be a good candidate for metered parking. As a result, the mid- and long-term growth areas in orange are drawn to encompass only mid- and high-density residential, mixed-use, and commercial future land areas that exist currently with an urban context/typology within the study area, as areas that are not within such a context/typology may not be well suited for paid parking even in the long term. These are the areas within which Walker has considered for purposes of estimating the number of meters that would be needed to serve the areas. Also, Walker drew the mid- to long-term areas so as to encompass blocks and/or block faces that completely or nearly completely fall under a future mid- or high-density residential, mixed use, or commercial land use. As a result, the growth area excludes some of the mid-density residential future land uses in the eastern third of the Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 47 downtown study area rectangle as these future land uses are interspersed with low-density housing and do not encompass most or all of a block Figure 30. Mid-Term & Long-Term Growth Areas Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 48 Cost and Quantity Estimates Walker has provided below a high-level estimate for the number of meters that might be installed in the mid- and high-density residential, mixed-use, and commercial areas in the Sugar House and Downtown study area in the mid- to long-term, as informed by the consolidated future land uses. Only the mid- and high-density residential, mixed use, and commercial future land uses included within the orange areas shown in the previous figure have been considered for purposes of estimating the number of meters that would be needed to serve block faces within the respective areas. Downtown Growth Area Figure 31 shows the estimated approximate number of block faces or visually combined partial block faces, called “block face equivalents,” within the main orange area (downtown) by general land use classification. Note that these estimates exclude existing block faces where there is no parking. Also, they only account for existing block faces along existing streets. Third, frontage of blocks along freeways, viaducts, and other such corridors were excluded. Finally, these estimates do NOT account or consider alleys or some mid-block streets that may occur across the orange area, particularly at the periphery in The Avenues and at the south. Estimates are shown assuming 2 meters per block face, as this is both the minimum requirement outlined in the analysis on existing metered parking as well as the average number of recommended meters per Downtown- length block face for all general land uses except high-activity, high-density commercial. It should be noted that the number of meters recommended for new high-density, high-activity commercial areas would be 3 meters per block face, consistent with the average number of meters that met transaction criteria for such areas. As a result, Walker has provided estimated costs assuming both 2 and 3 meters per block face for illustrative purposes. Figure 31. Block Face Quantity Estimates in Mid- and Long-Term Growth Area (Downtown) Density General Land Use Category Generalized Land Use Color Approximate Number of Block Faces or Block Face Equivalents* Number of Meters per Downtown Block Face 2 3 Mid- Density Residential 22 44 66 Non-Residential 38 76 114 Mixed-Use 33 66 99 High- Density Residential 6 12 18 Non-Residential 18 36 54 Mixed-Use 38 76 114 Total 155 310 465 * Downtown block face length or equivalent (660 feet) Figure 32 below gives a high-level estimated cost range for the number of meters that would be required to serve block faces within the defined Downtown growth area at 2 meters per block face and 3 meters per block face. Figure 32. Cost Estimates for Metered Parking Expansion into Mid- and Long-Term Growth Area (Downtown) Cost Range per Meter in 2022 Projected Cost for New Meters (Downtown) Estimated Cost Difference At 2 per Block Face At 3 per Block Face $5,000 $1,550,000 $2,325,000 $775,000 $8,000 $2,480,000 $3,720,000 $1,240,000 Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 49 Walker estimates that there are approximately 155 block faces or block face equivalents within the Downtown mid- to long-term area. At 2 meters per block face, the cost range would be approximately $1.6 million to $2.5 million. At 3 meters per block face, the cost range would be approximately $2.3 million to $3.7 million. Sugar House Growth Area Figure 33 shows the estimated approximate number of block faces or visually combined partial block faces, called “block face equivalents,” within the smaller orange area to the south (Sugar House), as defined in Figure 30 above, by general land use classification. Note that these estimates exclude existing block faces where there is no parking. Also, for some irregular and/or curved block faces, Walker visually estimated the equivalent or approximate number of qualifying block faces within the defined area. Third, they only account for existing block faces along existing streets. Finally, frontages of blocks along the 80 Freeway were excluded. Estimates are shown assuming both 1 meter per block face and 2 meters per block face. While 2 meters per block face was one requirement outlined in the analysis on existing metered parking, that requirement was determined partly based on the fact that the standard block face length in Salt Lake City is about 660 feet. Standard Sugar House block faces, at 360 feet, are a little more than half that length. Therefore, only one meter per block may be sufficient to serve some or most typical block faces in Sugar House. Figure 33. Block Face Quantity Estimates in Mid- and Long-Term Growth Area (Sugar House) Density General Land Use Category Generalized Land Use Color Approximate Number of Block Faces or Block Face Equivalents* Number of Meters per Sugar House Block Face 1 2 Mid- Density Residential 26 26 52 Non-Residential 5 5 10 Mixed-Use 74 74 148 High- Density Residential 2 2 4 Non-Residential 0 0 0 Mixed-Use 36 36 72 Total 143 143 286 * Sugar House block face length (360 feet) Figure 34 gives a high-level estimated cost range for the number of meters that would be required to serve block faces within the defined Sugar House growth area at both 1 meter and 2 meters per block face. Figure 34. Cost Estimates for Metered Parking Expansion into Mid- and Long-Term Growth Area (Sugar House) Cost Range per Meter in 2022 Projected Cost for New Meters (Sugar House) Estimated Cost Difference At 1 per Block Face At 2 per Block Face $5,000 $715,000 $1,430,000 $715,000 $8,000 $1,144,000 $2,288,000 $1,144,000 Walker estimates that there are approximately 143 block faces or block face equivalents within the Sugar House mid- to long-term area. At 1 meter per block face, the cost range would be approximately $700k to $1.1 million. At 2 meters per block face, the cost range would be approximately $1.4 million to $2.3 million. Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 50 Metered Parking Policies, Rates, & Fees 06 Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 51 Metered Parking Policies, Rates, & Fees Key Takeaways HOURS OF ENFORCEMENT RATES TIME LIMITS DAYS OF THE WEEK ZONE STRUCTURE CITATION FINES SUGGESTED ACTIONS SLC SELECTED EXISTING $ $ $2.25 per hour (flat rate for entire system). Tiered rate system. $2.50 per hour (for first two hours), $5 per hour (3rd hour), $10 per hour (4th hour). 2 hours per day (across entire system). 4 hours per day. Consider lower time limit in some very high demand spaces. 8 AM – 8 PM, Mon – Sat (across entire system). Extend to 10 PM in existing paid area. Consider later end time for areas with high late-night demand and earlier end time for areas with low evening demand. Mon – Fri. Mon – Sat to align with enforcement hours. Single zone (same rates, hours across entire paid area). Tiered or graduated rate structure with multiple zones based on demand/activity. Sugar House should be its own zone with different rate structure. Flat fine structure, lower fines for some violations than peer city average. Increase fines to be in line with peer city averages and Utah Uniform Fine Schedule. Consider graduated fine structure. Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 52 Metered Parking Policies, Rates, & Fees Existing Policies, Rates, & Fees in Salt Lake City Walker researched Salt Lake City’s existing metered parking system and documented the following items: on- street metered parking rates, hours of enforcement, time limits, overnight parking, “move -it” policies, and fines for various selected parking violations that pertain to on-street metered parking/paid parking areas. On-Street Parking Time Limits Figure 35 below shows parking time limits for paid on-street parking areas in Salt Lake City. Figure 35. On-Street Parking Time Limits (Salt Lake City) On-Street Time Limits Metric Salt Lake City Time Limits Two hours Mon - Sat. No time limits on Sundays. Hours that Time Limits are In Place By City ordinance, time limits are in place at all times at any multi- space meter parking space or 2-hour time zone. On-Street Parking Rates Figure 36 shows on-street parking rates in Salt Lake City. Figure 36. On-Street Parking Rates (Salt Lake City) Salt Lake City $2.25 per hour on weekdays. Saturdays and Sundays are free. Motorcycles and accessible parkers are exempt from parking fees. Some green vehicles may qualify for a free parking permit. On-Street Parking Hours and Days of Enforcement Figure 37 shows on-street hours of enforcement for Salt Lake City. Figure 37. On-Street Hours of Enforcement (Salt Lake City) Salt Lake City 8 AM - 8 PM Mon - Fri Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 53 Special Events Figure 38 shows special event parking metrics and rates for Salt Lake City. Figure 38. Special Event Parking Metrics (Salt Lake City) On-Street Special Events Rate & Metric Salt Lake City Special Event Rates for On-Street Meters? No Event Rate Structure N/A Overnight Parking Figure 39 below shows specific regulations, time limits, or rates that may be in place for overnight parking within paid on-street parking areas in Salt Lake City. Figure 39. Overnight Parking Metrics (Salt Lake City) Overnight Parking Metric Salt Lake City Overnight Parking Managed at On-Street Metered Spaces? (Excluding Permit Areas/RPPPs) Not specified Overnight Parking Fee Schedule N/A “Move-It” Policy A “Move-it” policy or ordinance specifies that vehicles must relocate to a different parking space once they have stayed the maximum allowed period of time within a metered on-street parking space. Figure 40 below shows selected information about Salt Lake City’s Move-it policy. Figure 40. Move-it Policies (Salt Lake City) Move-It Ordinance Metric Salt Lake City "Move It" Ordinance Yes Minimum Distance a Vehicle Must be Moved Another block face How Long Ordinance is In Effect Posted time limit + 2 hours Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 54 Metered Parking Violations and Fines Figure 41 below is a schedule of fees and fines for various selected on-street parking violations directly applicable to metered parking in Salt Lake City. Figure 41. Metered Parking Violations and Fines (Salt Lake City) Selected On-Street Violation & Other Violation Metric Salt Lake City Overtime Meter $35 Meter Violation* $75 Parking Outside of Allowed Hours $23 "Feeding the Meter" $23 Accessible Space Violation $150 Graduated Fines? No Notes * Section 12.56.150 (D) of the Salt Lake City Code specifies that the presence of a vehicle in a parking space for which the paid time expired at least two hours prior to the issuance of the parking citation shall be considered a willful or egregious violation. Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 55 Peer City Benchmarking For the topics researched and documented in the previous section, Walker performed benchmarking for six peer cities across the western United States. These cities are Denver, Sacramento, Boise, Austin, Portland, and Seattle. Two of the six peer cities – Portland and Seattle – were selected as aspirational communities that feature metered/paid on-street parking systems that are larger and more complex than Salt Lake City’s existing system. Information for peer cities is believed to be current as of August 2022. On-Street Parking Time Limits Figure 42 below shows parking time limits for paid on-street parking areas in the peer cities. Figure 42. On-Street Parking Time Limits (Peer Cities) On- Street Time Limits Metric Peer City Denver Sacramento Boise Austin Portland Seattle Time Limits Vary. In CBD, 2 hour limit. In Cherry Creek, 3 hour limit. All metered spaces are subject to 10- hour time limit. Tiered system. Premium and Standard: 2 hour limit. Value: 4 hour limit. All metered spaces are subject to 10- hour time limit. Time limits vary from 1 - 4 hours. Within CBD, time limits are typically 2 hours. Outside of CBD, time limits are typically 3 - 4 hours. Within event overlay areas, a 2-hour time limit goes into effect during events, even for spaces that are normally subject to a longer time limit. Time limits vary from 2 hours to 4 hours, with some 10-hour spaces available. In areas where enforcement extends to 10 PM, the time limit becomes 5 hours after 5 PM. Hours that Time Limits are In Place Varies. In CBD, 6 AM - 10 PM Varies. In CBD, 8 AM - 10 PM Mon - Sat. In CBD periphery, 8 AM - 8 PM Mon - Sat. In Old Sacramento, 10 AM - 10 PM Mon - Sun. In all other areas where metered parking exists, 8 AM - 6 PM Mon - Sat Three zones: Premium, Standard, Value. Premium: 8 AM - 8 PM Mon - Fri. 10 AM - 5 PM Sat. Standard: 8 AM - 8 PM Mon - Fri. 10 AM - 5 PM Sat. Value: 8 AM - 6 PM Mon - Fri only. 10 zones. Hours of enforcement vary widely. 1 zone is enforced on event days only. For all zones, enforcement begins at 8 AM. In CBD, 8 AM - 6 PM Mon - Tue, 8 AM - 12 AM Wed - Fri, 11 AM - 12 AM Sat. 6 zones. Enforcement begins at either 8 AM or 9 AM and ends between 6 PM and 10 PM. In CBD, 8 AM - 7 PM Mon - Sat, 1 PM - 7 PM Sun. Within event district overlay areas and during events, enforcement always begins 3 hours before an event and lasts until 3 hours after the event, regardless of typical hours or days of enforcement. Within event overlay areas, time limits are in place during events, from 3 hours before an event begins and last until 3 hours after it ends. Most zones: 8 AM - 8 PM. In some zones, time limits are in place until 10 PM and in others, time limits end at 6 PM. During events within the Uptown and Uptown Triangle zones, event time limits and rates can be in effect during Sundays and holidays. Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 56 On-Street Parking Rates Figure 43 shows on-street parking rates in the peer cities. Figure 43. On-Street Parking Rates (Peer Cities) Peer City Denver Sacramento Boise Austin Portland Seattle Varies. In most areas, $2 per hour. Tiered system. The base rate is $1.75 per hour with 4 meter tiers. Each tier represents the time limit for parking at the base rate. Tiers range from 1+ hour to 4+ hours. For all tiers, the rate for next hour after the time limit is $3. For each hour thereafter, the rate is $3.75. Some long-term meters exist that allow for up to 10 hours of parking with a $3 or $6 max rate, depending on location. Graduated system by zone. Premium: $2 per hour for first hour, $3 for 2nd hour (Mon - Fri), $0.50 per hour (Sat). Standard: $1.25 per hour for first hour, $2 for 2nd hour (Mon - Fri), $0.50 per hour (Sat). Value: $0.50 per hour for hours 1 - 2, $1 per hour for hours 3 - 4. For all zones, first 20 minutes is free. Graduated system by length of stay for all zones. $2 per hour for 1 - 2 hour. Then $3 for hour 3. Rate then increases by $0.50 per hour for each hour thereafter through hour 7. $5 per hour for hours 8 - 10. First 15 minutes free. Mopeds and motorcycles typically exempt from fees. Also, prisoners of war and Purple Heart recipients are exempt per Texas state law. Varies by zone. Non-event rates range from $1 per hour to $2 per hour. In CBD, rate is $2 per hour. Vary by zone and time of day. Morning rates are in effect between 8 AM and 11 AM. Midday rates are in effect between 11 AM and 5 PM. Evening rates are in effect between 5 PM and 8 PM (5 PM and 10 PM in some zones). Morning rates range from $0.50 to $2 per hour. Midday rates range from $1 per hour to $4 per hour. Evening rates range from $0.50 to $2.50 per hour. In some zones, parking is free after 6 PM with no evening rate in effect. On-Street Parking Hours and Days of Enforcement Figure 44 shows on-street hours of enforcement for the peer cities. Figure 44. On-Street Hours of Enforcement (Peer Cities) Peer City Denver Sacramento Boise Austin Portland Seattle Varies. In the CBD, 8 AM - 6 AM Mon - Sat (No enforcement between 6 AM and 8 AM). In Cherry Creek, 8 AM - 7 PM Mon - Sat. Varies. In CBD, 8 AM - 10 PM Mon - Sat. In CBD periphery, 8 AM - 8 PM Mon - Sat. In Old Sacramento, 10 AM - 10 PM Mon - Sun. In all other areas where metered parking exists, 8 AM - 6 PM Mon - Sat Three zones: Premium, Standard, Value. Premium: 8 AM - 8 PM Mon - Fri. 10 AM - 5 PM Sat. Standard: 8 AM - 8 PM Mon - Fri. 10 AM - 5 PM Sat. Value: 8 AM - 6 PM Mon - Fri only. 10 zones. Hours of enforcement vary widely. 1 zone is enforced on event days only. For all zones, enforcement begins at 8 AM. In CBD, 8 AM - 6 PM Mon - Tue, 8 AM - 12 AM Wed - Fri, 11 AM - 12 AM Sat. Motorcycles or mopeds may exceed posted time limits, but they may not exceed 12 hours during any paid parking session at a paid parking space. 6 zones. Enforcement begins at either 8 AM or 9 AM and ends between 6 PM and 10 PM. In CBD, 8 AM - 7 PM Mon - Sat, 1 PM - 7 PM Sun. Within event district overlay areas and during events, enforcement always begins 3 hours before an event and lasts until 3 hours after the event, regardless of typical hours or days of enforcement. Most zones: 8 AM - 8 PM. In some zones, time limits are in place until 10 PM and in others, time limits end at 6 PM. Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 57 Special Events Figure 45 shows special event parking metrics and rates for the peer cities. Figure 45. Special Event Parking Metrics (Peer Cities) On-Street Special Events Rate & Metric Peer City Denver Sacramento Boise Austin Portland Seattle Special Event Rates for On- Street Meters? No Yes No No Yes Yes Event Rate Structure N/A Event rates apply during events where more than 15,000 attendees are expected within a designated special event parking zone. During events, an event flat rate applies after the tiered time limit expires. The base rate for all tiers is $1.75. For Tier 1, the flat rate is $14; for Tier 2, the flat rate is $15.25; for Tier 3, the flat rate is $13.50. N/A N/A Within event overlay areas, meter rates increase to $4 per hour during events (starting 3 hours before event until 3 hours after it ends). There is a flat $0.20 Climate and Equity Transaction Fee for all parking transactions Event rates apply during events where more than 10,000 attendees are expected within the Uptown and Uptown Triangle zones. During events, between 5 PM and 10 PM, the first 2 hours of parking are $3 per hour. Additional hours after the first 2 are $8 per hour. Overnight Parking Figure 46 below shows specific regulations, time limits, or rates that may be in place for overnight parking within paid on-street parking areas in the peer cities. Figure 46. Overnight Parking Metrics (Peer Cities) Overnight Parking Metric Peer City Denver Sacramento Boise Austin Portland Seattle Overnight Parking Managed at On-Street Metered Spaces? (Excluding Permit Areas/RPPPs) Yes Not specified Not specified Not specified Not specified Not specified Overnight Parking Fee Schedule 10 PM - 2 AM: $1 per hour 2 AM - 6 AM: $0.50 per hour 6 AM - 8 AM: Free N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 58 “Move-It” Policy A “Move-it” policy or ordinance is one that specifies that vehicles must relocate to a different parking space once they have stayed the maximum allowed period of time within a metered on-street parking space. Figure 47 below shows selected information about the peer cities’ “Move-it” policies. Figure 47. Move-it Policies (Peer Cities) Move-It Ordinance Metric Peer City Denver Sacramento Boise Austin Portland Seattle "Move It" Ordinance Yes Yes Unspecified Unspecified Yes Yes Minimum Distance a Vehicle Must be Moved 100' One city block Unspecified Unspecified Another block face or 500 feet One block How Long Ordinance is In Effect 24 hours Unspecified Unspecified Unspecified 3 hours Unspecified Metered Parking Violations and Fines Figure 48 below is a schedule of fees and fines for various selected on-street parking violations that are directly applicable to metered parking in the selected peer cities. Figure 49 shows the lowest, average, and highest fines for each selected violation. Note that the exact violation labels, definitions, language, and context in each peer city’s code for the violations listed may differ; Walker selected the particular violations and fines for each city that are most equivalent to Salt Lake City’s respective violations and associated fines. Figure 48. Metered Parking Violations and Fines (Peer Cities) Selected On-Street Violation & Other Violation Metric Peer City Denver Sacramento* Boise** Austin*** Portland Seattle**** Overtime Meter $35 $35 $21 $30 $44 1st offense; $50 2nd offense, $70 3rd offense. $44 Meter Violation $35 $50 N/A $40 $65 $47 Parking Outside of Allowed Hours $35 $40 $26.50 $40 $65 - $95 $47 "Feeding the Meter" $35 $25 N/A $40 $44 $44 Accessible Space Violation $350 $445 $159 $300 $165 $450 Graduated Fines? No No No No Yes (Overtime meter) Yes (Overtime violations after 1st are $47) Notes * $12.50 mandatory surcharge for all violations ** $15 late fee for fines over 6 months *** Fees represent standard fine. Fines are reduced if paid early. All fines include $5 in statutory court costs. **** Fine schedule notes that there is a fine of $47 for "repeated overtime" violations Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 59 Figure 49. Metered Parking Violations and Fines - Summary Statistics (Peer Cities) Selected On-Street Violation & Other Violation Metric Peer Cities Salt Lake City Min (1st Offense) Average Max Overtime Meter $21 $33 $44 $35 Meter Violation $35 $42 $50 $75 Parking Outside of Allowed Hours $27 $35 $40 $23 "Feeding the Meter" $25 $33 $40 $23 Accessible Space Violation $159 $314 $445 $150 Additionally, according to the 2022 Uniform Fine Schedule for traffic-related offenses, as provided by the Utah State Court System, the suggested fine for an accessible parking space violation is $340.2 2 Utah Courts. “2022 Uniform Fine Schedule.” Accessed September 19, 2022. https://www.utcourts.gov/rules/appendices/Appendix_C/Uniform_Fine_Schedule.pdf Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 60 Peer City Benchmarking Key Takeaways • Time limits o Salt Lake City is the only city that has a uniform time limit in place for all metered parking areas ▪ In 4 of 6 peer cities, the time limit varies depending on area/zone ▪ In 2 of 6 peer cities, a tiered rate system is in place that enables stays of up to 10 hours • Parking rates o Salt Lake City is the only city that has a flat hourly rate for metered parking that does not vary by area, length of stay, or tier ▪ 4 cities have rates that differ by area/zone ▪ 2 cities have rates that differ by length of stay ▪ 1 city has rates that differ by both zone and time of day ▪ 1 city has rates that differ by both area/zone and length of stay o Salt Lake City is the only city that does not charge for parking on Saturdays in all metered areas ▪ 3 of the 6 peer cities have paid parking uniformly in place on Saturdays ▪ The other peer cities have paid parking in place on Saturdays only within certain areas/zones o 4 of the peer cities have paid parking in place on Sundays in some areas/zones and/or during special events • Hours and days of enforcement o Salt Lake City is the only city that has uniform hours of enforcement in place for all metered parking areas • Special events o 3 of the peer cities have different rate and enforcement structures for special events within certain areas • Overnight parking o Denver has implemented a special rate structure and policies for overnight parking at metered spaces. o Other peer jurisdictions, as well as Salt Lake City, have no special rules pertaining to overnight parking ▪ Overnight parking at metered spaces may either be unrestricted or be subject to “no overnight parking” rules between certain posted hours • Move-it policy o 5 of 6 peer cities with “move-it” policies explicitly identified require vehicles to move at least one city block or block face away, the same as Salt Lake City o For cities where a time limit was specified, a vehicle cannot park on the same block face again for at least three hours • Violations and fines o All the peer cities observed have higher fines associated with parking outside allowed hours and “feeding the meter.” o Salt Lake City’s fine for accessible space violations is less than half the average fine for the peer cities o 2 of 6 peer communities have graduated fine structures in place for some or all violations Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 61 Selected Off-Street Parking Rates & Fees Salt Lake City does not directly own, operate, or manage any paid off -street parking facilities for general public use. However, as part of this study, Walker has performed an overview of paid parking rates for privately owned - and -operated off-street parking facilities downtown as a benchmark for which to compare existing on-street parking rates. In all, Walker benchmarked 26 off-street parking facilities that offer paid parking for general public use. Rates researched are shown in Figure 50 below and are current as of July 2022. Note that per-hour figures in cells highlighted in light orange have been calculated from a listed rate other than one hour (e.g., a given rate for 20 minutes was multiplied by 3 to determine the effective rate for 1 hour). Figure 50. Selected Off-Street Parking Rates in Downtown Salt Lake City (Day Parking) Name of Facility Address Parking Operator Hotel? Garage? Flat Rate Night/ Evening Rate per 1 Hour per 2 Hours per Day or Max Rate The Parkside Tower 215 State St. SP+ No Yes $3.00 $4.00 $10.00 Marriott City Center 220 South State St. Marriott Yes Yes $4.00 $20.00 242 East Broadway 242 E. Broadway ABM No No $3.00 $1.50 $3.00 236 Shelmerdine Ct. 236 Shelmerdine Ct. ABM No No $3.00 $2.00 $4.00 Broadway Center 111 E. Broadway ABM No Yes $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $10.00 175 E. 400 S. Lot 175 E. 400 S. No No $3.50 $7.00 Walker Center Garage 160 Regent St. ABM No Yes $2.00 $3.00 $15.00 One Utah Center 201 Main St. ABM Yes Yes $12 Wells Fargo Center 299 S. Main St. ABM No Yes $3.00 $8.00 Exchange Place 24 E. Broadway ABM No Yes $4.00 South State Garage 324 State St. ABM No Yes $5.00 $3.00 $4.00 $10.00 Marriott City Creek 75 W. Temple Marriott Yes Yes $4.00 $19.00 175 Parking 175 W. Temple Diamond Parking Services No Yes $10 $5.00 American Plaza Garage 255 W. Temple Republic Parking System No Yes $4.00 $7.00 222 S. Main Garage 222 S. Main ABM No Yes $4.00 $6.00 $20.00 Hilton Salt Lake City Center 255 W. Temple Hilton Yes Yes $22 City Creek Parking 50 W. 500 S. City Creek No No $8 Grand America Garage 555 S. Main Grand America Hotel Yes Yes $5.00 $9.00 $25.00 Salt Palace Convention Center 100 S. Temple Salt Palace No Yes $15 Axis Garage 76 Pierpont Ave. ABM No Yes $5.00 $4.00 $6.00 $10.00 U066 Lot 171 W. Pierpont Ave. Diamond Parking Services No No $5.00 $10.00 Sheraton Salt Lake City 150 W. 500 S. SP+ Yes Yes $2.50 $5.00 $15.00 330 W. Temple Lot 220 W. Temple ABM No No $6.00 Hilton DoubleTree 110 W. 600 S. Hilton Yes Yes $15 Royal Wood Lot 250 W. 200 S. ABM No No $5.00 $1.50 $3.00 $5.00 U127 Lot 254 S. 200 W. Diamond Parking Services No No $5.00 $10.00 Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 62 Figure 51 below shows summary statistics calculated based on Figure 50 above. Figure 51. Selected Off-Street Parking Rates (Day Parking) – Summary Statistics Per Day or Day Max Rate per Hour Evening Rate Lowest Average Highest Lowest Average Highest Lowest Average Highest $5.00 $14.45 $25.00 $1.50 $3.42 $5.00 $2.00 $4.25 $6.00 Also, Walker has researched the cost of monthly parking permit rates at selected off -street facilities where such parking is offered. While Salt Lake City currently does not offer or provide permit-based parking at any of its paid on-street meters, it could use off-street parking permit rates benchmarked here as a baseline for establishing costs for such permits in the future. In all, 15 downtown parking facilities were researched that offered, as of July 2022, monthly permitted parking, as shown in Figure 52 below. Figure 52. Selected Off-Street Parking Rates in Downtown Salt Lake City (Monthly Permit Parking) Name of Facility Address Parking Operator Hotel? Garage? Monthly Rate (Unreserved) Monthly Rate (Reserved) CBRE 257 Parking 257 E. 200 S. CBRE No Yes $55.00 U071 Lot 256 E. 300 S. Diamond Parking Services No No $100.00 U013 Lot 217 E. 400 S. Diamond Parking Services No No $100.00 U145 Lot 220 S. Edison St. Diamond Parking Services No Yes $95.00 Brighton Bank Lot 311 S. State St. Diamond Parking Services No No $85.00 175 E. 400 S. Lot 175 E. 400 S. No No $120.00 Regent Street Garage 119 S. Regent St. City Creek No Yes $115.00 $132.00 One Utah Center 201 Main St. ABM Yes Yes $95.00 South State Garage 324 State St. ABM No Yes $105.00 175 Parking 175 W. Temple Diamond Parking Services No Yes $105.00 170 S. Main 170 S. Main ABM No Yes $85.00 City Creek Parking 50 W. 500 S. City Creek No No $64.00 Axis Garage 76 Pierpont Ave. ABM No Yes $80.00 U066 Lot 171 W. Pierpont Ave. Diamond Parking Services No No $100.00 U075 Lot 279 W. 200 S. Diamond Parking Services No No $100.00 Figure 53 below shows summary statistics calculated based on Figure 52 above. Figure 53. Selected Off-Street Parking Rates (Monthly Parking) – Summary Statistics Lowest Monthly Rate Average Monthly Rate (Unreserved) Average Monthly Rate (Reserved) Highest Monthly Rate $55.00 $87.33 $101.20 $132.00 Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 63 Recommendations & Other Suggested Items On-Street Parking Time Limits Salt Lake City has a uniform time limit of two hours in place for all metered parking. It is the only city, compared to the peer cities examined, that has a uniform time limit. Having different time limits in place can serve to customize or tailor on-street parking to the adjacent land uses the parking serves and account for the particular predominate use case for that parking. Longer time limits can allow for longer parking stays to take place, giving parkers a chance to avoid citations for overtime parking or for “feeding the meter.” Shorter time limits can allow for higher turnover compared to the average parking space for very high demand or high-activity parking spaces. From a revenue generation perspective, time limits for paid parking are mostly unrelated to a space’s revenue generation potential. Within an 8-hour period, the amount of revenue generated would be the same (under a flat-rate system) whether the space sees four vehicles parked for 2 hours a piece or whether it sees one vehicle parked for 8 hours. It should be noted that under a tiered system, longer time limits may actually increase revenue compared to a flat-rate system, all other things being equal, since some parkers will pay a higher rate per hour to for longer stays. Recommendations • In conjunction with suggested actions regarding parking rates, increase time limit from 2 to 4 hours, at least for most spaces within the paid system. o A tiered or graduated rate structure would take over as the primary mechanism for encouraging turnover and incentivizing shorter stays while allowing longer stays if needed without being in violation. o A maximum time limit should still be in place to discourage overnight parking. Suggested Items for Consideration • Time limits of fewer than 2 hours for certain spaces in very high demand areas or in other special contexts. On-Street Parking Rates Salt Lake City is a large city and has a high-activity and diverse downtown that continues to grow. It is not exclusively comprised of office land use where activity peaks between 9 AM and 5 PM on weekdays. The downtown, as well as peripheral areas such as Gateway, feature dining, night life, entertainment, and services land uses, as well as the continued development of multi-family residential. On-street meter rates today in Salt Lake City are universally $2.25 per hour, and Saturdays and Sundays are free. This is despite substantial differences in the ways that parkers use metered parking, as well as differences in parking occupancy and activity levels across the paid parking area. Also, according to Walker’s current understanding, a two-hour time limit for on-street parking still applies on Saturdays despite decreased or no enforcement on Saturdays as parking is free. Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 64 Every peer city examined has on-street metered parking rates that varied across the system. Rates vary as a function of area or zone, length of stay, tier, or time of day. It should be noted that, for every peer city, the highest rate observed, for at least the first 2 hours, was lower than Salt Lake City’s flat rate, with the typical highest rate for the first hour, regardless of tier or zone, being $2 per hour. In the case of parking rates that vary by area, some areas/zones feature higher per-hour rates than others as a function of the land use density and activity levels of a given area. The highest-activity areas within the central business district command higher prices than lower-density areas and/or areas with lower activity levels. The rate, therefore, takes into account the value, or the “market rate,” of on-street parking dynamically. An alternative or additional way to account for the “market rate” of a respective metered parking space is to vary the rate by time of day or day of week, acknowledging that parking demand may differ widely based on time of day for all areas/zones, regardless of the peak level of activity for that area/zone. In the case of parking rates that vary by length of stay, rates are designed to escalate according to a tier structure, with lower rates for the first hour or two than for subsequent hours. For these peer systems, a graduated, or tiered, rate system accomplishes the purpose of encouraging on-street parking turnover while also allowing for longer parking stays to take place if needed, giving parkers a chance to avoid citations for overtime parking or for “feeding the meter. Parking meter rates should, first and foremost, be set at rates that match the cost of services and programs that the revenue is intended to pay for. Also, they should be responsive to users’ parking behavior patterns, which can differ widely, and potentially be future proofed for managing other uses of the curb within the paid parking area, such as TNC’s (Uber/Lyft), commercial deliveries/loading, or other short-term use. One other important consideration or best practice is that on-street parking should, in general, be more expensive per hour than off-street parking. This is to incentivize longer-term parkers to use off-street facilities, freeing up on-street parking for shorter stays and increasing parking availability for customers or visitors. If on - street parking is not as expensive as off-street parking, on-street parking may be occupied by employees and other long-term parkers who are cost incentivized not to use off-street parking, which typically already operates at a competitive and convenience disadvantage. Parkers of all user groups may elect to “cruise,” or circulate around the street grid looking for or waiting for an on-street space to free up instead of using an off-street space. This can cause inconvenience from a time perspective as well as cause traffic congestion and unnecessary greenhouse gas emissions. While Salt Lake City does not operate a system of city-owned and -operated parking structures or lots intended for general public use, the average per-hour rate for private parking garages is higher than the per-hour rate for on-street parking by more than a dollar. For long-term parkers, a rate structure should be set up such that the rate per hour for stays exceeding 4 hours is higher than the predominate average off -street parking rate, in order to incentivize parkers to use off-street facilities instead for long stays. Recommendations • Increase base rate from $2.25 to $2.50 per hour. • Transition to a tiered rate structure where parking rates increase per hour for longer parking stays o In order to disincentivize long-term stays, and encourage such parkers to use off-street facilities, the per-hour rate should incrementally increase until at least the average off-street public parking rate is reached or exceeded. Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 65 o For the existing paid parking area, Walker recommends the following tiered rate schedule: ▪ $2.50 per hour for the first 2 hours. ▪ $5 per hour for the 3rd hour. ▪ $10 per hour for the 4th hour. Suggested Items for Consideration • Zone-based pricing for on-street rates o Zones should be defined based on parking demand patterns in a given area. ▪ Sugar House can or should be a separate zone from the existing paid area (downtown), with its own rate schedule that is commensurate with parking demand patterns in that area. ▪ Downtown can or should be divided into at least 2 zones, with 1 zone comprising high- utilization parking areas with higher rates and the other comprising lower-utilization parking areas with lower rates. • A different tiered rate schedule or flat per-hour schedule could be put into place for lower-demand zone(s). ▪ Other zones can be added when or if the area of the paid parking system were to increase with their own rate structure. On-Street Hours and Days of Enforcement Hours of enforcement are Monday – Friday from 8 AM to 8 PM in Salt Lake City. As with parking rates, this is also despite substantial differences in the ways that parkers use metered parking, as well as diffe rences in parking occupancy and activity levels across the paid parking area. Accordingly, every peer city examined also set different hours of enforcement that varied as a function of the same variables used to determine rate structures. Paid parking, as a baseline, should be in place during all time periods where parking activity levels warrant or justify it. Hours of enforcement should correlate with the dynamic rate structure and also be set as a function of the “market rate” and occupancy/behavior patterns. Parking enforcement requires time, labor, and resources. Enforcement should be more concentrated in areas of higher activity and/or higher revenue generation, and hours of enforcement should differ based on the parking activity patterns of a given area. Finally, cost-effective enforcement should be active during all times for which parking restrictions are in place in any paid system/within any paid area. Recommendations • Expand paid parking into Saturdays. o This change would align enforcement hours with paid parking hours across the week. • Extend paid parking to 10 PM within the existing paid parking area. Suggested Items for Consideration • Later end time for enforcement in areas and on days where on-street parking utilization remains elevated past 10 PM. o Such areas may include land uses such as night life, entertainment, et cetera. Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 66 • Earlier end time for enforcement in areas and on days where on-street parking utilization may decrease substantially after a certain time, making enforcement non-cost-effective o Such areas may include land uses such as single-use office. ▪ For such areas, enforcement may conclude at 5 or 6 PM. Special Events Like some of the peer cities examined, Salt Lake City’s downtown features at least one significant generator of special event activity: the Vivint Arena, used for professional basketball as well as for other special events such as concerts. As a result, on-street parking activity along streets immediately surrounding the arena may surge during games or events, which may occur during evenings or on weekends, and/or when parking activity levels are much lower than their typical peak. On-street parking in this area during such events should be reflective of and responsive to such surges, regardless of whether they remain at a flat rate or are set to vary during non-event times. Suggested Items for Consideration • Establish a special zone or an overlay zone around the Vivint Arena where special event paid parking rates and hours of enforcement would apply during large events at the arena. o For special event rates, the existing two-hour time limit for on-street parking would have to be eliminated or modified (See “Time Limits” above). o Walker suggests setting per-hour special event rates for the first 1 -2 hours based on the average per-hour rate for the off-street parking system to provide non-event parkers with an on-street parking option. o For every hour after the 2nd hour, the per-hour rate should be such that the “max rate” for an event should be competitive with event day maxes for the off-street parking system. Overnight Parking Salt Lake City is in line with most peer cities in terms of overnight parking. One city has implemented a special rate structure and policies for overnight parking. Suggested Items for Consideration • None at this time. Move-It Policy All peer cities that had a “Move-It” policy in place required vehicles within the on-street metered area to move at least one block face away from where they were previously parked once they reach the maximum time limit. However, all peer cities examined have typical city block lengths that are shorter than downtown Salt Lake City. Also, the time for which a parker may not be allowed to park within the minimum distance that the parker was required to move was at least 3 hours. Typically, a “no repark allowed” time of at least 3 hours helps to discourage drivers from moving to take advantage of longer time limits and/or lower parking rates that may go into effect during the parker’s stay. Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 67 Suggested Items for Consideration • Increase the time period for which a vehicle may not be allowed to return to the same parking space to at least 4 hours if time limits are expanded to 4 hours (See “Time Limits” above). Violations & Fines Fine amounts for parking violations should be set such that they incentivize parkers to not commit recurring violations. For violations that are serious in nature, fines should be set such that parkers are highly incentivized not to commit any violation. While the ultimate goal of parking management is to create and support transportation options for people and support uniform following of all rules and regulations, fines for violations are an important part of encouraging compliance and mitigating the negative consequences of rule breaking. For example, when a parker chooses to overstay a time limit in a parking space, they in turn reduce the ability of that parking space to serve other parkers. When a parker neglects to pay for a metered parking space, they reduce the revenue generated by that parking space and can impact the city’s ability to run services and programs paid for by parking revenues. There is undoubtedly a community impact associated with parking violations. If fines are too low, and especially if enforcement is lacking, parkers may simply choose to risk citation and pay a fine instead of moving their vehicles or paying the per-hour rate. Salt Lake City’s fine for overtime meters was in line with the peer city average. The city’s fine for meter violations was much higher, though the violation may be defined differently than for peer cities and is this not directly comparable. Fines for parking outside of allowed hours and for feeding the meter were lower than the peer city average, though it should be noted that some peer cities had rate and time limit structures such that those violations are partially or completely obsolete in those cities. The major divergence of note was the fine for accessible space violations, where the fine in Salt Lake City was notably less than the average for the peer cities. It was also less than the suggested fine amount found in the 2022 Uniform Fine Schedule as published by the Utah State Court System. Two of the 6 peer cities featured some version of graduated fines as a disincentive for repeated offenses. Recommendations • Increase fines from the current levels for all 5 parking violation types discussed in the peer benchmarking analysis. o Increases should bring fines for given violations more in line with the peer city averages and/or take into account inflation since fines were originally established. • The fine for accessible space violations should be closer to the suggested fine published by the Utah State Courts as of 2022 in their Uniform Fine Schedule ($340). Suggested Items for Consideration • Consider a graduated fine structure where fines increase by at least 25% for subsequent parking violations of the same type that occur within one year of the first such violation. Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 68 Appendix 07 Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 69 Appendix Evaluation of Metered Parking Recommendations Figure 54. Candidates for Removal in Existing Paid Area Address IPS Pole 245 E 300 S 34520 241 S 200 E 34560 356 W 200 S 34350 432 S 200 E 34133 450 S 300 E 34504 245 E 500 S 34486 447 S 100 E 34453 257 E 200 S 34463 256 E 300 S 34546 254 E 500 S 34501 333 S 200 E 34194 258 S 200 E 34562 249 S Edison St 34544 253 E 100 S 34573 110 W Pierpont Ave 34413 160 N Main St 34429 142 S 200 W 34442 143 N Main St 34434 185 E Social Hall Ave 34478 382 S West Temple St 34583 180 E Social Hall Ave 34477 48 S 200 E 34597 39 W 500 S 34541 55 S 200 E 34588 52 S 300 E 34570 44 W 500 S 34532 59 S 300 E 34516 Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 70 Potential Expansion of Parking Meters Mid to Long Term Figure 55. Specific Land Uses per Neighborhood Plan and Corresponding Generalized Land Uses Neighborhood or Sub Area Corresponding General Land Uses Specific Land Use from Neighborhood or Sub Area Plan Color Corresponding Density Corresponding Land Use Category Color Land Use/Zone Name Sugar House Master Plan Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Medium High Density Residential Medium Density Mixed Use Mixed Use - Low Intensity Business District Mixed Use - Neighborhood Scale High Density Mixed Use Mixed Use - High Intensity Business District Mixed Use - Town Center Scale Medium Density Commercial Neighborhood Business High Density Commercial N/A Central Community Master Plan Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential Medium High Density Residential High Density Residential High Density Residential Medium Density Mixed Use Medium Residential/Mixed Use Striped Residential/Office Mixed Use Medium Density Transit Orientated Development High Density Mixed Use High Mixed Use High Density Transit Orientated Development Medium Density Commercial Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial Striped Central Business District Support High Density Commercial Central Business District The Avenues Master Plan Medium Density Residential Medium Density (Residential) High Density Residential High Density (Residential) Medium Density Mixed Use N/A High Density Mixed Use N/A Medium Density Commercial Business/Commercial High Density Commercial N/A Capitol Hill Master Plan Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential Medium/High Density Residential High Density Residential High Density Residential Medium Density Mixed Use Striped (/) Medium Mixed Use Striped (\) Medium/High Mixed Use High Density Mixed Use Crosshatch (X) High Density Mixed Use Medium Density Commercial General Commercial High Density Commercial N/A Gateway District Land Development and Master Plan* Medium Density Residential N/A High Density Residential N/A High Density Mixed Use Striped (\) Residential White Dots Commercial Medium Density Mixed Use Retail Crosshatch (X) Secondary Support Commercial Medium Density Commercial N/A High Density Commercial N/A Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) WALKER CONSULTANTS | 71 Figure 56. Composite of Future Land Use Maps/Plans onto Study Areas FINANCIAL UPDATEJanuary 16, 2024 FY 2023 REVENUES –ALL $41.86 M Beyond Budget Spike in Q4 $(100,000,000) $- $100,000,000 $200,000,000 $300,000,000 $400,000,000 $500,000,000 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Sum of Actuals Cumulative Actuals Budget Amount Forecasted amount 2 Major Category Budget Actual Variance Taxes 287,722,785 313,755,533 26,032,748 Charges, Fees, and Rentals 4,432,794 5,811,688 1,378,894 Fines 3,765,174 3,519,515 (245,659) Interest Income 2,071,154 11,814,671 9,743,517 Interfund Reimbursement 24,431,717 25,857,520 1,425,803 Intergovernmental Revenue 4,644,622 5,936,560 1,291,938 Licenses and Permits 40,736,114 43,946,510 3,210,396 Miscellaneous Revenues 3,455,828 4,691,828 1,236,000 Parking Meter Collections 2,635,475 2,616,329 (19,146) Transfers 54,013,488 51,822,655 (2,190,833) Grand Total 427,909,151 469,772,809 41,863,658 FY 2023 REVENUES –ALL 3 FY 2023 EXPENSES –ALL $30 M Below Budget $- $100,000,000 $200,000,000 $300,000,000 $400,000,000 $500,000,000 $600,000,000 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Sum of Actuals Cumulative Total Budget 4 FY 2023 EXPENSES –PERSONNEL $- $50,000,000 $100,000,000 $150,000,000 $200,000,000 $250,000,000 $300,000,000 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Sum of Actuals Cumulative Total Budget $15.7 M Below Budget 5 FY 2023 VACANCY SAVINGS BY DEPT -$66,834 $789,622 $708,634 $666,939 $229,610 $949,060 $448,783 $93,219 $186,243 $722,641 $7,290,705 $366,830 $3,284,279 -20M M 20M 40M 60M 80M 100M 120M 911 Dispatch Bureau City Council Office Community & Neighborhoods Department of Finance Economic Development Fire Department Human Resources Department Justice Court Office of the City Attorney Office of the Mayor Police Department Public Lands Public Services Variance 2023 Amend Budget 2023 Actuals 6 Major Category Budget Actual Variance Personal Services 259,355,475 243,685,745 15,669,730 Charges and Services 96,134,386 86,396,601 9,737,785 Operating & Maintenance Supply 17,054,952 13,384,844 3,670,109 Capital Expenditures 7,102,802 3,053,081 4,049,721 Transfers Out 99,167,639 81,117,256 18,050,383* Carry Forward Encumbrances 21,157,931 Grand Total 478,815,254 427,637,526 30,019,797 FY 2023 EXPENSES –ALL 7 FY 2023 YEAR END FUND BALANCE TOTAL TOTAL Beginning Fund Balance 160,123,682 202,575,741 Use of Fund Balance (22,836,870) (32,868,799) Prior Year Encumbrances (20,423,209) (21,157,931) Estimated Beginning Fund Balance 116,863,603 148,549,011 Beginning Fund Balance Percent 24.85%33.42%Year End CAFR AdjustmentsRevenue Changes - - Expense Changes (2,257,746) (2,484,423) Fund Balance w/ CAFR Changes 114,605,857 146,064,588 Final Fund Balance Percent 24.37%32.86%Budget Amendment Use of Fund Balance (7,442,610) (1,170,982) Adjusted Fund Balance 178,933,386 143,722,624 Adjusted Fund Balance Percent 38.05%32.33% Projected Revenue 470,299,454 444,504,923 FY2023 Budget FY2024 Budget 8 Major Category FY 24 Budget FY 24 Actuals New Projection Variance Taxes 261,229,840 261,229,840 258,222,765 (3,007,075) Charges, Fees, and Rentals 5,427,047 5,427,047 6,452,523 1,025,476 Fines 2,561,547 2,561,547 2,567,590 6,043 Interest Income 8,000,000 8,000,000 8,000,000 0 Interfund Reimbursement 26,131,213 26,131,213 26,144,079 12,866 Intergovernmental Revenue 5,134,621 5,134,621 5,234,598 99,977 Licenses and Permits 40,879,327 40,879,327 40,934,211 54,884 Miscellaneous Revenues 4,458,012 4,458,012 4,478,294 20,282 Parking Meter Collections 2,801,089 2,801,089 2,801,089 0 Transfers 9,938,944 9,938,944 9,938,944 0 Total w/o Special Tax 366,561,640 366,561,640 364,774,093 (1,787,547) Sales Tax Additional ½49,084,479 49,084,479 49,484,479 400,000 Total General Fund 415,646,119 415,646,119 414,258,572 (1,387,547) FY 2024 REVENUE PROJECTION (NOVEMBER) 9 10 *Local Sales and Use Tax 1% Referred to as General Sales Tax Funding Our Future 0.5% County Option Sales Tax for Transportation 0.25% : City revenue is about 75% of tax at POS : 61% of Local Sales and Use revenue : 9% of Local Sales and Use revenue SALES TAX OVERVIEW HISTORICAL REVENUE 11 FY 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Actuals 61,864,445 64,897,423 66,324,147 73,778,034 86,532,634 89,090,809 89,500,000 Actuals Percentage Change 8.31%4.90%2.20%11.24%17.29%2.96%0.46% Budgets 58,016,887 62,950,961 65,350,000 62,049,593 68,119,999 83,500,000 92,500,000 Budgets Percentage Change 6.78%8.50%3.81%-5.05%9.78%22.58%10.78% Over/Under Budget 3,847,558 1,946,462 974,147 11,728,441 18,412,635 5,590,809 (3,000,000) - 20,000,000 40,000,000 60,000,000 80,000,000 100,000,000 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Sales Tax Budget vs Actuals Budgets Actuals *est. SALES TAX DISTRIBUTION (OCTOBER) 12 July - October Sales Tax Distribution: 75% Sector Name sales_credit Diff FY Y/Y % Ch % of Total sales_credit Diff FY Y/Y % Ch % of Total Retail Trade 11,669,931 886,646 8%38.6%11,710,220 40,289 0%40.0% Wholesale Trade 4,198,147 553,381 15%13.9%3,581,373 (616,775) -15%12.2% Accommodation and Food Services 3,790,277 674,979 22%12.5%3,920,095 129,817 3%13.4% Manufacturing 2,182,771 231,529 12%7.2%1,925,191 (257,580) -12%6.6% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 1,235,755 (160,637) -12%4.1%1,248,372 12,617 1%4.3% Information 1,380,392 93,315 7%4.6%1,265,843 (114,549) -8%4.3% Other Services (except Public Administration)880,333 (5,635) -1%2.9%840,602 (39,731) -5%2.9% Utilities 829,472 151,120 22%2.7%883,431 53,959 7%3.0% Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 861,274 118,225 16%2.9%876,139 14,866 2%3.0% Construction 841,073 401,516 91%2.8%538,670 (302,403) -36%1.8% Admin and Supp, Waste Mgmt and Rem Services 745,371 73,762 11%2.5%694,893 (50,478) -7%2.4% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 542,381 219,462 68%1.8%485,467 (56,914) -10%1.7% Total 29,157,177 3,237,662 12.5%96.5%27,970,296 (1,186,881) -4.1%95.6% 2023 2024 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: November 16, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: FY24 Budget Amendment #3 - Revised SPONSOR: NA STAFF CONTACT: Greg Cleary (801) 535-6394 or Mary Beth Thompson (801) 535-6403 DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget Amendment Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that subsequent to a public hearing, the City Council adopt the following amendments to the FY 2024 adopted budget. BUDGET IMPACT: REVENUE EXPENSE GENERAL FUND $0.00 $1,730,731.89 FLEET FUND $975,177.00 $975,177.00 CIP FUND $410,177.00 ($750,177.00) TRANSPORTATION FUND $0.00 ($205,177.00) IMPACT FEES FUND $0.00 $6,527,961.00 IMS FUND $12,000.00 $4,531,083.00 MISCELLANEOUS GRANTS FUND $1,705,700.79 $2,234,473.29 CDBG FUND $0.00 $46,642.50 TOTAL $3,103,054.79 $15,090,714.68 - " ' - 4 — * 1 @ E v A ? A B @ A w C ? ˜ - U H J ) O H D U \ Alejandro Sanchez (Nov 16, 2023 13:33 MST) rachel o//o (Nov 16, 2023 1у:06 MST)11ҝ16ҝ2023 11ҝ16ҝ2023 BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Revenue for FY 2024 Budget Adjustments The chart below presents General Fund Projected Revenues for FY 2024. Due to the timing of this budget amendment, there are no updates to the FY 2024 revenue projections. Revenues are trending as expected are there are no reasons to assume any variance to the initially adopted projections. The City has begun closing out the financials for Fiscal Year 2023, and will provide updates to Council as the audit progresses and is finalized. 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 - The table below presents updated Fund Balance numbers and percentages, based on the proposed changes included in Budget Amendment #3. With the adoption of Budget Amendment #3, the available fund balance will adjust to 14.08 percent of the FY 2024 Adopted Budget. 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) - - - BA#1 Expense Adjustment - - - (204,200) (204,200) BA#2 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - - BA#2 Expense Adjustment - - - - 763,950 763,950 BA#3 Revenue Adjustment - 6,000,000 6,000,000 - - - BA#3 Expense Adjustment - (6,538,000) (6,538,000) - (1,730,732) (1,730,732) 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 54,974,670 62,570,127 Adjusted Fund Balance Percent 29.60%24.64%25.04%14.51%14.02%14.08% 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 $3,103,054.79 in revenue and $15,090,714.68 in expenses. The amendment proposes changes in eight (8) funds, with an increase of nine (9.0) FTEs. The proposal includes 30 initiatives for Council review. A summary spreadsheet outlining proposed budget changes is attached. The Administration requests this document be modified based on the decisions of the Council. The budget amendment is separated in eight different categories: A. New Budget Items B. Grants for Existing Staff Resources C. Grants for New Staff Resources D. Housekeeping Items E. Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources F. Donations G. Council Consent Agenda Grant Awards I. Council Added Items PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. ______ of 2023 (Third 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 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 Fire Department Single-Role Paramedics GF - 150,119.00 Ongoing 4.00 1 Fire Department Single-Role Paramedics GF - 10,400.00 One-time - 2 ARPA Employee Expenses Misc Grants - 14,225.00 One-time - 3 Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal 4 City Attorney's Office Legislative Division GF - 297,220.40 Ongoing 4.00 4 City Attorney's Office Legislative Division GF - 12,000.00 One-time - 4 City Attorney's Office Legislative Division IMS 12,000.00 12,000.00 One-time - 4 City Attorney's Office Legislative Division GF 20,000.00 One-time - 5 Streets Impact Fee Funding for 2100 South Reconstruction Project Impact Fees - 3,323,590.00 One-time - 6 Streets Impact Fee Funding for 600/700 North Reconstruction Project Impact Fees - 3,204,371.00 One-time - 7 Access Control System Upgrade - Security GF - 400,000.00 One-time - 8 Compliance Electric Vehicle Funds Transfer to Fleet GF - (20,000.00)One-time - 8 Compliance Electric Vehicle Funds Transfer to Fleet GF - 20,000.00 One-time - 8 Compliance Electric Vehicle Funds Transfer to Fleet Fleet 20,000.00 20,000.00 One-time - 9 Road Marking Maintenance GF - 200,000.00 Ongoing - 10 Paystation Replacement GF - 135,992.49 One-time - 11 Rail Spur Removal GF - 205,000.00 Ongoing - 11 Rail Spur Removal CIP 205,000.00 205,000.00 One-time - 12 Temporary Shelter Community Misc Grants - 500,000.00 One-time - 13 Grant Employee - Finance - 6 Months @ 75%CDBG Grants - 43,642.50 Ongoing 0.75 13 Grant Employee - Finance - 6 Months @ 25%Misc Grants - 14,547.50 Ongoing 0.25 13 Grant Employee - Finance - One-time Costs CDBG Grants - 3,000.00 One-time - 14 Consulting for the Enterprise Billing Systems IMS - 250,000.00 One-time - 15 Mill & Overlay Pilot Program Equipment Transportation (205,177.00)One-time - 15 Mill & Overlay Pilot Program Equipment CIP 205,177.00 (955,177.00)One-time - 15 Mill & Overlay Pilot Program Equipment Fleet 955,177.00 955,177.00 One-time - 16 The Road Home - Family Hotel Winter Plan GF 300,000.00 One-time - 1 Move Funding for Downtown Central Precinct Tenant Improvements for North Temple Substation and Downtown Central Project GF - (513,208.00)One-time - 1 Move Funding for Downtown Central Precinct Tenant Improvements for North Temple Substation and Downtown Central Project GF - 513,208.00 One-time - 2 IMS FY 2023 Encumbrance Roll Forward IMS - 4,269,083.00 One-time - 3 Move Cultural Core Funding to Non-Departmental from Arts Council Cost Center GF (250,000.00)One-time - 3 Move Cultural Core Funding to Non-Departmental from Arts Council Cost Center GF 250,000.00 One-time - Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources - Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 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 #3 Consent Agenda #2 1 Utah Department of Natural Resources/Forestry Misc Grants 200,000.00 200,000.00 One-time - 2 Department of Workforce Services Know Your Neighbor Misc Grants 100,000.00 100,000.00 One-time - 3 EPA Salt Lake City Schovaers Cleanup Misc Grants 495,200.00 495,200.00 One-time - 4 Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG Grant)Misc Grants 38,000.00 38,000.00 One-time - 5 Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) SLCPD Victim Advocates Misc Grants 346,131.80 346,131.80 One-time - 6 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG)Misc Grants 386,620.00 386,620.00 One-time - 7 Rocky Mountain Power Make Ready Rosewood Park Misc Grants 29,507.51 29,507.51 One-time - 8 Rocky Mountain Power Make Ready Riverside Park Misc Grants 20,517.38 20,517.38 One-time - 9 Rocky Mountain Power Make Ready Regional Athletic Complex Misc Grants 12,881.77 12,881.77 One-time - 10 Rocky Mountain Power Make Ready Day Riverside LibraryMisc Grants 22,642.33 22,642.33 One-time - 11 FEMA Power Poles Cameras Misc Grants 39,200.00 39,200.00 One-time - 12 Utah Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force Misc Grants 15,000.00 15,000.00 One-time - Total of Budget Amendment Items 3,103,054.79 15,090,714.68 - - 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 - 1,730,731.89 - - 8.00 Fleet Fund Fleet 975,177.00 975,177.00 - - - CIP Fund CIP 410,177.00 (750,177.00) - - - Transportation Fund Transportation - (205,177.00) - - - Impact Fees Fund Impact Fees - 6,527,961.00 - - - IMS Fund IMS 12,000.00 4,531,083.00 - - - Miscellaneous Grants Misc Grants 1,705,700.79 2,234,473.29 - - 0.25 CDBG Operating Fund CDBG Grants - 46,642.50 - - 0.75 Total of Budget Amendment Items 3,103,054.79 15,090,714.68 - - 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 #3 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 448,514,918.00 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 - 0.00 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 36,800.00 975,177.00 33,120,946.00 IMS Fund (FC 65)36,254,357 9,000.00 6,000.00 12,000.00 36,281,357.00 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 16,197,423.00 1,705,700.79 26,823,040.79 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)30,199,756 218,000.00 25,485,893.25 410,177.00 56,313,826.25 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 1,623,631,451 263,800.00 41,751,732.25 3,103,054.79 - - 1,668,750,038.04 3 Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 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 (763,950.00)1,730,731.89 449,685,899.89 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 14,461,793.00 975,177.00 47,935,720.00 IMS Fund (FC 65)38,702,171 9,000.00 6,000.00 4,531,083.00 43,248,254.00 County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Transportation (FC 69)9,700,000 (205,177.00) 9,494,823.00 CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)5,597,763 46,642.50 5,644,405.50 Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)8,919,917 16,197,423.00 2,234,473.29 27,351,813.29 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 5,777,784.00 40,672,763.00 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 41,655,131.95 15,090,714.68 - - 1,840,552,848.63 Budget Manager Analyst, City Council Contingent Appropriation 4 Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 1 Section A: New Items A-1: Fire Department Medical Response Paramedics GF $150,119.00 GF $10,400.00 Department: Fire Prepared By: Chief Karl Lieb / Clint Rasmussen For questions, please include Chief Lieb, Clint Rasmussen, Greg Cleary and Mary Beth Thompson Current Status The Salt Lake City Fire Department (SLCFD) currently operates three Medical Response Teams (MRTs) with another funded at the Salt Lake City Airport beginning in January of 2024 for a total of four MRTs. Each MRT is comprised of 4 Firefighters (FFs), for a total of 16 FFs allocated and funded for the MRT program. All FFs currently allocated to the MRT are Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs). By staffing a MRT with 3 EMTs and 1 Paramedic, rather than 4 EMTS, the response capability would increase by Replacing one of the EMTs as a Paramedic (Advanced Life Support or ALS) would increase the capability of the MRTs by approximately 30% and allow them to perform more advanced patient assessments. Paramedics are currently at a premium nationwide. Fortunately, SLCFD trains and remains appropriately staffed with Paramedics on our Medic Engines (4-handed) for our optimal response model - two Paramedics on each of eight daily Medic (ALS) Engines within SLC. These Medic Engines respond to the most serious medical and fire calls and should remain staffed in this configuration as a 4-handed unit for maximum capability. Proposal This item it to establish 4 new FTEs (Medical Response Paramedics) and reclassify 4 existing FTEs (Firefighters) to Medical Response Paramedics. The SLCFD proposes to diversify our current MRT model by replacing and displacing a total of eight (8) MRT FF EMTs with Medical Response Paramedics (SRPs). This would ideally staff one (1) Paramedic on each unit of four daily operating MRTs. The transition would expand the current MRTs response capability with an ALS component while maintaining the integrity of the MRT as a FD resource responding from and residing within select SLCFD fire stations. The SRPs would be civilian, potentially sworn, and eligible to participate in the Firefighters or Tier 2 Public Safety/Firefighter retirement systems. The SRPs would participate in a training regimen developed by the SLCFD for their specific role within our EMS response model. SRPs will serve under a new job title, new wage schedule, and possibly as part of SLCFD’s Local 81 labor group. Process The SLCFD would realize eight (8) Medical Response Paramedics through a combination of additional FTEs and conversion of existing FTEs: 1. SLCFD is requesting four (4) additional FTEs in the form of Medical Response Paramedics at a half-year cost $150,119 plus some start-up costs of $10,400. Full year funding for FY25 would be an additional budget increase of $142,519. No new equipment (radio’s, tablets, vehicles, etc.) is required. These new positions would be funded for six months beginning January 2024. 2. SLCFD would retain the option to convert four (4) existing vacant FF positions currently funded for the MRT to SRPs by the end of calendar year 2023. 3. The remaining four FFs displaced by the four requested SRPs would be utilized to fill 4 -handed vacancies or additional resources throughout Salt Lake City in an effort to reduce OT and consistently staff SLCFD heavy apparatus. Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 2 A-2: ARPA Employee Expenses Misc. Grants $14,225.00 Department: Finance & Economic Development Prepared By: Mary Beth Thompson Funding in the amount of $14,225.00 is being requested to cover expenses for one grant employee for the remainder of the Fiscal Year. Throughout the year, staffing levels have been in flux to support this ongoing need . The additional amount will sufficiently cover the personnel expenses, factoring in vacancies savings, to support Economic Development’s ongoing ARPA grant activity. A-3: Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal A-4: City Attorney’s Office Legislative Division GF $297,220.40 GF $12,000.00 IMS $12,000.00 GF $20,000.00 Department: City Attorney Prepared By: Katherine Lewis For questions, please include Mary Beth Thompson, Greg Cleary, Katie Lewis This funding is to establish and support four (4) new FTEs, creating the Legislative Division within the City Attorney’s office. The primary focus of this division will be on legislative affairs, with special focus on the legislative session and the various impacts to Salt Lake City. The proposed funding in the amount of $297,220.40 assumes the positions to be filled for six-months in Fiscal Year 2024, with a hire date in January. The four (4) positions are to be ongoing, with a financial impact of $594,440.79 annually beginning if FY25. The four proposed positions are as follows: • Legislative Affairs Director (E34) • Senior City Attorney (E39) • Special Projects Analyst (E26) • Administrative Assistant (N21) The supporting Ordinance: • Establishes that because the City Attorney manages the legal affairs of both the executive and legislative branches of government, she reports to both the Mayor and Council chair, and can be removed at the discretion of the Mayor. • Clarifies that the City Attorney supervises the Recorder’s Office, Risk Management Division and Division of Legislative Affairs. • Clarifies that the City Attorney may retain outside counsel on behalf of the City, if she concludes that the City Attorney’s Office has a conflict of interest, is unable, or is unavailable to perform that legal work for the City. • Creates the Division of Legislative Affairs, which will be responsible for monitoring state and federal legislation and engaging in advocacy, collaboration, and tracking of all legislative matters for the City. • Establishes the director of legislative affairs, who will work with both branches of government on the City’s legislative agenda, and will report to both branches of government on legislative priorities and policies. This initial funding request accounts for one-time expenses for staff equipment such as computers ($12,000), funding via a Non Departmental Transfer ($12,000), and a tenant improvement to established workspaces and necessary equipment ($20,000). Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 3 A-5: Streets Impact Fee Funding for 2100 South Reconstruction Project Impact Fees $3,323,590.00 Department: Public Services – Engineering Prepared By: Mark Stevens For questions, please include Mark Stevens, Mike Atkinson, Jordan Smith, Jorge Chamorro Engineering and Transportation are requesting a budget amendment to increase the appropriation of Streets Impact Fees for the 2100 South Reconstruction Project. Multiple departments (Engineering, Transportation, the Finance Capital Asset Planning Team, and the Office of the City Attorney) have conducted an analysis of the 2100 South Reconstruction Project, and based on the increase in overall cost and the increase in the portion of the project related to Complete Streets, this project is eligible for an additional $3,323,590 of Streets Impact Fees. A-6: Streets Impact Fee Funding for 600/700 North Reconstruction Project Impact Fees $3,204,371.00 Department: Public Services – Engineering Prepared By: Mark Stevens For questions, please include Mark Stevens, Mike Atkinson, Jordan Smith, Jorge Chamorro Engineering and Transportation are requesting a budget amendment to increase the appropriation of Streets Impact Fees for the 600 North/ 700 North Reconstruction Project. Multiple departments (Engineering, Transportation, the Finance Capital Asset Planning Team, and the Office of the City Attorney) have conducted an analysis of the 600 North/ 700 North Reconstruction Project, and based on the increase in overall cost and the increase in the portion of the project related to Complete Streets, this project is eligible for an additional $3,204,371 of Streets Impact Fees. A-7: Access Control System Upgrade – Security GF $400,000.00 Department: Public Services Prepared By: Jorge Chamorro For questions, please include Jorge Chamorro The current access control system and devices across City buildings are now considered outdated and vulnerable, and staff are proposing this be addressed before the system fails. This system is used for access badges issued to all City employees to scan at certain doors to gain access to a given space. The Safety and Security Program proposes continuing the transition to the S2 control access system as a City-wide standard. With the recent allocation of funding from Council, the Public Safety Buildi ng and City Hall have upgraded their back-end software. The funding requested for the next phase should transition Plaza 349 and the Justice Courts. Additionally, access cards and card readers will be purchased for all four buildings. This project scope has been developed with staff from various departments, including IMS, to ensure standards and needs are met. The estimated cost for this project is $400,000. A-8: Compliance Electric Vehicle Funds Transfer to Fleet GF ($20,000.00) GF $20,000.00 Fleet $20,000.00 Department: Public Services – Compliance Prepared By: Erik O’Brien / Julie Crookston For questions please include Erik O’Brien, Julie Crookston, Nancy Bean, Denise Sorensen Public Services - Compliance is requesting a transfer of $20,000 to the Fleet Replacement Fund helping cover the difference in cost to purchase two electric trucks instead of the originally funded smaller vehicles. Fleet has been presented with an opportunity to order these electric trucks. One of the vehicles is part of the replacement cycle, upgrading the originally intended vehicle to a more capable one, and will allow for Parking Enforcement operations to continue during winter snow events, especially in areas like the Avenues. Additionally, the extra cargo space is needed to transport equipment such as pay station kiosks and equipment as needed. In addition to these advantages, the second Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 4 vehicle will provide adequate space to transport three (3) mitigation officers (FTEs recently approved) and their supplies for our Long-Term Parking Mitigation Team. The addition of these 2 EVs will bring Compliance closer to their goal to have a 100% electric fleet. A-9: Road Marking Maintenance GF $200,000.00 Department: Public Services – Streets Prepared By: Jorge Chamorro For question, please include Jorge Chamorro Over the past few years the Transportation Division has been successful in obtaining funding for special road markings through the CIP process, which include green paint on certain bike lanes . After assessing the current inventory of assets made up of 1010 bike racks and 3.23 miles of green-painted bike lanes and markings, staff has concluded that this ongoing maintenance need should no longer rely on the CIP process but rather be added to the Streets operating budget. At this time the need does not justify upfront cost of equipment procurement, Streets will develop a maintenance schedule and oversee a contract to perform the necessary maintenance work. If funding is approved for this item, though most of the work would not occur in the winter, contract development and work scheduling could be done in the meantime with work happening as weather allows. The Streets Division is requesting $200,000 to be added to their budget for ongoing maintenance of road markings and assets recently inventoried. A-10: Pay Station Replacement GF $135,992.49 Department: Public Services/Finance For questions please include Mary Beth Thompson and Jorge Chamorro The current pay stations were purchased over 10 years ago. Due to their age, they are past the end of their useful life and a t risk of failure. New pay stations will allow the City to modernize the services offered to end users. The new pay stations will provide more features for the public including parking payment, information sharing about events going on city wide, the capability to pay by license plate technology, potential pollution sensors, and other innovative features. The modernization of the pay stations will allow for smoother staff operations and continued service to end users. City Finance is recommending a 7-year amortization rather than using the General Fund for one-time payment. The amortization schedule is attached and includes a 7-year payment schedule, with $135,992.49 due in Year 1, and $271,984.98 due in years two (2) through year seven (7). This includes an interest rate of 4.60%. The Council may consider a 5-year schedule which is also attached, with an interest rate of 4.77%. This item is being brought forward with Budget Amendment 3 due to the Request for Proposal process and market conditions around equipment. At the time of budget development, staff did not have clear insight into the cost or timeline of pay station procurement and delivery. Following the completion of the RFP process, staff feel it is best to proceed with the selected vendor for the reasons outlined above. A-11: Rail Spur Removal GF $205,000.00 CIP $205,000.00 Department: Public Services – Engineering Prepared By: Jorge Chamorro / JP Goates For questions, please include Jorge Chamorro and JP Goates Housekeeping request to move $205,000, approved by Council on BA#1 of FY23, item A -7, but placed on a GF cost center, and were recaptured at the end of FY23, from Fund Balance to a Capital Project Cost Center for Engineering to initiate the project. An overview of the original request is below. Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 5 The property on which this rail spur is located, 535 S. 600 W., was conveyed in 1997 by the City to a private party, with partial consideration for this conveyance being an easement to construct, operate, and maintain a railroad spur and associated facilities. Pursuant to an Amended and Restated Easement and Boundary Line Agreement, executed on July 3, 2000, the easement shall terminate if the City ceases to use the rail spur for more than one year, and that the City shall remove the related infrastructure at the City’s expense. Since the rail spur has not been used fo r over one year, the City is contractually obligated to remove it. A-12: Temporary Shelter Community (Sanctioned Camping) Misc. Grants $500,000 Department: Police Department Prepared By: Greg Cleary/Shellie Dietrich Staff is requesting a budget amendment in the amount of $500,000 to support startup costs associated with city efforts around a Temporary Shelter Community or Sanctioned Camping. This funding will allow staff to roll out the program, with ongoing assessment in needs, service levels, and funding being further developed in the coming months. Specifically, the $500,000 will support the Police Departments role in this effort , with overtime staffing of offers at the temporary shelters. In addition to the program, the most effective and efficient police staffing levels will also be assessed. The Police Department will look to savings in other areas of the budget to help support the program, notably with the savings realized with any vacant positions. Staff will return to council in the coming months with additional funding requests as needed, and once there is better data and information available on what the program is to entail and what might be needed to fund the ongoing efforts. Attached to this item is an ARPA financial reconciliation. A-13: New Financial Grant Analyst – Housing Stability Program Support CDBG Grants $46,642.50 Misc. Grants $14,547.50 Department: CAN Prepared By: Randy Hillier For questions, please include Mary Beth Thompson, Blake Thomas and Tony Milner This request is for funding to support one FTE for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2024, which is intended to oversee the grant allocation from the ARPA program, supporting the Housing Stability Program. The proposed Finance Grant Analyst will work under the direction of the Deputy Director of Finance and will assist in the financial monitoring of multiple grants to ensure compliance with city financial processes as well as state and federal grant requirements . The position will be split across two grant funding sources – 75% CDBG and 25% Misc. Grants. A job description for this position is attached. A-14: Consulting for Enterprise Billing Systems IMS $250,000.00 Department: IMS Prepared By: Joseph Anthony / Gloria Cortes For questions, please include Aaron Bentley, Gloria Cortes and Joesph Anthony This item provides funding for consulting services for the Enterprise Billing systems for PUBS which is primarily used by Sustainability and Public Utilities. PUBS needs to be replaced or upgraded, and the consultant work includes an analysis of the city's needs and compare that to best practices and make a recomm endation on where the city should be moving with regards to future decisions. Microsoft’s has the city’s current solution mapped at the end of life by FY2025. Therefore, staff are initiating the work to finding a solution in the current year have an adequate platform it in place by the beginning of FY2025. The proposal and expenses will be paid for by the annual allocation that IMS uses to collect its revenue on an annual basis and is estimated based on 1,000 hours of work, at $250 per hour. Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 6 A-15: Mill & Overlay Pilot Program - CIP Equipment Transp. Fund ($205,177.00) CIP ($750,000.00) Fleet Fund $955,177.00 Department: Public Services Prepared By: Denise Sorensen, Julie Crookston, Greg Cleary For questions, please include Jorge Chamorro, Dawn Valente, Mike Atkinson, and Mary Beth Thompson Streets received notification in August that the Council had adopted the CIP application of equipment for the Mill & Overlay program, totaling $750,000. As Streets began to coordinate with Fleet to purchase the equipment it became apparent that the manufacturers ordering window for 2023 had already closed. The 2024 window has now opened, however the manufacturer increased prices such that there is now a $205,200 deficit (includes make -ready). This item is to request an additional $205,200 to cover the increase in price, as well as the transfer of the $750,000 from the CIP Fund to the Fleet Replacement Fund. The vendor has notified us that there will be another price increase, estimated at approximately $7,000 around mid - December 2023. The next price increase will incur in July 2024, however if we do not have the equipment by Spring 2024 it will be very difficult to evaluate the pilot program as the equipment used during the first part of the fiscal year has been a combination of shared and/or rented. This item includes financial adjustments from the Transportation Fund (1/4 cent sales tax), CIP Funds, and the Fleet Fund to ensure the most appropriate use of funds for the proposed capital equipment procurement. When initially preparing the Capital Budget, the Mill and Overlay Maintenance Pilot Program was funded in the amount of $750,000 with the ¼ cent sales tax or the “Transportation Fund”, which is to be dedicated to transportation related projects. However, after consultation with city staff, it was determined that the ¼ cent sales tax is no t intended to support equipment expenses. As a result, staff is reallocating the $750,00o to the Complete Streets Project, and is proposing to utilize an additional $205,177 of available Transportation Funds to support the Complete Streets Reconstruction Project, where this funding source is better aligned and is eligible for the given project. This adjustment results in a reduction of general CIP funds needed to support the Complete Streets Reconstruction Project in the amount of $750,000, which are to be transferred to the Fleet Fund for the capital equipment procurement in support of the Mill and Overlay project. The end result of these adjustments includes the use of $205,177 of Transportation Funds to support the Complete Streets Project. A-16: The Road Home - Family Hotel Winter Interim Plan GF $300,000.00 Department: CAN Prepared by: Brent Beck, Greg Cleary For questions, please include Blake Thomas and Andrew Johnston In support of The Road Home program, staff is proposing the use of up to $300,000 from General Fund Fund Balance to assist the State by adding additional motel options for families ahead of the winter months. The goal of this program is to expand support for families to step out of the cold into a sheltered situation until the opening of the Family Non- Congregate Shelter in 2024. The use of $300,000 from GF Fund Balance is proposed following council action in Budget Amendment #2, which allocated $1M back to Fund Balance, associated with the Discontinued Deeply Affordable Housing Development. Attached is the Road Home Family Hotel Winter Interim Plan which outlines the program in more detail, challenges the program faces, staffing levels, and how additional funds will support the program. The Administration is requesting that the Council hold a Straw Poll on funding this initiative to expedite the budget for use in this program. Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 7 Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Section D: Housekeeping D-1: Moving Funding for Downtown Central Precinct Tenant Improvements for North Temple Substation and Downtown Central Project GF ($513,208.00) GF $513,208.00 Department: CAN Prepared By: Brent Beck For question, please include Brent Beck, Blake Thomas, Tammy Hunsaker, JP Goates Funding for the Downtown Central Precinct Tenant Improvements for North Temple Sub Station and Downtown Central Project in the amount of $513,208 was added by the Council to the CAN budget during the budget decision making process. However, this funding should have gone to Public Services since it will be the Facilities division that will be managing the improvements. This item does not allocate any additional funding, but simply moves funding from one department to another for the same work. D-2: IMS FY 2023 Encumbrance Roll Forward IMS $4,269,083.00 Department: IMS Prepared By: Joseph Anthony / Gloria Cortes For questions, please include Joseph Anthony, Gloria Cortes, Aaron Bentley IMS has encumbered money that was expected to be paid out of the FY23 funds and either will need to be paid, or has already been paid in FY24. These encumbrances are listed in the Carry Over Encumbrance reports. All of these items have been approved for purchase by central finance in a prior year. These expenses will be paid for by the annual allocation that IMS uses to collect it's revenue on an annual basis. D-3: Move Cultural Core Funding to Non-Departmental from Arts Council Cost Center GF ($250,000.00) GF $250,000.00 Department: Non-Departmental, Economic Development Prepared By: Greg Cleary For questions, please include: Mary Beth Thompson, Lorena Riffo -Jenson, Felicia Baca This item is to move funds from the Art’s Council Division to the Economic Development’s Non-Departmental budget. This is an effort to align funding with the appropriate cost center within the new financial system. Section E: Grants Requiring No Staff Resources Section F: Donations Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 8 Section G: Consent Agenda Consent Agenda G-1: Utah Department of Natural Resources/Forestry Misc. Grants $200,000.00 Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Amy Dorsey The Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands (FFSL) has awarded Salt Lake City $200,000 for the purposes of removing navigational hazards, including downed trees, garbage, and other debris from the Jordan River from 2100 South to 2400 North. This funding will provide for safer conditions on the river channel for recreational boaters. Public hearing was held on September 19, 2023 No match is required. G-2: Department of Workforce Services-- Know Your Neighbor Misc. Grants $100,000.00 Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: Amy Dorsey DWS is extending the Salt Lake City's Know Your Neighbor contract. The original contract was for $100,000 to pay for the salary and benefits of a full-time volunteer coordinator from October 1, 2022, to September 30,2023. The extension will include an increase of $100,000 to extend the period for one year starting October 1, 2023, and ending September 30, 2024. Thus, making the total amount of the contract $200,000. This is a refugee volunteer program that runs through the Mayor’s office. This program benefits refugee clients as well as people from the larger community who volunteer to help. Public Hearing will be held November 7, 2023 No Match is required. G-3: EPA Salt Lake City Schovaers Electronics Cleanup Misc. Grants $495,200.00 Department: RDA Prepared By: Amy Dorsey This is one of two Brownfields grants awarded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the Salt Lake City area for the purpose of cleaning up land of hazardous substances, pollutant or contaminants for the revitalization of the properties. These grants are part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). This grant has been awarded to Salt Lake City in the amount of $495,200 to conduct remediation activities at the former Schovaers site (22 South Jeremy Street) in Salt Lake City. A second grant for $1 million was awarded to Salt Lake County for the assessment and cleanup projects in Magna Township. Public hearing was held on December 13, 2022 No Match is required. G-4: Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) Misc. Grants $38,000.00 Department: Fire Prepared By: Amy Dorsey The Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) provides state, local, tribal and territorial emergency management agencies with the resources required for implementation of the National Preparedness System and works toward the National Preparedness Goal of a secure and resilient nation. This is the annual allocation from the state and will be used to support Emergency Management functions and programs. A public hearing was held on May 16, 2023. A 50% match is required. G-5: Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) - SLCPD Victim Advocates Misc Grants $346,131.80 Department: Police Prepared By: Amy Dorsey The Salt Lake City Police Department is requesting continuation funding for our SLCPD VOCA grant funded Victim Advocate positions. Additionally, there are emergency funds for assisting victims included in the application. Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 9 The grant will continue to fund 2.69 existing FTEs and includes emergency funds that will be used to help victims. This is a two-year grant. The period of performance starts July 1, 2023, and ends June 30,2025. Public hearing will be on November 7, 2023. No match is required. G-6: Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Misc. Grants $386,620.00 Department: Police Prepared By: Amy Dorsey The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program (JAG) allows states and local governments to support a broad range of activities to prevent and control crime and to improve the criminal justice system, some of which could have environmental impacts. The Salt Lake City Police Department will use this money for the following : • Professional Travel Training for Sworn and Civilian Staff - $40,125 • Pole Cameras - $20,000 • High Speed License Plate Recognition (+Accessories) - $22,970 • Climbing Equipment - $20,160 • Night Vision Goggles and Mounts - $49,098 • Optics - $11,192 • Ballistic Rated Windshields - $19,500 • Surveillance Trailer Maintenance and Replacement - $14,000 • K9 GPS and Narcotics Enforcement Supplies - $6,132 • Community Policing and Targeted Enforcement Overtime - $76,100 • Subaward to Salt Lake County (BJA allocation) - $53,672 • Subaward to Unified Police Department (BJA allocation) - $53,671 No new staff members are proposed as part of this item. A public hearing was held on September 19, 2023. No match is required. G-7: Rocky Mountain Power Make Ready Rosewood Park Misc. Grants $29,507.51 Department: Sustainability Prepared By: Amy Dorsey This item supports necessary infrastructure for the installation of one (1) approved dual port charger at Rosewood Park, located at 1400 North 1200 West in Salt Lake City. This charger will be available to the public 24/7. There is no cost related to the charger in this incentive. Accepting the incentive payment obligates the participant to maintain functioning chargers and allow public access 24/7 for a minimum of five years, starting from the date of the incentive payment. The maintenance cost of this item is the lesser of the following: $29,507.51 or 80% of the total project cost. A public hearing was held on July 18, 2023 No match is required. G-8: Rocky Mountain Power Make Ready Riverside Park Misc. Grants $20,517.38 Department: Sustainability Prepared By: Amy Dorsey This item supports necessary infrastructure for the installation of one (1) dual port AC Level 2 charger at Riverside Park, located at 1450 West Leadville Avenue in Salt Lake City. This charger will be available to the public 24/7. There is no cost related to the charger in this incentive. Acceptin g the incentive payment obligates the participant to maintain functioning Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 10 chargers and allow public access 24/7 for a minimum of five years, starting from the date of the incentive payment. No new staff positions. The maintenance cost of this item is lesser of the following: $20,517.38 or 80% of the total project cost. A public hearing was held on July 18, 2023. No match is required. G-9: Rocky Mountain Power Make Ready Regional Athletic Complex Misc. Grants $12,881.77 Department: Sustainability Prepared By: Amy Dorsey This item supports the necessary infrastructure for the installation of one (1) approved dual port AC Level 2 charger at the Regional Athletic Complex, located at 2080 Rose Park Lane in Salt Lake City. This charger w ill be available to the public 24/7. There is no cost related to the charger in this incentive. Accepting the incentive payment obligates the participant to maintain functioning chargers and allow public access 24/7 for a minimum of five years, starting fr om the date of the incentive payment. No new staff members. The maintenance cost of this item is the lesser of the following: $12,881.77 or 80% of the total project cost. A public hearing was held on July 18, 2023. No match is required. G-10: Rocky Mountain Power Make Ready Day Riverside Library Misc. Grants $22,642.33 Department: Sustainability Prepared By: Amy Dorsey This item supports the necessary infrastructure for the installation of two (2) approved dual port AC Level 2 chargers at the Day Riverside Library, located at 1575 West 1000 North in Salt Lake City. The project will result in a total of four (4) char ging ports. The chargers will be available to the public 24/7. There is no cost related to the in this incentive. Accepting the incentive payment obligates the participant to maintain functioning chargers and allow public access 24/7 for a minimum of five years, starting from the date of the incentive payment. No new staff members. The maintenance cost of this item is the lesser of the following: $22,642.33 or 80% of the total project cost. A public hearing was held on July 18, 2023. No match is required. G-11: FEMA Power Poles Cameras Misc. Grants $39,200.00 Department: Fire Prepared By: Amy Dorsey FEMA is providing funding to the Fire Department for the temporary installation of cameras onto existing powers poles as needed. A public hearing was held May 16, 2023. No match is required. G-12: Utah Crimes Against Children Task Force Misc. Grants $15,000.00 Department: Police Prepared By: Amy Dorsey The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) has created the Utah Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force Program, which is a national network of state and local law enforcement cybercrime units. The national ICAC program assists state and local law enforcement agencies to develop an effective response to cyber enticement, sexual Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 11 exploitation of a minor, and other child sexual abuse material cases. The Police Department will utilize this funding to support its ongoing efforts to protect children from cybercrime. Public Hearing was held on August 15, 2023. No match is required. Section I: Council Added Items Impact Fees - Summary Confidential Data pulled 07/20/2023 Unallocated Budget Amounts: by Major Area Area Cost Center UnAllocated Cash Notes: Impact fee - Police 8484001 1,402,656$ 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$ $273,684 UnAllocated Budget Amount 8484001 1,402,656$ Attachments A-1 RESOLUTION NO. _____ OF 2023 (Requesting Admission to the Firefighters Retirement System) WHEREAS, Utah Code Sections 49-23-101 et seq. authorize an employer of emergency medical service personnel to elect to include such personnel in the Tier 2 Firefighter Retirement system with the Utah Retirement System; and WHEREAS, employers of full time emergency medical service personnel including paramedics for interfacility transport, including Salt Lake City Corporation (“City”), are authorized to elect to include such personnel in the Tier 2 Firefighter Retirement system with the Utah Retirement System; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest to provide benefits authorized by Utah state law for the public safety personnel by the City; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City Council of Salt Lake City (“City Council”) to exercise the election authorized by statute to approve and authorize coverage under the Fighters Retirement Systems for City firefighter and emergency medical services personnel, including the City’s social workers who provide emergency response services. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: 1. Election and Authorization. The City Council hereby elects to cover the City’s emergency service personnel, also including the City’s social workers who provide emergency response services, who can be qualified for such coverage pursuant to Utah Code Sections 49-23- 101 et seq. in the Tier 2 Firefighter Retirement System with the Utah Retirement System. The Mayor is hereby authorized to undertake all of the necessary actions to enroll the City in the benefit programs of the Firefighters Retirement Systems offered by Utah Retirement Systems, including the retirement coverage and death benefit coverage for qualified employees under the laws and regulation of the Utah Retirement Systems. 2. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon passage. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of _________, 2023. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By: ______________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ____________________________ CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM: Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office ______________________________ Jaysen Oldroyd, Senior City Attorney Date: ______October 9, 2023________ Medical Response Paramedic Job Profile Summary Under the supervision of a Fire Department Officer and the direction of emergency room medical personnel, and in compliance with Utah State and Fire Department operating procedures, provides basic and advanced life support and medical care to victims of sudden illness and accident, at the emergency scene, and during transport to an appropriate medical facility. This is a specialized work performed in accordance with National and Salt Lake City Fire Department performance and training standards. Job Description TYPICAL DUTIES: • Responds to medical emergencies in fire department vehicle with EMT partner. Examines patient at emergency scene and establishes priorities for treatment. Communicates with appropriate hospital emergency room. Provides all treatment according to orders from hospital staff or standing orders, including ECG monitoring, administering IV fluids and medications, defibrillation intubation, splinting and bandaging, extraction, and other treatments necessary for stabilization of patients prior to arrival at emergency room. May transport patients with assistance from contracted ambulance company. • Performs daily medical equipment checks, cleans, and makes equipment used at medical scene serviceable after each call. Keeps record of each medical emergency and patient on forms provided by Utah State Division of Health. Maintains company medical logbook. • Responds to other emergencies with assigned partner as dispatched, carries out orders of company/division officer and other activities necessary for handling an emergency. Acts to maintain safety for self and other members of the team. • Participates in drills and classes as provided by the department or company officer. Participates in physical fitness training. Demonstrates medical skills as required by appropriate authority. Fulfills paramedic certification requirements as established by the State of Utah. Conducts periodic medical training for members as assigned. • Complies with city and department policies and procedures. Completes daily job assignments from company officer to maintain fire station, grounds, and equipment in clean and serviceable condition. Meets with company officer to assess job performance. • Maintains the ability to perform medical activities and participates in all functions required of a paramedic on the Salt Lake City Fire Department. • Performs other duties as required. MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS: • Successful completion of paramedic training and maintenance of certification and licensure as a Utah State Paramedic, including CME attendance and all required testing. Such certification must be in good standing at all times. • Must satisfy the medical condition requirements of National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 1582. • Possession of valid driver license. WORKING CONDITIONS: • Considerable exposure to stressful situations as a result of human behavior while responding to emergency and non-emergency situations. Medical Response Paramedic • Moderately heavy physical activity. Required to stand, walk, or sit uncomfortably for extended periods. Exposure to disagreeable elements such as cold, dampness, toxic fumes, smoke, and noise. Intermittent exposure to infectious diseases, emotionally upset patient, and relatives. Frequent exposure to extreme weather conditions. • May be subjected to lifting weights of 50 pounds or more, aroused out of sleep by fire alarm gongs. Subjected to rapid changes in temperature by responding from station facilities to outside temperatures. May be required during prolonged emergency operations to work without sleep for extended periods. Subjected to traffic hazards during emergency responses through city traffic. The above statements are intended to describe the general nature and level of work being performed by persons assigned to this job. They are not intended to be an exhaustive list of all duties, responsibilities and skills required of personnel so classified. All requirements are subject to possible modification to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities. Attachments A-4 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. ___ of 2023 (Division of Legislative Affairs and City Attorney Reporting) An ordinance amending chapter 2.08.040 of the Salt Lake City Code to add a division of legislative affairs to the Department of the City Attorney and to clarify the City Attorney’s reporting obligations to both branches of government. WHEREAS, Salt Lake City Corporation is the capitol city and engages in year- round efforts to collaborate with and advocate before the Utah legislature. WHEREAS, the Utah legislature is meeting more frequently and opening more bill files that affect Salt Lake City and all Utah municipalities. WHEREAS, Salt Lake City has a strong interest in monitoring trends in federal legislation. WHEREAS, given the City’s legislative goals, the City is committed to establishing a fulltime staff of City employees who are engaged in and supporting the City’s legislative interests. WHEREAS, the City Council and the Mayor have a significant interest in equally participating in the direction of the City’s collaboration and advocacy for the City’s legislative interests. WHEREAS, under City Code 2.08.040, the Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office is responsible to both the Mayor and the City Council, and the executive and legislative branches enjoy equal and independent access to the services of the City Attorney’s Office. 2 WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City now desires to amend city code to create a division of legislative affairs within the Department of the City Attorney. WHEREAS, the division of legislative affairs will direct the City’s legislative advocacy and collaboration efforts, and will be equally responsible to the Mayor and the City Council. WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City also desires to clarify the Department of the City Attorney’s reporting obligations to both branches of government and clarify the instances in which the City may hire outside counsel. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That section 2.08.040 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.08.040: OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY: A. Functions: 1. The city attorney shall be the chief legal officer of the city and shall be responsible to the mayor and city council for the proper administration of the legal affairs of the executive and legislative branches of city government. The city attorney shall report to both the mayor and the council chair and may be removed at the discretion of the mayor. 2. The executive and legislative branches of government shall enjoy equal and independent access to the services of the office of the city attorney with reference to their respective functions and duties. It shall be the responsibility of the city attorney to administer the office of the city attorney in a manner which will enable the mayor and city council to fulfill their respective duties in a timely fashion. 3. The foregoing notwithstanding, the city attorney shall not in any instance, either personally, or by his or her deputies, act as both prosecutor and advocate before (and at the same time advisor to) any board, commission, agency, officer, official or body of the city. In cases where such a conflict shall arise, special counsel may be employed who shall not be subject to the control or direction of the city attorney in such matter, and who shall provide the legal service to or before such board, commission, agency, officer, official or body. 3 4. Supervise the office of the city recorder, the risk management division, and the division of legislative affairs. B. Outside Executive Or Legislative Counsel: Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit the city attorney from retaining outside counsel for either the city council or mayor from appropriated funds, provided, however, that the city attorney will retain outside counsel for either the mayor or city council only after he/she concludes that the office of city attorney has a conflict of interest, is unable, or is unavailable to perform the legal work requested on behalf of such branch of city government. C. City Recorder: 1. The city recorder shall be assigned to the office of the city attorney and be under the administrative direction of the city attorney; however, the recorder shall be responsible to the city council, which shall have equal and independent access for services with respect to legislative functions. 2. The city recorder shall keep the corporate seal, the official papers and records of the city, as required by law; the record of the proceedings of the city, as required by law; and shall attest legal documents of the city and do those other matters prescribed by law. D. Division of Legislative Affairs. 1. The division of legislative affairs will be responsible for monitoring state and federal legislation and engaging in advocacy, collaboration, and tracking of all legislative matters for the city. 2. The director of legislative affairs will be responsible for working with the executive and legislative branches of city government to craft a legislative agenda for the city and will report to both branches of city government on legislative priorities and policies. SECTION 2. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this ___ day of __________________ 2023. ____________________________________ Darin Mano, Council Chair ATTEST: 4 _________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on ____________________________. Mayor’s Action: _________ Approved. ____________ Vetoed. _______________________________________ MAYOR _________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. _______ of 2023. Published: __________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Katherine Lewis, City Attorney / # - $ ) 2 $ . — / A D v A ? A B @ C w D H ˜ October 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 LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS DIRECTOR 034X 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 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 APPENDIX B – APPOINTED EMPLOYEES BY DEPARTMENT Effective June 25, 2023 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 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, remov 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. Director of Legislative and Government Affairs The Director of Legislative and Government Affairs reports to the City Attorney and is responsive to both the Legislative and Administrative branches of Salt Lake City government. The Director is responsible for monitoring and interpreting state legislation, appropriations and authorizations, and proposed or existing state regulations, keeping both the Legislative and Administrative branches of Salt Lake City government informed of legislative impacts to the City, and advising and developing policy responses. Incumbent must be able to work extended hours and on weekends as needed, especially while the Legislature is in session. Duties: - Helps ensure City departments are apprised of existing and proposed state regulations and laws and ensures such regulations and laws are fully implemented. - Knows City legislative priorities and advocates for City legislative priorities before the State legislature. - Communicates effectively between the Administrative and Legislative branches of Salt Lake City government to ensure that the City’s legislative priorities are agreed-upon and clearly communicated internally and externally. - Knows City department-specific legislative priorities and negotiates the acceptable City priority when multiple departments have different/conflicting priorities. - Ensures City departments and Administrative and Legislative branches of government timely receive information necessary to understand and participate in City legislative priorities. - Participates with City elected officials and department leadership in establishing direction, goals, and policies. - Meets with staff in both branches of City government to determine needs and challenges. - Oversees staff in the Office of Legislative Affairs and outside contracted lobbyists, and helps set goals for performance. - Ensures compliance with applicable federal and/or state laws, regulations, and/or City rules, standards and guidelines, etc. - Represents City interests on key legislative issues, task forces, committees, etc. and/or drafts legislation, find sponsors, proposes amendments, etc. - Ensures that legislation is implemented and followed. - Works with both branches of City government and legislators if there are concerns in implementation. - Identify and prioritize system changes and improvements in legislative processes. - Demonstrate and utilize knowledge and understanding of best practices in working with the legislature. - Supervise subordinate personnel including hiring, determining workload and delegating assignments, training, monitoring and evaluating performance, and initiating corrective or disciplinary actions. - Gives recommendations to both branches of City government regarding implementation of passed legislation. - Tracks current events, legislation and other issues of interest to both branches of City government. - Other duties as assigned. Qualifications: - Sufficient education to demonstrate an aptitude to perform above and related duties; AND minimum of six (6) years of progressively responsible experience directly related to municipal government administration, and state and local legislative processes; OR An equivalent combination of education and experience. - Thorough knowledge of principles and practices of city government and legislative processes; Utah laws, regulations, and guidelines governing all aspects of municipal operations; legal and political issues affecting city operations and management. - Considerable skill in the art of diplomacy and cooperative problem solving; establishing and maintaining effective working relationships with state, federal, and other local officials, elected officials and City residents. - Ability to understand and interpret complex laws, rules, regulations, policies, and guidelines; establish and maintain effective working relationships with employees, other entities and the public; communicate effectively, verbally and in writing; implement cooperative problem-solving processes. - The ability to communicate information and ideas so others will understand, including the ability to adapt communication. - Collaborative with stakeholders and both branches of City government. - The ability to think critically to help solve problems. - The ability to tell when something is wrong or is likely to go wrong and help pull the right people together to solve it. - Experience working with diverse communities. - Strong planning/project management skills. Attachments A-13 Salt Lake City Corporation, Human Resources Department Job Title: Finance Grant Analyst Job Code Number: 002589 FLSA: Exempt Pay Level: 27 EEO Code: 2 Bargaining Unit: 600 Benchmark: Research Analyst Grant Prog. Mgr. JOB SUMMARY: The Finance Grant Analyst will be under the general direction of the Deputy Director of Finance. The Finance Grant Analyst will assist in the financial monitoring of multiple grants to ensure compliance with city financial processes as well as state and federal grant requirements. , TYPICAL DUTIES: Assist the Deputy Controller with Financial support for Housing grants. This includes, but limited to: • Working alongside other financial professionals. • Preparing calculations in Excel • Managing and approving payments through Workday • Reviewing, reconciling, and administering controls for grant funds • Analyzing, summarizing and/or reviewing data • Reporting findings, interpreting results and/or making recommendations • Collaborating with other team members • Work to ensure budgets and budget amendments are reconciled. • Assist in entering grants into Workday and managing the Workday Grants process. Assist the Grant Manager with reporting and monitoring of grants. This includes, but not limited to: • Assisting the Housing Stability division with City contracts and processes. • Reviewing subrecipient contracts to ensure grant compliance. • Serves as a liaison to provide administrative and technical guidance. • Identifies, resolves, and ensures system compliance issues to follow State and Federal regulations, as well as City policies, procedures, and ordinances. • Organizes and reviews grant files to ensure documentation is complete, maintained, and retained for appropriate audit trails. • Prepares and presents reports for informational briefings and status updates. • Performs other duties as assigned. MINIMUM OUALIFICATIONS: 1. Bachelor’s Degree from an accredited College or University in a related field su ch as accounting, business or finance and four years of years in contract and/or grant experience. Education and experience may be substituted on a year-for-year basis 2. Knowledge of finance and accounting theory, including generally accepted accounting principles. 3. Knowledge of administering and managing grants and contract policy, procedure, and guidelines under City, State, and Federal laws and regulations. 4. Knowledge of 2 CFR 200 Federal grant regulations. 5. Ability to communicate effectively both orally and in writing and build consensus with diverse backgrounds, with varied organizational needs and differing priorities. 6. Ability to coordinate with and instruct others, as necessary, to ensure compliance and accuracy. 7. Ability to independently bring tasks and projects to meet successful and timely resolution. 8. May require minimum amounts of travel to and from meetings, trainings, and conferences. 9. Occasional non-traditional working hours, which may include evening and weekend meetings. PREFERRED OUALIFICATIONS: 1. Experience in federal grant administration. WORKING CONDITIONS: 1. Light physical effort, comfortable working conditions, handling of light weights, intermittent sitting, standing and walking. 2. Considerable exposure to stressful situations as a result of report deadlines and human behavior. Offers of employment are contingent on successful completion of a criminal background check in accordance with City policy and applicable law. Criminal offenses will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and do not automatically disqualify a candidate from City employment. The above statements are intended to describe the general nature and level of work being performed by persons assigned to this job. They are not intended to be an exhaustive list of all duties, responsibilities and skills required of personnel so classified. All requirements are subject to possible modification to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities. Position Review Information Date: 10/28/2023 Departmental Approval: Mary Beth Thompson HR Consultant Approval: Mike Sanchez Compensation Approval: David Salazar Notes: Update to minimum qualifications Attachments A-16 G O A L : T o ex pa nd su p po rt f or f a m i l i e s t o st e p o u t o f t h e co l d i nt o a s h e l t e r ed s it u a ti o n un t i l t h e o p e n i n g o f t h e F a m i l y N o n -C o n g r e g a t e S h el t er (F N C S ) i n 2 0 2 4. The Road Home P H A S E O N E : R A M P U P - N O V E M B E R 2 0 2 3 Family Hotel Winter Interim Plan FY24 C r e a t e a L e a s e : 12 hotel rooms December 2023 - June 2024 at $288,00024 hotel rooms December 2023 - June 2024 at $576,00026 hotel rooms December 2023 - June 2024 at $864,000Average hotel room cost per week for a family of four - $600-$800.Average hotel room cost per week for a family of five to eight - $1,200+. Create lease with hotel(s) for a block of rooms beginning of December to rent rooms asallotted by funding and hotel room availability. T W O P H A S E A P P R O A C H (N O V E M B E R 2 0 2 3 - J U N E 2 0 2 4 ) S t a f f i n g : Supportive Services Manager1 FTE at $46,000Case Manager1 FTE per12 hotel rooms at $34,000 Post and hire for staff positions. O t h e r :Transportation costs including mileage. Supplies will be supplemented with the MFRCbudget. P r i o r i t i z a t i o n : Creates capacity for new families seeking shelter 24/7 at MFRC. Prioritize families with children under 4, unsheltered or in MFRC, and in coordinationwith Fourth Street Clinic. P H A S E T W O : S H I F T I N S E R V I C E S - E A R L Y 2 0 2 4 S t a f f :Staff hired for this project shifts to Family Non-Congregate Shelter. M o v e :Families in hotels moved from scattered site hotels/motels into the Family Non-Congregate Shelter upon opening in early spring. C U R R E N T : W e h a ve c o n t r a c t s w i th m o te l s f or 1 2 r oo m s , wit h o n e C a s e M a n a g e r . C H A L L E N G E S : F u n di ng, l o c a t i n g a n d c o n t r a ct i n g w i t h m o t el (s ), ma i n ta i n i n g h i g h l e v el of c o n ta c t w i th f a m i l i e s t o p r o v i d e n ee d e d s u p p o r t s a n d s e r v i ce s , s u p p o r tin g f a m i l i e s t o fol l o w a ll m o t e l ru le s . S ca tt e r ed sit e m o d e l r eq u i r es a v eh i c l e . 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: October 31, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: FY24 Budget Amendment #3 SPONSOR: NA STAFF CONTACT: Greg Cleary (801) 535-6394 or Mary Beth Thompson (801) 535-6403 DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget Amendment Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that subsequent to a public hearing, the City Council adopt the following amendments to the FY 2024 adopted budget. BUDGET IMPACT: REVENUE EXPENSE GENERAL FUND $0.00 $1,430,731.89 FLEET FUND $20,000.00 $20,000.00 CIP FUND $205,000.00 $205,000.00 IMPACT FEES FUND $0.00 $6,527,961.00 IMS FUND $12,000.00 $4,531,083.00 MISCELLANEOUS GRANTS FUND $1,705,700.79 $2,234,473.29 CDBG FUND $0.00 $46,642.50 TOTAL $1,942,700.79 $14,995,891.68 - " ' - 4 — / B @ v A ? A B @ E w D @ ˜ - U H J ) O H D U \ Alejandro Sanchez (Nov 1, 2023 08:54 MDT) rachel o//o (Nov 1, 2023 08:55 MDT)11ҝ01ҝ2023 11ҝ01ҝ2023 BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Revenue for FY 2024 Budget Adjustments The chart below presents General Fund Projected Revenues for FY 2024. Due to the timing of this budget amendment, there are no updates to the FY 2024 revenue projections. Revenues are trending as expected are there are no reasons to assume any variance to the initially adopted projections. The City has begun closing out the financials for Fiscal Year 2023, and will provide updates to Council as the audit progresses and is finalized. 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 - The table below presents updated Fund Balance numbers and percentages, based on the proposed changes included in Budget Amendment #3. With the adoption of Budget Amendment #3, the available fund balance will adjust to 13.89 percent of the FY 2024 Adopted Budget. 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) - - - BA#1 Expense Adjustment - - - - BA#2 Revenue Adjustment - - - - (754,483) (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) - (1,430,732) (1,430,732) 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 54,147,687 61,743,144 Adjusted Fund Balance Percent 29.60%24.64%25.04%14.51%13.81%13.89% 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 $1,942,700.79 in revenue and $14,995,891.68 in expenses. The amendment proposes changes in seven (7) funds, with an increase of nine (9.0) FTEs. The proposal includes 28 initiatives for Council review. A summary spreadsheet outlining proposed budget changes is attached. The Administration requests this document be modified based on the decisions of the Council. The budget amendment is separated in eight different categories: A. New Budget Items B. Grants for Existing Staff Resources C. Grants for New Staff Resources D. Housekeeping Items E. Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources F. Donations G. Council Consent Agenda Grant Awards I. Council Added Items PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. ______ of 2023 (Third 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 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 Fire Department Single-Role Paramedics GF - 150,119.00 Ongoing 4.00 1 Fire Department Single-Role Paramedics GF - 10,400.00 One-time - 2 ARPA Employee Expenses Misc Grants - 14,225.00 One-time - 3 Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal 4 City Attorney's Office Legislative Division GF - 297,220.40 Ongoing 4.00 4 City Attorney's Office Legislative Division GF - 12,000.00 One-time - 4 City Attorney's Office Legislative Division IMS 12,000.00 12,000.00 One-time - 4 City Attorney's Office Legislative Division GF 20,000.00 One-time 5 Streets Impact Fee Funding for 2100 South Reconstruction Project Impact Fees - 3,323,590.00 One-time - 6 Streets Impact Fee Funding for 600/700 North Reconstruction Project Impact Fees - 3,204,371.00 One-time - 7 Access Control System Upgrade - Security GF - 400,000.00 One-time - 8 Compliance Electric Vehicle Funds Transfer to Fleet GF - (20,000.00)One-time - 8 Compliance Electric Vehicle Funds Transfer to Fleet GF - 20,000.00 One-time - 8 Compliance Electric Vehicle Funds Transfer to Fleet Fleet 20,000.00 20,000.00 One-time - 9 Road Marking Maintenance GF - 200,000.00 Ongoing - 10 Paystation Replacement GF - 135,992.49 One-time - 11 Rail Spur Removal GF - 205,000.00 Ongoing - 11 Rail Spur Removal CIP 205,000.00 205,000.00 One-time - 12 Temporary Shelter Community Misc Grants - 500,000.00 One-time - 13 Grant Employee - Finance - 6 Months @ 75%CDBG Grants - 43,642.50 Ongoing 0.75 13 Grant Employee - Finance - 6 Months @ 25%Misc Grants - 14,547.50 Ongoing 0.25 13 Grant Employee - Finance - One-time Costs CDBG Grants - 3,000.00 One-time - 14 Consulting for the Enterprise Billing Systems IMS - 250,000.00 One-time - 1 Move Funding for Downtown Central Precinct Tenant Improvements for North Temple Substation and Downtown Central Project GF - (513,208.00)One-time - 1 Move Funding for Downtown Central Precinct Tenant Improvements for North Temple Substation and Downtown Central Project GF - 513,208.00 One-time - 2 IMS FY 2023 Encumbrance Roll Forward IMS - 4,269,083.00 One-time - 3 Move Cultural Core Funding to Non-Departmental from Arts Council Cost Center GF (250,000.00)One-time - 3 Move Cultural Core Funding to Non-Departmental from Arts Council Cost Center GF 250,000.00 One-time - Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources - Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 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 #3 Consent Agenda #2 1 Utah Department of Natural Resources/Forestry Misc Grants 200,000.00 200,000.00 One-time - 2 Department of Workforce Services Know Your Neighbor Misc Grants 100,000.00 100,000.00 One-time - 3 EPA Salt Lake City Schovaers Cleanup Misc Grants 495,200.00 495,200.00 One-time - 4 Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG Grant)Misc Grants 38,000.00 38,000.00 One-time - 5 Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) SLCPD Victim Advocates Misc Grants 346,131.80 346,131.80 One-time - 6 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG)Misc Grants 386,620.00 386,620.00 One-time - 7 Rocky Mountain Power Make Ready Rosewood Park Misc Grants 29,507.51 29,507.51 One-time - 8 Rocky Mountain Power Make Ready Riverside Park Misc Grants 20,517.38 20,517.38 One-time - 9 Rocky Mountain Power Make Ready Regional Athletic Complex Misc Grants 12,881.77 12,881.77 One-time - 10 Rocky Mountain Power Make Ready Day Riverside Library Misc Grants 22,642.33 22,642.33 One-time - 11 FEMA Power Poles Cameras Misc Grants 39,200.00 39,200.00 One-time - 12 Utah Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force Misc Grants 15,000.00 15,000.00 One-time - Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,942,700.79 14,995,891.68 - - 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 - 1,430,731.89 - - 8.00 Fleet Fund Fleet 20,000.00 20,000.00 - - - CIP Fund CIP 205,000.00 205,000.00 - - - Impact Fees Fund Impact Fees - 6,527,961.00 IMS Fund IMS 12,000.00 4,531,083.00 - - - Miscellaneous Grants Misc Grants 1,705,700.79 2,234,473.29 - - 0.25 CDBG Operating Fund CDBG Grants - 46,642.50 - - 0.75 Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,942,700.79 14,995,891.68 - - 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 #3 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 0.00 - 448,514,918.00 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 - 0.00 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 20,000.00 32,165,769.00 IMS Fund (FC 65)36,254,357 9,000.00 6,000.00 12,000.00 36,281,357.00 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 16,197,423.00 1,705,700.79 26,823,040.79 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)30,199,756 218,000.00 25,485,893.25 205,000.00 56,108,649.25 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 1,623,631,451 263,800.00 41,751,732.25 1,942,700.79 - - 1,667,589,684.04 3 Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 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 (763,950.00)1,430,731.89 449,385,899.89 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 20,000.00 46,980,543.00 IMS Fund (FC 65)38,702,171 9,000.00 6,000.00 4,531,083.00 43,248,254.00 County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Transportation (FC 69)9,700,000 9,700,000.00 CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)5,597,763 46,642.50 5,644,405.50 Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)8,919,917 16,197,423.00 2,234,473.29 27,351,813.29 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 6,732,961.00 41,627,940.00 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 41,655,131.95 14,995,891.68 - - 1,840,458,025.63 Budget Manager Analyst, City Council Contingent Appropriation 4 Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 1 Section A: New Items A-1: Fire Department Medical Response Paramedics GF $150,119.00 GF $10,400.00 Department: Fire Prepared By: Chief Karl Lieb / Clint Rasmussen For questions, please include Chief Lieb, Clint Rasmussen, Greg Cleary and Mary Beth Thompson Current Status The Salt Lake City Fire Department (SLCFD) currently operates three Medical Response Teams (MRTs) with another funded at the Salt Lake City Airport beginning in January of 2024 for a total of four MRTs. Each MRT is comprised of 4 Firefighters (FFs), for a total of 16 FFs allocated and funded for the MRT program. All FFs currently allocated to the MRT are Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs). By staffing a MRT with 3 EMTs and 1 Paramedic, rather than 4 EMTS, the response capability would increase by Replacing one of the EMTs as a Paramedic (Advanced Life Support or ALS) would increase the capability of the MRTs by approximately 30% and allow them to perform more advanced patient assessments. Paramedics are currently at a premium nationwide. Fortunately, SLCFD trains and remains appropriately staffed with Paramedics on our Medic Engines (4-handed) for our optimal response model - two Paramedics on each of eight daily Medic (ALS) Engines within SLC. These Medic Engines respond to the most serious medical and fire calls and should remain staffed in this configuration as a 4-handed unit for maximum capability. Proposal This item it to establish 4 new FTEs (Medical Response Paramedics) and reclassify 4 existing FTEs (Firefighters) to Medical Response Paramedics. The SLCFD proposes to diversify our current MRT model by replacing and displacing a total of eight (8) MRT FF EMTs with Medical Response Paramedics (SRPs). This would ideally staff one (1) Paramedic on each unit of four daily operating MRTs. The transition would expand the current MRTs response capability with an ALS component while maintaining the integrity of the MRT as a FD resource responding from and residing within select SLCFD fire stations. The SRPs would be civilian, potentially sworn, and eligible to participate in the Firefighters or Tier 2 Public Safety/Firefighter retirement systems. The SRPs would participate in a training regimen developed by the SLCFD for their specific role within our EMS response model. SRPs will serve under a new job title, new wage schedule, and possibly as part of SLCFD’s Local 81 labor group. Process The SLCFD would realize eight (8) Medical Response Paramedics through a combination of additional FTEs and conversion of existing FTEs: 1. SLCFD is requesting four (4) additional FTEs in the form of Medical Response Paramedics at a half-year cost $150,119 plus some start-up costs of $10,400. Full year funding for FY25 would be an additional budget increase of $142,519. No new equipment (radio’s, tablets, vehicles, etc.) is required. These new positions would be funded for six months beginning January 2024. 2. SLCFD would retain the option to convert four (4) existing vacant FF positions currently funded for the MRT to SRPs by the end of calendar year 2023. 3. The remaining four FFs displaced by the four requested SRPs would be utilized to fill 4 -handed vacancies or additional resources throughout Salt Lake City in an effort to reduce OT and consistently staff SLCFD heavy apparatus. Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 2 A-2: ARPA Employee Expenses Misc. Grants $14,225.00 Department: Finance & Economic Development Prepared By: Mary Beth Thompson Funding in the amount of $14,225.00 is being requested to cover expenses for one grant employee for the remainder of the Fiscal Year. Throughout the year, staffing levels have been in flux to support this ongoing need . The additional amount will sufficiently cover the personnel expenses, factoring in vacancies savings, to support Economic Development’s ongoing ARPA grant activity. A-3: Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal A-4: City Attorney’s Office Legislative Division GF $297,220.40 GF $12,000.00 IMS $12,000.00 GF $20,000.00 Department: City Attorney Prepared By: Katherine Lewis For questions, please include Mary Beth Thompson, Greg Cleary, Katie Lewis This funding is to establish and support four (4) new FTEs, creating the Legislative Division within the City Attorney’s office. The primary focus of this division will be on legislative affairs, with special focus on the legislative session and the various impacts to Salt Lake City. The proposed funding in the amount of $297,220.40 assumes the positions to be filled for six-months in Fiscal Year 2024, with a hire date in January. The four (4) positions are to be ongoing, with a financial impact of $594,440.79 annually beginning if FY25. The four proposed positions are as follows: • Legislative Affairs Director (E34) • Senior City Attorney (E39) • Special Projects Analyst (E26) • Administrative Assistant (N21) The supporting Ordinance: • Establishes that because the City Attorney manages the legal affairs of both the executive and legislative branches of government, she reports to both the Mayor and Council chair, and can be removed at the discretion of the Mayor. • Clarifies that the City Attorney supervises the Recorder’s Office, Risk Management Division and Division of Legislative Affairs. • Clarifies that the City Attorney may retain outside counsel on behalf of the City, if she concludes that the City Attorney’s Office has a conflict of interest, is unable, or is unavailable to perform that legal work for the City. • Creates the Division of Legislative Affairs, which will be responsible for monitoring state and federal legislation and engaging in advocacy, collaboration, and tracking of all legislative matters for the City. • Establishes the director of legislative affairs, who will work with both branches of government on the City’s legislative agenda, and will report to both branches of government on legislative priorities and policies. This initial funding request accounts for one-time expenses for staff equipment such as computers ($12,000), funding via a Non Departmental Transfer ($12,000), and a tenant improvement to established workspaces and necessary equipment ($20,000). Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 3 A-5: Streets Impact Fee Funding for 2100 South Reconstruction Project Impact Fees $3,323,590.00 Department: Public Services – Engineering Prepared By: Mark Stevens For questions, please include Mark Stevens, Mike Atkinson, Jordan Smith, Jorge Chamorro Engineering and Transportation are requesting a budget amendment to increase the appropriation of Streets Impact Fees for the 2100 South Reconstruction Project. Multiple departments (Engineering, Transportation, the Finance Capital Asset Planning Team, and the Office of the City Attorney) have conducted an analysis of the 2100 South Reconstruction Project, and based on the increase in overall cost and the increase in the portion of the project related to Complete Streets, this project is eligible for an additional $3,323,590 of Streets Impact Fees. A-6: Streets Impact Fee Funding for 600/700 North Reconstruction Project Impact Fees $3,204,371.00 Department: Public Services – Engineering Prepared By: Mark Stevens For questions, please include Mark Stevens, Mike Atkinson, Jordan Smith, Jorge Chamorro Engineering and Transportation are requesting a budget amendment to increase the appropriation of Streets Impact Fees for the 600 North/ 700 North Reconstruction Project . Multiple departments (Engineering, Transportation, the Finance Capital Asset Planning Team, and the Office of the City Attorney) have conducted an analysis of the 600 North/ 700 North Reconstruction Project, and based on the increase in overall cost and the increase in the portion of the project related to Complete Streets, this project is eligible for an additional $3,204,371 of Streets Impact Fees. A-7: Access Control System Upgrade – Security GF $400,000.00 Department: Public Services Prepared By: Jorge Chamorro For questions, please include Jorge Chamorro The current access control system and devices across City buildings are now considered outdated and vulnerable, and staff are proposing this be addressed before the system fails. This system is used for access badges issued to all City employees to scan at certain doors to gain access to a given space. The Safety and Security Program proposes continuing the transition to the S2 control access system as a City-wide standard. With the recent allocation of funding from Council, the Public Safety Buildi ng and City Hall have upgraded their back-end software. The funding requested for the next phase should transition Plaza 349 and the Justice Courts. Additionally, access cards and card readers will be purchased for all four buildings. This project scope has been developed with staff from various departments, including IMS, to ensure standards and needs are met. The estimated cost for this project is $400,000. A-8: Compliance Electric Vehicle Funds Transfer to Fleet GF ($20,000.00) GF $20,000.00 Fleet $20,000.00 Department: Public Services – Compliance Prepared By: Erik O’Brien / Julie Crookston For questions please include Erik O’Brien, Julie Crookston, Nancy Bean, Denise Sorensen Public Services - Compliance is requesting a transfer of $20,000 to the Fleet Replacement Fund helping cover the difference in cost to purchase two electric trucks instead of the originally funded smaller vehicles. Fleet has been presented with an opportunity to order these electric trucks. One of the vehicles is part of the replacement cycle, upgrading the originally intended vehicle to a more capable one, and will allow for Parking Enforcement operations to continue during winter snow events, especially in areas like the Avenues. Additionally, the extra cargo space is needed to transport equipment such as pay station kiosks and equipment as needed. In addition to these advantages, the second Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 4 vehicle will provide adequate space to transport three (3) mitigation officers (FTEs recently approved) and their supplies for our Long-Term Parking Mitigation Team. The addition of these 2 EVs will bring Compliance closer to their goal to have a 100% electric fleet. A-9: Road Marking Maintenance GF $200,000.00 Department: Public Services – Streets Prepared By: Jorge Chamorro For question, please include Jorge Chamorro Over the past few years the Transportation Division has been successful in obtaining funding for special road markings through the CIP process, which include green paint on certain bike lanes . After assessing the current inventory of assets made up of 1010 bike racks and 3.23 miles of green-painted bike lanes and markings, staff has concluded that this ongoing maintenance need should no longer rely on the CIP process but rather be added to the Streets operating budget. At this time the need does not justify upfront cost of equipment procurement, Streets will develop a maintenance schedule and oversee a contract to perform the necessary maintenance work. If funding is approved for this item, though most of the work would not occur in the winter, contract development and work scheduling could be done in the meantime with work happening as weather allows. The Streets Division is requesting $200,000 to be added to their budget for ongoing maintenance of road markings and assets recently inventoried. A-10: Pay Station Replacement GF $135,992.49 Department: Public Services/Finance The current pay stations were purchased over 10 years ago. Due to their age, they are past the end of their useful life and a t risk of failure. New pay stations will allow the City to modernize the services offered to end users. The new pay stations will provide more features for the public including parking payment, information sharing about events going on city wide, the capability to pay by license plate technology, potential pollution sensors, and other innovative features. The modernization of the pay stations will allow for smoother staff operations and continued service to end users. City Finance is recommending a 7-year amortization rather than using the General Fund for one-time payment. The amortization schedule is attached and includes a 7-year payment schedule, with $135,992.49 due in Year 1, and $271,984.98 due in years two (2) through year seven (7). This includes an interest rate of 4.60%. The Council may consider a 5-year schedule which is also attached, with an interest rate of 4.77%. This item is being brought forward with Budget Amendment 3 due to the Request for Proposal process and market conditions around equipment. At the time of budget development, staff did not have clear insight into the cost or timeline of pay station procurement and delivery. Following the completion of the RFP process, staff feel it is best to proceed with the selected vendor for the reasons outlined above. A-11: Rail Spur Removal GF $205,000.00 CIP $205,000.00 Department: Public Services – Engineering Prepared By: Jorge Chamorro / JP Goates For questions, please include Jorge Chamorro and JP Goates Housekeeping request to move $205,000, approved by Council on BA#1 of FY23, item A -7, but placed on a GF cost center, and were recaptured at the end of FY23, from Fund Balance to a Capital Project Cost Center for Engineering to initiate the project. An overview of the original request is below. Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 5 The property on which this rail spur is located, 535 S. 600 W., was conveyed in 1997 by the City to a private party, with partial consideration for this conveyance being an easement to construct, ope rate, and maintain a railroad spur and associated facilities. Pursuant to an Amended and Restated Easement and Boundary Line Agreement, executed on July 3, 2000, the easement shall terminate if the City ceases to use the rail spur for more than one year, a nd that the City shall remove the related infrastructure at the City’s expense. Since the rail spur has not been used for over one year, the City is contractually obligated to remove it. A-12: Temporary Shelter Community (Sanctioned Camping) Misc. Grants $500,000 Department: Police Department Prepared By: Greg Cleary/Shellie Dietrich Staff is requesting a budget amendment in the amount of $500,000 to support startup costs associated with city efforts around a Temporary Shelter Community or Sanctioned Camping. This funding will allow staff to roll out the program, with ongoing assessment in needs, service levels, and funding being further developed in the coming months. Specifically, the $500,000 will support the Police Departments role in this effort, with overtime staffing of offers at the temporary shelters. In addition to the program, the most effective and efficient police staffing levels will also be assessed. The Police Department will look to savings in other areas of the budget to help support the program, notably with the savings realized with any vacant positions. Staff will return to council in the coming months with additional funding requests as needed, and once there is better data and information available on what the program is to entail and what might be needed to fund the ongoing efforts. Attached to this item is an ARPA financial reconciliation. A-13: New Financial Grant Analyst – Housing Stability Program Support CDBG Grants $46,642.50 Misc. Grants $14,547.50 Department: CAN Prepared By: This request is for funding to support one FTE for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2024, which is intended to oversee the grant allocation from the ARPA program, supporting the Housing Stability Program. The proposed Finance Grant Analyst will work under the direction of the Deputy Director of Finance and will assist in the financial monitoring of multiple grants to ensure compliance with city financial processes as well as state and federal grant requirements . The position will be split across two grant funding sources – 75% CDBG and 25% Misc. Grants. A job description for this position is attached. A-14: Consulting for Enterprise Billing Systems IMS $250,000.00 Department: IMS Prepared By: Joseph Anthony / Gloria Cortes This item provides funding for consulting services for the Enterprise Billing systems for PUBS which is primarily used by Sustainability and Public Utilities. PUBS needs to be replaced or upgraded, and the consultant work includes an analysis of the city's needs and compare that to best practices and make a recommendation on where the city should be moving with regards to future decisions. Microsoft’s has the city’s current solution mapped at the end of life by FY2025. Therefore, staff are initiating the work to finding a solution in the current year have an adequate platform it in place by the beginning of FY2025. The proposal and expenses will be paid for by the annual allocation that IMS uses to collect its revenue on an annual basis and is estimated based on 1,000 hours of work, at $250 per hour. Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 6 Section D: Housekeeping D-1: Moving Funding for Downtown Central Precinct Tenant Improvements for North Temple Substation and Downtown Central Project GF ($513,208.00) GF $513,208.00 Department: CAN Prepared By: Brent Beck For question, please include Brent Beck, Blake Thomas, Tammy Hunsaker, JP Goates Funding for the Downtown Central Precinct Tenant Improvements for North Temple Sub Station and Downtown Central Project in the amount of $513,208 was added by the Council to the CAN budget during the budget decision making process. However, this funding should have gone to Public Services since it will be the Facilities division that will be managing the improvements. This item does not allocate any additional funding, but simply moves funding from one department to another for the same work. D-2: IMS FY 2023 Encumbrance Roll Forward IMS $4,269,083.00 Department: IMS Prepared By: Joseph Anthony / Gloria Cortes For questions, please include Joseph Anthony, Gloria Cortes, Aaron Bentley IMS has encumbered money that was expected to be paid out of the FY23 funds and either will need to be paid, or has already been paid in FY24. These encumbrances are listed in the Carry Over Encumbrance reports. All of these items have been approved for purchase by central finance in a prior year. These expenses will be paid for by the annual allocation that IMS uses to collect it's revenue on an annual basis. D-3: Move Cultural Core Funding to Non-Departmental from Arts Council Cost Center GF ($250,000.00) GF $250,000.00 Department: Non-Departmental, Economic Development Prepared By: Greg Cleary For questions, please include: Mary Beth Thompson, Lorena Riffo -Jenson, Felicia Baca This item is to move funds from the Art’s Council Division to the Economic Development’s Non-Departmental budget. This is an effort to align funding with the appropriate cost center within the new financial system. Section E: Grants Requiring No Staff Resources Section F: Donations Section G: Consent Agenda Consent Agenda G-1: Utah Department of Natural Resources/Forestry Misc. Grants $200,000.00 Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Amy Dorsey The Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands (FFSL) has awarded Salt Lake City $200,000 for the purposes of removing navigational hazards, including downed trees, garbage, and other debris from the Jordan River from 2100 South to 2400 North. This funding will provide for safer conditions on the river channel for recreational boaters. Public hearing was held on September 19, 2023 Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 7 No match is required. G-2: Department of Workforce Services-- Know Your Neighbor Misc. Grants $100,000.00 Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: Amy Dorsey DWS is extending the Salt Lake City's Know Your Neighbor contract. The original contract was for $100,000 to pay for the salary and benefits of a full-time volunteer coordinator from October 1, 2022, to September 30,2023. The extension will include an increase of $100,000 to extend the period for one year starting October 1, 2023, and ending September 30, 2024. Thus, making the total amount of the contract $200,000. This is a refugee volunteer program that runs through the Mayor’s office. This program benefits refugee clients as well as people from the larger community who volunteer to help. Public Hearing will be held November 7, 2023 No Match is required. G-3: EPA Salt Lake City Schovaers Electronics Cleanup Misc. Grants $495,200.00 Department: RDA Prepared By: Amy Dorsey This is one of two Brownfields grants awarded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the S alt Lake City area for the purpose of cleaning up land of hazardous substances, pollutant or contaminants for the revitalization of the properties. These grants are part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). This grant has been awarded to Salt Lake City in the amount of $495,200 to conduct remediation activities at the former Schovaers site (22 South Jeremy Street) in Salt Lake City. A second grant for $1 million was awarded to Salt Lake County for the assessment and cleanup projects in Magna Township. Public hearing was held on December 13, 2022 No Match is required. G-4: Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) Misc. Grants $38,000.00 Department: Fire Prepared By: Amy Dorsey The Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) provides state, local, tribal and territorial emergency management agencies with the resources required for implementation of the National Preparedness System and works toward the National Preparedness Goal of a secure and resilient nation. This is the annual allocation from the state and will be used to support Emergency Management functions and programs. A public hearing was held on May 16, 2023. A 50% match is required. G-5: Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) - SLCPD Victim Advocates Misc Grants $346,131.80 Department: Police Prepared By: Amy Dorsey The Salt Lake City Police Department is requesting continuation funding for our SLCPD VOCA grant funded Victim Advocate positions. Additionally, there are emergency funds for assisting victims included in the application. The grant will continue to fund 2.69 existing FTEs and includes emergency funds that will be used to help victims. This is a two-year grant. The period of performance starts July 1, 2023, and ends June 30,2025. Public hearing will be on November 7, 2023. No match is required. G-6: Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Misc. Grants $386,620.00 Department: Police Prepared By: Amy Dorsey Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 8 The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program (JAG) allows states and local governments to support a broad range of activities to prevent and control crime and to improve the criminal justice system, some of which could have environmental impacts. The Salt Lake City Police Department will use this money for the following : • Professional Travel Training for Sworn and Civilian Staff - $40,125 • Pole Cameras - $20,000 • High Speed License Plate Recognition (+Accessories) - $22,970 • Climbing Equipment - $20,160 • Night Vision Goggles and Mounts - $49,098 • Optics - $11,192 • Ballistic Rated Windshields - $19,500 • Surveillance Trailer Maintenance and Replacement - $14,000 • K9 GPS and Narcotics Enforcement Supplies - $6,132 • Community Policing and Targeted Enforcement Overtime - $76,100 • Subaward to Salt Lake County (BJA allocation) - $53,672 • Subaward to Unified Police Department (BJA allocation) - $53,671 No new staff members are proposed as part of this item. A public hearing was held on September 19, 2023. No match is required. G-7: Rocky Mountain Power Make Ready Rosewood Park Misc. Grants $29,507.51 Department: Sustainability Prepared By: Amy Dorsey This item supports necessary infrastructure for the installation of one (1) approved dual port charger at Rosewood Park, located at 1400 North 1200 West in Salt Lake City. This charger will be available to the public 24/7. There is no cost related to the charger in this incentive. Accepting the incentive payment obligates the participant to maintain functioning chargers and allow public access 24/7 for a minimum of five years, starting from the date of the incentive payment. The maintenance cost of this item is the lesser of the following: $29,507.51 or 80% of the total project cost. A public hearing was held on July 18, 2023 No match is required. G-8: Rocky Mountain Power Make Ready Riverside Park Misc. Grants $20,517.38 Department: Sustainability Prepared By: Amy Dorsey This item supports necessary infrastructure for the installation of one (1) dual port AC Level 2 charger at Riverside Park, located at 1450 West Leadville Avenue in Salt Lake City. This charger will be available to the public 24/7. There is no cost related to the charger in this incentive. Accepting the incentive payment obligates the participant to maintain functioning chargers and allow public access 24/7 for a minimum of five years, starting from the date of the incentive payment. No new staff positions. The maintenance cost of this item is lesser of the following: $20,517.38 or 80% of the total project cost. A public hearing was held on July 18, 2023. No match is required. Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 9 G-9: Rocky Mountain Power Make Ready Regional Athletic Complex Misc. Grants $12,881.77 Department: Sustainability Prepared By: Amy Dorsey This item supports the necessary infrastructure for the installation of one (1) approved dual port AC Level 2 charger at the Regional Athletic Complex, located at 2080 Rose Park Lane in Salt Lake City. This charger will be available to the public 24/7. There is no cost related to the charger in this incentive. Accepting the incentive payment obligates the participant to maintain functioning chargers and allow public access 24/7 for a minimum of five years, starting from the date of the incentive payment. No new staff members. The maintenance cost of this item is the lesser of the following: $12,881.77 or 80% of the total project cost. A public hearing was held on July 18, 2023. No match is required. G-10: Rocky Mountain Power Make Ready Day Riverside Library Misc. Grants $22,642.33 Department: Sustainability Prepared By: Amy Dorsey This item supports the necessary infrastructure for the installation of two (2) approved dual port AC Level 2 chargers at the Day Riverside Library, located at 1575 West 1000 North in Salt Lake City. The project will result in a total of four (4) char ging ports. The chargers will be available to the public 24/7. There is no cost related to the in this incentive. Accepting the incentive payment obligates the participant to maintain functioning chargers and allow public access 24/7 for a minimum of five years, starting from the date of the incentive payment. No new staff members. The maintenance cost of this item is the lesser of the following: $22,642.33 or 80% of the total project cost. A public hearing was held on July 18, 2023. No match is required. G-11: FEMA Power Poles Cameras Misc. Grants $39,200.00 Department: Fire Prepared By: Amy Dorsey FEMA is providing funding to the Fire Department for the temporary installation of cameras onto existing powers poles as needed. A public hearing was held May 16, 2023. No match is required. G-12: Utah Crimes Against Children Task Force Misc. Grants $15,000.00 Department: Police Prepared By: Amy Dorsey The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) has created the Utah Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force Program, which is a national network of state and local law enforcement cybercrime units. The national ICAC program assists state and local law enforcement agencies to develop an effective response to cyber enticement, sexual exploitation of a minor, and other child sexual abuse material cases. The Police Department will utilize this funding to support its ongoing efforts to protect children from cybercrime. Public Hearing was held on August 15, 2023. No match is required. Section I: Council Added Items Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 10 Impact Fees - Summary Confidential Data pulled 07/20/2023 Unallocated Budget Amounts: by Major Area Area Cost Center UnAllocated Cash Notes: Impact fee - Police 8484001 1,402,656$ 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$ $273,684 UnAllocated Budget Amount 8484001 1,402,656$ Attachments A-1 RESOLUTION NO. _____ OF 2023 (Requesting Admission to the Firefighters Retirement System) WHEREAS, Utah Code Sections 49-23-101 et seq. authorize an employer of emergency medical service personnel to elect to include such personnel in the Tier 2 Firefighter Retirement system with the Utah Retirement System; and WHEREAS, employers of full time emergency medical service personnel including paramedics for interfacility transport, including Salt Lake City Corporation (“City”), are authorized to elect to include such personnel in the Tier 2 Firefighter Retirement system with the Utah Retirement System; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest to provide benefits authorized by Utah state law for the public safety personnel by the City; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City Council of Salt Lake City (“City Council”) to exercise the election authorized by statute to approve and authorize coverage under the Fighters Retirement Systems for City firefighter and emergency medical services personnel, including the City’s social workers who provide emergency response services. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: 1. Election and Authorization. The City Council hereby elects to cover the City’s emergency service personnel, also including the City’s social workers who provide emergency response services, who can be qualified for such coverage pursuant to Utah Code Sections 49-23- 101 et seq. in the Tier 2 Firefighter Retirement System with the Utah Retirement System. The Mayor is hereby authorized to undertake all of the necessary actions to enroll the City in the benefit programs of the Firefighters Retirement Systems offered by Utah Retirement Systems, including the retirement coverage and death benefit coverage for qualified employees under the laws and regulation of the Utah Retirement Systems. 2. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon passage. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of _________, 2023. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By: ______________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ____________________________ CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM: Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office ______________________________ Jaysen Oldroyd, Senior City Attorney Date: ______October 9, 2023________ Medical Response Paramedic Job Profile Summary Under the supervision of a Fire Department Officer and the direction of emergency room medical personnel, and in compliance with Utah State and Fire Department operating procedures, provides basic and advanced life support and medical care to victims of sudden illness and accident, at the emergency scene, and during transport to an appropriate medical facility. This is a specialized work performed in accordance with National and Salt Lake City Fire Department performance and training standards. Job Description TYPICAL DUTIES: • Responds to medical emergencies in fire department vehicle with EMT partner. Examines patient at emergency scene and establishes priorities for treatment. Communicates with appropriate hospital emergency room. Provides all treatment according to orders from hospital staff or standing orders, including ECG monitoring, administering IV fluids and medications, defibrillation intubation, splinting and bandaging, extraction, and other treatments necessary for stabilization of patients prior to arrival at emergency room. May transport patients with assistance from contracted ambulance company. • Performs daily medical equipment checks, cleans, and makes equipment used at medical scene serviceable after each call. Keeps record of each medical emergency and patient on forms provided by Utah State Division of Health. Maintains company medical logbook. • Responds to other emergencies with assigned partner as dispatched, carries out orders of company/division officer and other activities necessary for handling an emergency. Acts to maintain safety for self and other members of the team. • Participates in drills and classes as provided by the department or company officer. Participates in physical fitness training. Demonstrates medical skills as required by appropriate authority. Fulfills paramedic certification requirements as established by the State of Utah. Conducts periodic medical training for members as assigned. • Complies with city and department policies and procedures. Completes daily job assignments from company officer to maintain fire station, grounds, and equipment in clean and serviceable condition. Meets with company officer to assess job performance. • Maintains the ability to perform medical activities and participates in all functions required of a paramedic on the Salt Lake City Fire Department. • Performs other duties as required. MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS: • Successful completion of paramedic training and maintenance of certification and licensure as a Utah State Paramedic, including CME attendance and all required testing. Such certification must be in good standing at all times. • Must satisfy the medical condition requirements of National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 1582. • Possession of valid driver license. WORKING CONDITIONS: • Considerable exposure to stressful situations as a result of human behavior while responding to emergency and non-emergency situations. Medical Response Paramedic • Moderately heavy physical activity. Required to stand, walk, or sit uncomfortably for extended periods. Exposure to disagreeable elements such as cold, dampness, toxic fumes, smoke, and noise. Intermittent exposure to infectious diseases, emotionally upset patient, and relatives. Frequent exposure to extreme weather conditions. • May be subjected to lifting weights of 50 pounds or more, aroused out of sleep by fire alarm gongs. Subjected to rapid changes in temperature by responding from station facilities to outside temperatures. May be required during prolonged emergency operations to work without sleep for extended periods. Subjected to traffic hazards during emergency responses through city traffic. The above statements are intended to describe the general nature and level of work being performed by persons assigned to this job. They are not intended to be an exhaustive list of all duties, responsibilities and skills required of personnel so classified. All requirements are subject to possible modification to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities. Attachments A-4 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. ___ of 2023 (Division of Legislative Affairs and City Attorney Reporting) An ordinance amending chapter 2.08.040 of the Salt Lake City Code to add a division of legislative affairs to the Department of the City Attorney and to clarify the City Attorney’s reporting obligations to both branches of government. WHEREAS, Salt Lake City Corporation is the capitol city and engages in year- round efforts to collaborate with and advocate before the Utah legislature. WHEREAS, the Utah legislature is meeting more frequently and opening more bill files that affect Salt Lake City and all Utah municipalities. WHEREAS, Salt Lake City has a strong interest in monitoring trends in federal legislation. WHEREAS, given the City’s legislative goals, the City is committed to establishing a fulltime staff of City employees who are engaged in and supporting the City’s legislative interests. WHEREAS, the City Council and the Mayor have a significant interest in equally participating in the direction of the City’s collaboration and advocacy for the City’s legislative interests. WHEREAS, under City Code 2.08.040, the Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office is responsible to both the Mayor and the City Council, and the executive and legislative branches enjoy equal and independent access to the services of the City Attorney’s Office. 2 WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City now desires to amend city code to create a division of legislative affairs within the Department of the City Attorney. WHEREAS, the division of legislative affairs will direct the City’s legislative advocacy and collaboration efforts, and will be equally responsible to the Mayor and the City Council. WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City also desires to clarify the Department of the City Attorney’s reporting obligations to both branches of government and clarify the instances in which the City may hire outside counsel. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That section 2.08.040 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.08.040: OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY: A. Functions: 1. The city attorney shall be the chief legal officer of the city and shall be responsible to the mayor and city council for the proper administration of the legal affairs of the executive and legislative branches of city government. The city attorney shall report to both the mayor and the council chair and may be removed at the discretion of the mayor. 2. The executive and legislative branches of government shall enjoy equal and independent access to the services of the office of the city attorney with reference to their respective functions and duties. It shall be the responsibility of the city attorney to administer the office of the city attorney in a manner which will enable the mayor and city council to fulfill their respective duties in a timely fashion. 3. The foregoing notwithstanding, the city attorney shall not in any instance, either personally, or by his or her deputies, act as both prosecutor and advocate before (and at the same time advisor to) any board, commission, agency, officer, official or body of the city. In cases where such a conflict shall arise, special counsel may be employed who shall not be subject to the control or direction of the city attorney in such matter, and who shall provide the legal service to or before such board, commission, agency, officer, official or body. 3 4. Supervise the office of the city recorder, the risk management division, and the division of legislative affairs. B. Outside Executive Or Legislative Counsel: Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit the city attorney from retaining outside counsel for either the city council or mayor from appropriated funds, provided, however, that the city attorney will retain outside counsel for either the mayor or city council only after he/she concludes that the office of city attorney has a conflict of interest, is unable, or is unavailable to perform the legal work requested on behalf of such branch of city government. C. City Recorder: 1. The city recorder shall be assigned to the office of the city attorney and be under the administrative direction of the city attorney; however, the recorder shall be responsible to the city council, which shall have equal and independent access for services with respect to legislative functions. 2. The city recorder shall keep the corporate seal, the official papers and records of the city, as required by law; the record of the proceedings of the city, as required by law; and shall attest legal documents of the city and do those other matters prescribed by law. D. Division of Legislative Affairs. 1. The division of legislative affairs will be responsible for monitoring state and federal legislation and engaging in advocacy, collaboration, and tracking of all legislative matters for the city. 2. The director of legislative affairs will be responsible for working with the executive and legislative branches of city government to craft a legislative agenda for the city and will report to both branches of city government on legislative priorities and policies. SECTION 2. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this ___ day of __________________ 2023. ____________________________________ Darin Mano, Council Chair ATTEST: 4 _________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on ____________________________. Mayor’s Action: _________ Approved. ____________ Vetoed. _______________________________________ MAYOR _________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. _______ of 2023. Published: __________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Katherine Lewis, City Attorney / # - $ ) 2 $ . — / A D v A ? A B @ C w D H ˜ October 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 LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS DIRECTOR 034X 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 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 APPENDIX B – APPOINTED EMPLOYEES BY DEPARTMENT Effective June 25, 2023 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 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, remov 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. ed 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 LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS DIRECTOR 034X 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 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 APPENDIX B – APPOINTED EMPLOYEES BY DEPARTMENT Effective June 25, 2023 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 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, remov 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. ed Director of Legislative and Government Affairs The Director of Legislative and Government Affairs reports to the City Attorney and is responsive to both the Legislative and Administrative branches of Salt Lake City government. The Director is responsible for monitoring and interpreting state legislation, appropriations and authorizations, and proposed or existing state regulations, keeping both the Legislative and Administrative branches of Salt Lake City government informed of legislative impacts to the City, and advising and developing policy responses. Incumbent must be able to work extended hours and on weekends as needed, especially while the Legislature is in session. Duties: - Helps ensure City departments are apprised of existing and proposed state regulations and laws and ensures such regulations and laws are fully implemented. - Knows City legislative priorities and advocates for City legislative priorities before the State legislature. - Communicates effectively between the Administrative and Legislative branches of Salt Lake City government to ensure that the City’s legislative priorities are agreed-upon and clearly communicated internally and externally. - Knows City department-specific legislative priorities and negotiates the acceptable City priority when multiple departments have different/conflicting priorities. - Ensures City departments and Administrative and Legislative branches of government timely receive information necessary to understand and participate in City legislative priorities. - Participates with City elected officials and department leadership in establishing direction, goals, and policies. - Meets with staff in both branches of City government to determine needs and challenges. - Oversees staff in the Office of Legislative Affairs and outside contracted lobbyists, and helps set goals for performance. - Ensures compliance with applicable federal and/or state laws, regulations, and/or City rules, standards and guidelines, etc. - Represents City interests on key legislative issues, task forces, committees, etc. and/or drafts legislation, find sponsors, proposes amendments, etc. - Ensures that legislation is implemented and followed. - Works with both branches of City government and legislators if there are concerns in implementation. - Identify and prioritize system changes and improvements in legislative processes. - Demonstrate and utilize knowledge and understanding of best practices in working with the legislature. - Supervise subordinate personnel including hiring, determining workload and delegating assignments, training, monitoring and evaluating performance, and initiating corrective or disciplinary actions. - Gives recommendations to both branches of City government regarding implementation of passed legislation. - Tracks current events, legislation and other issues of interest to both branches of City government. - Other duties as assigned. Qualifications: - Sufficient education to demonstrate an aptitude to perform above and related duties; AND minimum of six (6) years of progressively responsible experience directly related to municipal government administration, and state and local legislative processes; OR An equivalent combination of education and experience. - Thorough knowledge of principles and practices of city government and legislative processes; Utah laws, regulations, and guidelines governing all aspects of municipal operations; legal and political issues affecting city operations and management. - Considerable skill in the art of diplomacy and cooperative problem solving; establishing and maintaining effective working relationships with state, federal, and other local officials, elected officials and City residents. - Ability to understand and interpret complex laws, rules, regulations, policies, and guidelines; establish and maintain effective working relationships with employees, other entities and the public; communicate effectively, verbally and in writing; implement cooperative problem-solving processes. - The ability to communicate information and ideas so others will understand, including the ability to adapt communication. - Collaborative with stakeholders and both branches of City government. - The ability to think critically to help solve problems. - The ability to tell when something is wrong or is likely to go wrong and help pull the right people together to solve it. - Experience working with diverse communities. - Strong planning/project management skills. Attachments A-13 Salt Lake City Corporation, Human Resources Department Job Title: Finance Grant Analyst Job Code Number: 002589 FLSA: Exempt Pay Level: 27 EEO Code: 2 Bargaining Unit: 600 Benchmark: Research Analyst Grant Prog. Mgr. JOB SUMMARY: The Finance Grant Analyst will be under the general direction of the Deputy Director of Finance. The Finance Grant Analyst will assist in the financial monitoring of multiple grants to ensure compliance with city financial processes as well as state and federal grant requirements. , TYPICAL DUTIES: Assist the Deputy Controller with Financial support for Housing grants. This includes, but limited to: • Working alongside other financial professionals. • Preparing calculations in Excel • Managing and approving payments through Workday • Reviewing, reconciling, and administering controls for grant funds • Analyzing, summarizing and/or reviewing data • Reporting findings, interpreting results and/or making recommendations • Collaborating with other team members • Work to ensure budgets and budget amendments are reconciled. • Assist in entering grants into Workday and managing the Workday Grants process. Assist the Grant Manager with reporting and monitoring of grants. This includes, but not limited to: • Assisting the Housing Stability division with City contracts and processes. • Reviewing subrecipient contracts to ensure grant compliance. • Serves as a liaison to provide administrative and technical guidance. • Identifies, resolves, and ensures system compliance issues to follow State and Federal regulations, as well as City policies, procedures, and ordinances. • Organizes and reviews grant files to ensure documentation is complete, maintained, and retained for appropriate audit trails. • Prepares and presents reports for informational briefings and status updates. • Performs other duties as assigned. MINIMUM OUALIFICATIONS: 1. Bachelor’s Degree from an accredited College or University in a related field su ch as accounting, business or finance and four years of years in contract and/or grant experience. Education and experience may be substituted on a year-for-year basis 2. Knowledge of finance and accounting theory, including generally accepted accounting principles. 3. Knowledge of administering and managing grants and contract policy, procedure, and guidelines under City, State, and Federal laws and regulations. 4. Knowledge of 2 CFR 200 Federal grant regulations. 5. Ability to communicate effectively both orally and in writing and build consensus with diverse backgrounds, with varied organizational needs and differing priorities. 6. Ability to coordinate with and instruct others, as necessary, to ensure compliance and accuracy. 7. Ability to independently bring tasks and projects to meet successful and timely resolution. 8. May require minimum amounts of travel to and from meetings, trainings, and conferences. 9. Occasional non-traditional working hours, which may include evening and weekend meetings. PREFERRED OUALIFICATIONS: 1. Experience in federal grant administration. WORKING CONDITIONS: 1. Light physical effort, comfortable working conditions, handling of light weights, intermittent sitting, standing and walking. 2. Considerable exposure to stressful situations as a result of report deadlines and human behavior. Offers of employment are contingent on successful completion of a criminal background check in accordance with City policy and applicable law. Criminal offenses will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and do not automatically disqualify a candidate from City employment. The above statements are intended to describe the general nature and level of work being performed by persons assigned to this job. They are not intended to be an exhaustive list of all duties, responsibilities and skills required of personnel so classified. All requirements are subject to possible modification to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities. Position Review Information Date: 10/28/2023 Departmental Approval: Mary Beth Thompson HR Consultant Approval: Mike Sanchez Compensation Approval: David Salazar Notes: Update to minimum qualifications COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Jennifer Bruno, Deputy Director DATE: December 5, 2023 RE:Landscaping and Buffers Chapter Text Amendment PROJECT TIMELINE: Briefing 1: Dec 5, 2023 Set Date: Dec 12, 2023 Public Hearing: Jan 9, 2024 Potential Action: TBD New Information The Council held a discussion on December 5 and 12, 2023, and identified several areas to discuss further and potentially adjust. Planning Staff has provided a memo and revised ordinance (see attached) responding to the various areas identified. The Council may wish to discuss and straw poll any of these items: ➢Parking Lot Landscaping – there are five elements relating to Parking Lot landscaping that the Administration has evaluated based on the Council’s discussion, and has come back with recommendations: -Applicability – The Council discussed whether the requirements should apply to parking lots as small as 10 stalls (initial proposal). Upon review and analysis included in their memo, the Administration is recommending the requirements apply to parking lots of 15 stalls or more (which is the current code). -Perimeter Landscaping – The Council’s discussion included a concern that the proposal’s requirement of 10’ of perimeter landscaping could be too much. Current perimeter landscaping is 7’. After discussion with the City’s Urban Forester, the Administration is recommending 8’ of required perimeter landscaping, to achieve the policy goals of tree health and urban heat island effect. See analysis in the Administration’s memo. -Clarification of Double-Loading Row and Row End Landscaping – The Administration has recommended the following language to clarify this language, as there was some confusion in the previous discussion, page 88, line 2642 of the ordinance: “2. Location: Interior landscape areas shall be provided in the following locations: a. At each end of a parking row containing 6 stalls or more, where not abutting required perimeter landscaping. Page | 2 b. Parallel to parking lot stalls, at a rate of 1 interior landscape area for every 6 parking spaces, or landscape areas may be provided along the interior length of double-loaded parking rows.” -Accessibility – The Council’s discussion included concerns about the proposed changes and pedestrian experience/walkability. The Administration believes that the overall increase in walking distance would be minimal, and notes that a walkway is required in lots with 25 or more stalls. As such, the Administration is not recommending changes. -Reduce required Minimum Interior Landscaping – the Council requested a change in the minimum required size of the interior landscaping to be similar in size to a parking stall. The original proposal required interior landscaping be at least 10’ wide. The Urban forester recommended that a landscaping area be between 8’ and 9’. The Administration has provided proposed language changes, page 88, line 2651 of the ordinance: “Size: Interior landscape areas shall have a minimum width equal to the width of average parking stall within the parking lot, as measured from the inside of the curbing, and shall have a minimum length equal to the length of the abutting parking spaces. Where interior landscape areas do not abut parking spaces, a minimum length of 10’ is required.” ➢Natural Turf – See page 4 of the Administration’s memo which covers additional information regarding the reasoning for allowing natural turf. Staff note: Staff is aware of some suggestions from Public Utilities about the definition of turf in the code, and is inquiring with the Administration if these adjustments are included in the proposal. The Administration is not recommending changes. ➢Public Information prohibiting artificial turf – The memo (page 5) indicates that public outreach is ongoing and staff will be updating a project webpage on this topic. ➢Reduction in Tree Canopy that qualifies as vegetation coverage – Based on the Council conversation, the Administration is recommending that qualifying tree canopy coverage be limited to newly planted tree canopy at the time of planting (or existing canopy). The Administration has provided proposed language changes, page 84, line 2603 of the ordinance “The total area of an existing tree canopy, or a tree canopy at the time of planting, may be included in the vegetation coverage calculations of the required landscaping location the tree is within.” ➢Rock Mulch Limits – Based on the Council conversation, the Administration has modified this language to clarify that a maximum of 20% of rock mulch be allowed in the required landscaping area. The Administration has provided proposed language changes, page 92, line 2759 of the ordinance “ f. Rock used as a mulch material is limited to 20% of an area where landscaping is required by this chapter.” ➢Park Strip Vegetation Height Allowance – This item was raised by the Planning Director to allow for some native plant species and addressing the sight distance triangle. The Administration has provided proposed language changes – pg 81, line 2433: A. All landscaping shall: 1. Maintain a clearance from grade level to 7 feet above the sidewalk, or 10 feet above a street; 2. Not create a hedge or visual barrier between the sidewalk and street; 3. Not create obstructions within the sight distance triangle, as defined and illustrated in Chapter 21A.62 of this title; Page | 3 The following information was provided for the Council’s previous work session. It is provided again for reference. ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Administration’s proposed ordinance rewrites and re-organizes the Landscaping and Buffers Chapter, consistent with previous Council discussions relating to various sustainability goals for Salt Lake City, and consistent with the strategies outlined in the City’s Urban Forest Action Plan. The Administration’s transmittal notes that the ordinance is intended to “better support the City’s adopted policies related to reducing water use, enhancement of the urban forest, reduction in the urban heat island, improve air quality…”. It also notes that re-organizing this section of the code to improve clarity and readability for both the public and administration. The proposed changes also include feedback from several City departments, as well as changes recommended from the Planning Commission. On April 26, 2023 the Planning Commission voted 10 to 1 to recommend a positive recommendation to the Council with two modifications (see Key Elements #2 and Policy Question #1 on page 3). Goal of the Briefing: Review proposed changes to Landscaping and Buffers chapter, provide feedback and schedule public hearing to receive public comment. KEY ELEMENTS 1.Proposed Changes – The Administration’s transmittal notes the following proposed changes/additions, organized by policy goal: a. Improve water conservation by: i. Requiring a landscaping or irrigation professional letter of compliance with irrigation and landscaping standards. ii. Requiring a WaterSense automatic irrigation controller. iii. Prohibiting water waste. iv. Creating standards for irrigation systems to be designed and maintained to maximize water efficiency. b. Supporting the Urban Forest/trees by: i. Allowing tree canopy to count toward vegetation coverage standards and requiring the largest tree appropriate to the landscape location in most zoning districts. ii. Ensuring tree health by requiring Urban Forestry review of alterations to street trees and root zone protection. iii. Improving tree survival rates by requiring a permanent irrigation system for street trees when a landscape plan is required (new construction, or a commercial property where the landscaping is being updated by 50% or more, or a commercial addition that increases the floor area by 50% or more). iv. Requiring trees in the Northwest Quadrant. c. Reduce the urban heat island by: i. Creating parking lot landscaping standards directed at reducing the urban heat island effect. ii. Establishing rock mulch limitations. iii. Allowing tree canopy to count toward landscape coverage and requiring street trees where new construction is proposed. d. Reduce stormwater runoff by: i. Allowing stormwater curb cuts. Page | 4 ii. Requireing bioretention for parking lots with 50 or more stalls in the Parking Chapter (21A.44) e. Simplify and clarify through: i. Requiring separate plans for planting, grading, and irrigation. ii. Addressing artificial turf, by removing it as permitted, based on the Planning Commission recommendation (See Planning Commission changes below and policy question #1 on Page 3). iii. Consolidating buffer sizes. iv. Updating the Freeway Landscape buffer better comply with goals and intent of chapter. v. Creating tables and graphics where possible. vi. Removing duplicate or wordy standards that were difficult to implement. vii. Quantifying, where possible, minimum landscaping standards. 2.Planning Commission Changes – The Planning Commission voted 10-1 to forward a positive recommendation to the Council with the following changes: c. Prohibiting artificial turf. The Administration’s transmittal notes that the proposed draft before the Council includes “a statement that artificial turf is prohibited anywhere landscaping is regulated by the chapter. Where landscaping is not regulated in this chapter, artificial turf would be allowed (such as the rear yard), as it is today in unregulated landscaping areas. The commission’s recommendation was based on a discussion centered around artificial turfs impact on stormwater runoff and possible harmful chemicals contained in the manufacturing process.” See Policy Question #1 on Page 3. d.Define “Landscape or Irrigation specialist”. During the Planning Commission hearing, some commented that the general language originally proposed about a “landscape or irrigation professional” was too broad. The current draft now requires review and signature by a landscape architect (licensed with the State of Utah), or a US-EPA WaterSense Labeled Certified Professional. 5.Elements not changing - The Administration’s transmittal notes that several current standards in the zoning code will remain: a. Regulated landscaping locations (Park Strips, Yard areas, Buffers, Parking Lots). b. 33% vegetation standard. c. 20% hard surfacing limitations. d. Landscaping and irrigation designed depending on watering needs. e. Drip and spray irrigation on separate valves. f. Park Strip less than 36” in width are exempt from some landscaping standards. g. Landscaping buffer tree and shrub quantities. – h. Mulching depth and permeability standards. i. And encroachment standards in the park strip or public right of way. j. Maintaining the City’s resident’s eligibility for “rip your strip” rebate programs through the CUWCD (Central Utah Water Conservancy District) and Utah Department of Natural Resources. POLICY QUESTIONS 1.Planning Commission recommendations relating to turf – Page | 5 o The draft presented to the Planning Commission on April 26th, permitted artificial turf in front and corner yard landscaping locations as an impervious surface, which is limited to a maximum of 20% of the required landscaping. It was prohibited in other locations. Additionally, artificial turf would have had to meet certain material standards such as individual grass blade length and quantity as well as infill material type. o As noted above, the Planning Commission was concerned with this aspect of the proposal, particularly the impact of turf on stormwater runoff and harmful chemicals used in the turf manufacturing process. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommended to prohibit turf in required landscaping areas. Where landscaping is not regulated by this chapter, such as the rear yard, turf would be permitted. o Recently, some cities, including Boston and several in California have prohibited artificial turf. They have cited Poly-fluoroalkyl Substances or P-FAS, as well as bisphenol A (BPA) in the rubber crumb underlayer as a main public health reason to prohibit artificial turf. o According to the Environmental Protection Agency, PFAS chemicals are a known carcinogen which can interfere with hormones, reproduction, immunity and cause developmental delays in children. The EPA has not officially listed BPA on their concerned substance list but they are continuing to monitor research. o Turf manufacturers have been working to improve the production of artificial turf to reduce/remove chemicals, and each year of development shows improvement on this front. o Previous Council discussions asked for the Administration to evaluate artificial turf as an option for required landscaping areas. Does the Council wish to discuss this further with the Administration, including reviewing the language originally proposed to the Planning Commission? 2.Enforcement – The Council may wish to ask the Administration if they have a recommendation for how to handle enforcement/grandfathering of the changing standards, particularly as it relates to turf? Currently staff understands that the Administration has paused enforcement on turf in landscaping areas, while this ordinance is working its way through the process. CHRONOLOGY •September 6, 2022 – Initial feedback from City Council in work session •February 8, 2023 – Text amendment formally initiated •February 10, 2023 – Notice emailed to recognized organizations and changes posted to Planning Division Open House webpage •March 20, 2023 – Proposed changes presented to Sugar House Community Council •April 26, 2023 – Planning Commission discussion and positive recommendation forwarded •May 8, 2023 – Ordinance forwarded to Attorney’s office for review •June 15, 2023 – Ordinance corrections forwarded to Attorney’s office •August 29, 2023 – Corrected ordinance returned to Attorney’s office for final review •September 26, 2023 – Final ordinance received from Attorney’s Office •September 28, 2023 – Transmittal sent to Council Office Page | 6 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLC.GOV PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801-535-7757 FAX 801-535-6174 PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS MEMORANDUM To: City Council Members From: Nannette Larsen, Senior Planner Date: January 12th, 2023 Re: Landscaping & Buffers Chapter During the briefing held on December 12, 2023, the City Council provided guidance and direction for changes to the 21A.48 Landscaping & Buffers Chapter draft. The following memorandum is a response to the comments and requested changes: 1. Parking Lot Landscaping Applicability: The Council discussed concerns with the proposed minimum number of stalls before parking lot landscaping standards would apply. Specifically, that the proposed threshold for when parking lot landscaping applies may limit infill development or redevelopment potential of smaller properties. In the initial proposal presented to Council, parking lot landscaping would apply to parking lots with 10 or more parking stalls. Currently, parking lot landscaping is required for parking lots with 15 or more parking stalls. Parking lot landscaping requirements include interior and perimeter landscaping. A minimum of 5% of the square footage of the parking lot is required for interior parking lot landscaping. Interior landscaping areas must be provided on parking row ends, and every 6 parking spaces or between double-loading parking rows. Perimeter parking lot landscaping is required where a parking lot is located within a required yard area or within 20’ of a property line. The recommended width of the perimeter parking lot landscaping is 8’. Analysis: For the Council’s consideration, analysis of the percentage of parking lot landscaping that would be required for a parking lot with 10 stalls (initial proposal), 15 stalls (current code requirement) and 25 stalls, is provided below. The following calculations are based on the assumption that the average parking lot size is approximately 350 square feet per parking stall. Parking Lot Parking Lot Square Footage Minimum Interior Landscaping 5% Perimeter Landscaping 8’ Total Landscaping as a % of a Parking Lot 10 Stalls 3,500 175 Sq Ft 944 Sq Ft 31% 15 Stalls 5,250 262 Sq Ft 1,144 Sq Ft 26%  Page 2 (Current requirement & recommendation) 25 Stalls 8,750 437 Sq Ft 1,488 Sq Ft 22% It is recommended that the threshold for when parking lot landscaping applies is maintained at 15 stalls, the current ordinance requirement. A parking lot with 15 stalls would require approximately 26% landscaping with a typical design. This total landscaping area of 28% is similar to vegetation coverage standards, of 1/3rd, in required yard areas. Recommendation: maintain the parking lot landscaping threshold at 15 stalls Status: direction needed. Perimeter Landscaping: The majority of parking lot landscaping falls within the perimeter landscaping, encompassing all of the required parking lot landscaping except generally the 5% interior landscaping area. The perimeter parking lot landscaping acts as both a tool that reduces the urban heat island as well as a form of a land use buffer from adjoining properties. Currently the parking lot perimeter landscaping width is required at 7’, this was increased to a minimum of 10’ in the initial proposal presented to council. The purpose of the initial proposal of 10’ was to promote tree health and longevity, it was also increased to match landscape buffer widths required elsewhere in the chapter. While there is some concern about the amount of required perimeter parking lot landscaping, it is still recommended that there is an increase in perimeter landscaping width to improve tree health in these areas. After follow-up conversations with the Urban Forester, 8’ in width is sufficient to support tree health and reduce tree mortality rates. It is recommended that the perimeter parking lot landscaping be a minimum of 8’ to assuage concerns regarding infill and redevelopment properties while still sufficiently addressing and mitigating the effects of a parking lot located within 20’ of a property line and reducing the urban heat island effect. Parking Lot Parking Lot Square Footage Perimeter Landscaping 8’ Perimeter Landscaping 10’ Perimeter Landscaping (8’) as a % of Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping (10’) as a % of Parking Lot 10 Stalls 3,500 944 Sq Ft 1,180 Sq Ft 33%38% 15 Stalls 5,250 1,152 Sq Ft 1,440 Sq Ft 21%32% 25 Stalls 8,750 1,488 Sq Ft 1,860 Sq Ft 17%26% The proposed landscaping chapter’s perimeter and interior parking lot landscaping averages based on parking lot size are indicated in the above table. It is shown in this table that as parking lot square footages increases, the percentage of landscaping decreases. This is due to  Page 3 most of the landscaping being located along the perimeter of the parking lot. While the overall landscaping to hard surface ratio decreases as the size of the parking lot increases, it is expected that the provision requiring a biodetention in parking lots with 50 or more stalls landscaping ratios will be similar to smaller square footage parking lots. This is because these biodetention areas will generally need to be larger, than the interior and perimeter parking lot landscaping minimums, to adequately detain stormwater in these larger parking lots. Recommendation: require perimeter parking lot landscaping to be 8’ wide Status: direction needed Clarification of Double-Loading Row and Row End Landscaping: The language in the most recent draft chapter was updated to clarify where interior parking lot landscaping is required. The type of interior landscaping locations provided are required to ensure dispersion of interior landscaping areas. The minimum 5% interior landscaping is stated to ensure sufficient interior parking lot landscaping is provided to meet the purpose and goals of the chapter. Status: changes made to the legislative version, pg. 88, line 2642. “2. Location: Interior landscape areas shall be provided in the following locations: a. At each end of a parking row containing 6 stalls or more, where not abutting required perimeter landscaping. b. Parallel to parking lot stalls, at a rate of 1 interior landscape area for every 6 parking spaces, or landscape areas may be provided along the interior length of double-loaded parking rows.” Accessibility: During the briefing there was a concern raised regarding the accessibility of parking lot and how the proposed parking lot landscaping standards would affect how pedestrians experience the increase in walking distance. In addition to the 5% interior landscaping, it would also require 5’ perimeter landscaping and a 3’ walkway where a parking lot abuts the principal building. The interior parking lot landscaping area would affect the distance between parking stalls and access to the building. However, a 5% of interior landscaping area and a 5’ perimeter landscaping area between the parking lot and the building, the increase in walking distance would be overall minimal. In addition to the proposed changes to the Landscaping & Buffer chapter, are proposed modifications to the Off-Street Parking chapter (21A.44). Pedestrian walkways are proposed to be required where there are 25 or more stalls. One walkway, which is separate from drive aisles, is required for every 20 stalls provided. While the proposed parking lot landscaping will increase the distance from the surface parking lot to the building, the experience of the pedestrian will improve as there will be a separation between the pedestrian and vehicles, and there will be a reduction in the urban heat island. Recommendation: no modification to proposed chapter Status: direction needed Reduce Required Minimum Interior Landscaping Size: The Council requested a change in the minimum required size of the interior parking lot landscaping areas to be similar to a standard parking stall. This modification would ease in the implementation of the ordinance and  Page 4 encourage compliance. The original proposal required that interior parking lot landscaping areas be at least 10’ wide and equal to the length of the adjoining stalls. The Council recommended that the interior landscaping minimum width be reduced to the average parking stall width. The average stall width is dependent on the angle of the parking stall. Generally, standard parking stall widths are between 8’ and 9’. The current interior landscaping minimum width is 5’, it is recommended that this width is increased as this isn’t sufficient space for tree health or a tree full canopy. The Urban Forester confirmed an interior parking lot landscaping area between 8’ and 9’ would be sufficient to promote the health and longevity of the tree. The draft Landscaping & Buffers chapter has been modified and now requires a minimum interior landscaping width equal average parking stall in the parking lot. Status: changes made to the legislative version, pg. 88, line 2651. “Size: Interior landscape areas shall have a minimum width equal to the width of average parking stall within the parking lot, as measured from the inside of the curbing, and shall have a minimum length equal to the length of the abutting parking spaces. Where interior landscape areas do not abut parking spaces, a minimum length of 10’ is required.” 2. Why Allow Turf in Required Landscaping Areas: The proposed Landscaping & Buffers chapter addresses high water consuming grass species which are commonly seen in single-family residential areas. These cool season grasses (like Kentucky Blue) are defined as turf in the proposed chapter. Turf is defined as: “Grasses planted as a ground cover that may be mowed and maintained to be used as a lawn area of landscaping. Does not include decorative grasses, grasses that are adaptive or native to the local environment or grasses that do not generally require supplemental water, or inorganic substitutes commonly referred to as artificial turf.” This definition of turf does not include all ground cover grass seed. The grass species which qualify as turf, those species which are non- adaptive and non-native to northern Utah climates, generally cool season grasses, are those grass species proposed to be limited in all zoning districts. Turf limitations are to reduce water consumption, qualify for waterwise rebates, and assist in changing landscape expectations in the City. It is typical to see 100% turf coverage in residential districts as the preferred landscape material. While limiting turf in residential districts will still allow turf grasses that require more watering in the summer months to maintain a green lawn in 1/3 of the landscaping locations, it will cut high water consuming cool season grasses by over half, with a 2/3 reduction. It’s important to remember that while many single- and two- family residential districts have landscaped rear yard areas, available for recreational activities, other residential districts do not always have this rear yard landscaping areas. An example of this is the RMF districts. In the RMF districts there are rear yard setbacks required but the rear yard is generally occupied by needed parking or storage areas to accommodate the increase in density. By allowing some turf in required yard areas it allows for multi-family residential districts to still provide a recreational or lounging space for residents in required landscaping areas, a landscaping use that is typical in residential neighborhoods. Turf is proposed to be prohibited in manufacturing districts as it’s rare for uses in manufacturing districts to utilize turf areas. All other zoning districts not included in the residential or manufacturing districts allow turf but only in active recreational areas. These  Page 5 prohibitions and limitations also facilitate a reduction in water consumption while still allowing outdoor activity use, if these areas are dedicated to activities where turf is a typical playing surface. Turf limitations in these areas are needed to retain waterwise rebate eligibility for City residents. Turf in park strips throughout Salt Lake City is proposed to be prohibited. Recommendation: changes are not recommended Status: direction needed 3.Public Information About Prohibiting Artificial Turf: The concern was raised by Council regarding the public’s response to prohibiting artificial turf in required landscaping locations. Public outreach is ongoing and staff will be updating the Landscaping & Buffers project webpage with information that is accessible to the public with accessible information on why it is recommended that artificial turf is prohibited as a landscaping material. Status: outreach is ongoing 4. Reduction in Tree Canopy that Qualifies as Vegetation Coverage: During the December briefing the Council was informed that the rewrite of the chapter includes the provision where a tree’s canopy at maturity could count towards 100% of the vegetation coverage in required landscaping locations. At maturity, a small tree generally has a 300 square foot canopy, this would allow for a tree canopy to count toward 100% of the vegetation, resulting in the tree being the only living landscape material in these locations – the council expressed concern with this. It's recommended that the qualifying tree canopy coverage is limited to the newly planted tree canopy at the time of planting or existing tree canopy. That way, it is the size of the canopy, not the age or degree of maturity that would be counted. This would potentially still allow for existing mature trees to account for all the required vegetation, however, staff believes this still accomplishes the goals of the landscaping chapter and is in line with the goals of the urban forest action plan related to prioritizing trees. New trees would be calculated by their existing canopy, not their canopy at maturity, so it’s likely that in the case of new trees, more than just a tree would be required to meet the vegetation requirements. Allowing existing tree canopies Image 1: park strip trees with no vegetation ground cover  Page 6 to qualify as vegetation coverage minimums would still incentivize trees in required landscaping locations, while still requiring sufficient organic material that benefits the appearance of neighborhoods, maintains soil health, and ensures sufficient evapotranspiration thereby assisting in the reduction of the urban heat island. Recommendation: limit qualifying tree canopy coverage to exiting canopies or canopies at the time of planting Status: changes made to legislative version, pg. 84, line 2603. “The total area of an existing tree canopy, or a tree canopy at the time of planting, may be included in the vegetation coverage calculations of the required landscaping location the tree is within.” 5. Rock Mulch Limits a Percentage of a Landscaping Area: During the Council’s discussion the method of measuring and limiting rock mulch was raised as a possible issue where mulch beds are limited in size. It was recommended by Council that rock mulch is limited as a percentage of the landscaping area rather than a percentage of the mulch used. The purpose of limiting rock mulch is to better address the effect rock mulch has on the urban heat island effect and soil quality. These goals can still be met when rock mulch is regulated as a maximum percentage of landscaping area. The original proposed draft recommended that no more than 50% of the mulch used on the site may be rock mulch. This has been modified at the request of Council, to a maximum of 20% of rock mulch in the landscape area. The maximum rock mulch ratio was determined as rock mulch heat index and heat retention is similar to that of hard surfacing. However, rock mulch doesn’t have the same stormwater runoff rate that hard surfaces have. This proposed maximum 20% rock mulch is also consistent with what was previously required – a maximum 50% of the mulch in the landscaping area. Landscaping areas must have no less than 33% of vegetation and has a maximum of 20% hard surfacing. The remaining landscaping area, 47%, could be mulched. Half of this allowed mulched areas would equate to approximately 20% of the required landscaping area. Status: changes made to legislative version, pg. 92, line 2759 “ f. Rock used as a mulch material is limited to 20% of an area where landscaping is required by this chapter.” 6. Increase Park Strip Vegetation Height Allowance: The Planning Director brought up an issue that was raised over the summer about allowed vegetation height in the park strip. There was concern that some native plant species would be excluded from the park strip due to vegetation height restrictions. Allowed vegetation height in the park strip was previously proposed to remain at a maximum of 22”. The newly updated language to address this issue states that there cannot be a visual barrier between the sidewalk and the street – to ensure continued visibility between these spaces. The modifications also address view obstructions within the sight distance triangle.  Page 7 Status: changes made to legislative version, pg. 81, line 2433 A. All landscaping shall: 1. Maintain a clearance from grade level to 7 feet above the sidewalk, or 10 feet above a street; 2. Not create a hedge or visual barrier between the sidewalk and street; 3. Not create obstructions within the sight distance triangle, as defined and illustrated in Chapter 21A.62 of this title; The full revised draft of the Landscaping & Buffers Chapter is attached for reference. Text Amendment // City Council Briefing LANDSCAPING & BUFFERSCHAPTER 48 FOLLOW-UP PLNPCM2023-00098 POTENTIAL DRAFT MODIFICATIONS Salt Lake City // Planning Division PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING. Applicability Threshold Perimeter Landscaping Parking Lot Parking Lot Square Footage Minimum Interior Landscaping 5% Perimeter Landscaping 8’ Total Landscaping as a % of a Parking Lot 10 Stalls 3,500 175 Sq Ft 944 Sq Ft 31% 15 Stalls 5,250 262 Sq Ft 1,144 Sq Ft 26% 25 Stalls 8,750 437 Sq Ft 1,488 Sq Ft 22% •Clarification of Double Loading Parking Row and Row End Landscaping. •Reduce Required Minimum Interior Landscaping Size. •Parking Lot Accessibility. Salt Lake City // Planning Division PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING. Salt Lake City // Planning Division WHY ALLOW TURF IN REQUIRED LANDSCAPING AREAS? Will Still Reduce Water Consuming Turf By 2/3. Allows For Multi-family Recreational Or Lounging Space. Prohibited In Districts Where Turf Is Not Utilized. Continued Rebate Eligibility. Salt Lake City // Planning Division PRIORITIZING TREES WHILE ENSURING SUFFICIENT VEGETATION Existing Tree Canopy May Count Toward Required Vegetation Coverage. PARK STRIP VEGETATION HEIGHT. ROCK MULCH LIMITATIONS. Limited To 20% Of A Required Landscaping Area. Cannot Create A Hedge Or Visual Barrier. “TURF:Grasses planted as a ground cover that may be mowed and maintained to be used as a lawn area of landscaping.Does not include grasses that are listed in the Salt Lake City Plant List &Hydrozone Schedule.Inorganic substitutes,commonly referred to as artificial turf,are prohibited in required landscaping areas.” UPDATE TURF DEFINITION. *ADDITIONAL MODIFICATION* Salt Lake City // Planning Division Applicability Threshold: Direction Needed Recommendation: Maintain existing 15 stall threshold. Perimeter Landscaping: Direction Needed Recommendation: Require minimum 8’ wide. Clarification of Interior Parking Lot Landscaping: Changes Made Recommendation: Clarified. Parking Lot Accessibility: Direction Needed Recommendation: No modifications. Reduce Minimum Interior Landscape Size: Changes Made Recommendation: Minimum width of average stall. Why Allow Turf in Required Landscaping Areas: Direction Needed Recommendation: No modification. Existing Tree Canopy as Vegetation Coverage: Changes Made Recommendation: Limit qualifying tree canopy coverage to existing canopies or canopies at the time of planting. Rock Mulch Limited Per Landscaping Area: Changes Made Recommendation: Limit rock mulch to 20% of a required landscaping area. Increase Park Strip Vegetation Height Allowance: Changes Made Recommendation: Cannot create a hedge or visual barrier. Salt Lake City // Planning Division LEGISLATIVE DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 1 No. _____ of 202_ 2 3 (Amending the zoning text of various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code 4 pertaining to Landscaping and Buffers chapter amendments) 5 6 An ordinance amending the text of various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City 7 Code pertaining to Landscaping and Buffers Chapter amendments pursuant to Petition No. 8 PLNPCM2023-00098. 9 WHEREAS, on April 26, 2023, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning 10 Commission”) held a public hearing on a petition submitted by Salt Lake City Mayor, Erin 11 Mendenhall--at the request of the Salt Lake City Council--to amend the zoning code pertaining 12 to the Landscaping and Buffer Chapter (Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00098); and 13 WHEREAS, at its April 26, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of 14 forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on said petition; and 15 WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the city council has determined that 16 adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. 17 NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 18 19 SECTION 1. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.24.010.P.12. That Subsection 20 21A.24.010.P.12 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: General Provisions: 21 Special Foothills Regulations), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 22 12. Landscaping Aand Revegetation: 23 a. Installation of all required landscaping shall begin no later than one month after a 24 certificate of occupancy; except that if the certificate of occupancy is issued 25 between October 15 and the following April 1, installation of the landscaping 26 shall begin no later than April 30. Landscaping shall be substantially completed 27 within nine (9) months after a certificate of occupancy is issued. Landscaping 28 shall conform to the requirements of cChapter 21A.48 of this title, and shall also 29 conform to the following requirements: 30 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT a.(1) Front Yards Aand Side Yards: Front yards, corner side yards and interior 31 side yards shall be completely landscaped except for driveways, walkways 32 and patios/decks. 33 b.(2) Disturbed Areas: All other areas disturbed during construction shall be 34 either landscaped or revegetated to a natural state. 35 c.(3) Undevelopable Areas: Lawns or gardens are prohibited in the 36 undevelopable areas. Native and drought tolerant plant species established in 37 undevelopable areas may be enhanced by irrigation and supplemental planting 38 as approved by the Zzoning Aadministrator, provided the Zzoning 39 Aadministrator finds that such supplemental planting is in keeping with the 40 natural conditions. 41 b. Special Landscape Regulations in the FR-1/43,560 and FR-2/21,780 Districts: In 42 addition to the regulations in Chapter 21A.48 “Landscaping and Buffers” the 43 following special landscape regulations apply: 44 45 (1) Landscape Plan: In addition to the landscape plan submittal requirements 46 listed in Section 21A.48.050, landscape plans shall also include: 47 48 (a) Delineation between the proposed revegetation of disturbed site areas. 49 (b) As a condition of site plan approval, a plan for erosion. 50 (c) An irrigation plan designed to provide sufficient water for at least the first 51 two years of growth to establish revegetation of natural areas. 52 53 (2) Tree Preservation and Replacement: Existing trees over 2 inches in caliper 54 that are removed from the site to accommodate development shall be replaced. 55 Whenever microclimate conditions make it practical, the proportion of 56 replacement tree species shall be the same as the trees removed. 57 (3) Slope Revegetation: All slopes graded or otherwise disturbed shall be 58 restored/replanted. Restored vegetation shall consist of native or adapted 59 grasses, herbaceous perennials, or woody trees and shrubs as appropriate for 60 slope and microclimate conditions. 61 62 SECTION 2. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.24.020.I. That Subsection 63 21A.24.020.I of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: FR-1/43,560 Foothills 64 Estate Residential District: Landscape Plan), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 65 I. Landscape Plan: A landscape plan conforming to the requirements of chapter Section 66 21A.48.050 and Subsection 21A.24.010.P of this title shall be required. 67 68 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT SECTION 3. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.24.030. That Subsection 69 21A.24.030.I of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: FR-1/21,780 Foothills 70 Residential District: Landscape Plan), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 71 I. Landscape Plan: A landscape plan conforming to the requirements of chapter Section 72 21A.48.050 and Subsection 21A.24.010.P of this title shall be required. 73 74 SECTION 4. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.24.120.G. That Subsection 75 21A.24.120.G of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: RMF-30 Low Density 76 Multi-Family Residential District: RMF-30 Building Type Zoning Standards), shall be and 77 hereby is amended to read as follows: 78 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Building Regulation Building Type Single- Family Dwelling Two- Family Dwelling Multi- Family Residential Row House1 Sideways Row House1 Cottage Development1 Tiny House1 Non Residential Building Building Regulation Building Type Single- Family Dwelling Two- Family Dwelling Multi- Family Residential Row House1 Sideways Row House1 Cottage Development1 Tiny House1 Non Residential Building H Height 30’ Pitched Roof- 23’ Flat Roof-16’ 16’ 30’ F Front yard setback 20’ or the average of the block face C Corner side yard setback 10’ S Interior side yard setback 4’ on one side 10’ on the other 10’ 4’ 6’ on one side 10’ on the other 4’ 10’ R Rear yard Minimum of 20% lot depth, need not exceed 25’ 10’ Minimum of 20% lot depth, need not exceed 25’ LEGISLATIVE DRAFT L Minimum lot size2 2,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit 1,500 sq. ft. per dwelling unit 5,000 sq. ft. per building DU Maximum Dwelling Units per Form 1 2 8 6 8 per development 1 n/a BC Maximum Building Coverage 50% LY Required Landscaped Yards The front and corner side yards shall be maintained as landscape yards. LB Landscape Buffers per subsectionChapter 21A.48.080 C of this title. X X X G Attached Garages Garage doors accessed from the front or corner side yard shall be no wider than 50% of the front facade of the structure and set back at least 5’ from the street facing building facade and at least 20’ from the property line. Interior side loaded garages are permitted. DS Design Standards All new buildings are subject to applicable design standards in cChapter 21A.37 of this title. 80 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 81 SECTION 5. Amending the Text of Section 21A.26.010. That Section 21A.26.010 of 82 the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Commercial Districts: General Provisions), shall be and hereby 83 is amended as follows: 84 a. That Subsection 21A.26.010.C.1 shall be amended to read as follows: 85 86 C. Impact Controls Aand General Restrictions Iin Tthe Commercial Districts: 87 88 1. Refuse Control: Temporary storage of refuse materials shall be limited to that 89 produced on the premises. Refuse containers must be covered and shall be stored 90 within completely enclosed buildings or screened in conformance with the 91 requirements of chapter Section 21A.40.1208 of this title. For buildings existing as of 92 April 12, 1995, this screening provision shall be required if the floor area or parking 93 requirements are increased by twenty five percent (25%) or more by an expansion to 94 the building or change in the type of land use. 95 96 b. That Subsection 21A.26.010.H shall be amended to read as follows: 97 98 H. Landscaping Aand Buffering: The landscaping and buffering requirements for the 99 Ccommercial Ddistricts shall be as specified in cChapter 21A.48 , including 100 section 21A.48.110, of this title. 101 102 SECTION 6. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.26.020.G. That Subsection 103 21A.26.020.G of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Commercial Districts: CN Neighborhood 104 Commercial District: Landscape Yard Requirements), shall be and hereby is amended to read as 105 follows: 106 G. Landscape Yard Requirements: Front and corner side yards shall be maintained as 107 landscape yards, conforming to the requirements of Chapter 21A.48. Subject to site plan 108 review approval, part or all of the landscape yard may be a patio or plaza, conforming to 109 the requirements of Chaptersection 21A.48.090 of this title. 110 111 SECTION 7. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.26.025.G. That Subsection 112 21A.26.025.G of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Commercial Districts: SNB Small 113 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Neighborhood Business District: Landscape Yard Requirements), shall be and hereby is 114 amended to read as follows: 115 G. Landscape Yard Requirements: Front and corner side yards shall be maintained as 116 landscape yards. Subject to site plan review approval, part or the entire landscape yard 117 may be a patio or plaza, conforming to the requirements of section 21A.48.090 of this 118 title. 119 120 SECTION 8. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.26.040.F. That Subsection 121 21A.26.040.F of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Commercial Districts: CS Community 122 Shopping District: Landscape Yard Requirements), shall be and hereby is amended to read as 123 follows: 124 F. Landscape Yard Requirements: A landscape yard of fifteen feet (15’) shall be required on 125 all front and corner side yards, conforming to the requirements of Chaptersection 126 21A.48.090 of this title. 127 128 SECTION 9. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.26.050.E. That Subsection 129 21A.26.050.E of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Commercial Districts: CC Corridor 130 Commercial District: Landscape Yard Requirements), shall be and hereby is amended to read as 131 follows: 132 F. Landscape Yard Requirements: A landscape yard of fifteen feet (15’) shall be required on 133 all front and corner side yards, conforming to the requirements of Chaptersection 134 21A.48.090 and subsection 21A.48.100C of this title. 135 136 137 SECTION 10. Amending the Text of Section 21A.26.060. That Section 21A.26.060 of 138 the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Commercial Districts: CSHBD Sugar House Business District 139 (CSHBD1 and CSHBD2)), shall be and hereby is amended as follows: 140 a. That Subsection 21A.26.060.J shall be amended to read as follows: 141 142 J. Park Strip Materials: Propertiesy within this zoning district may utilize alternative park 143 strip landscaping materials. Alternative materials are subject to planning director 144 approval based on its compliance with the adopted shall be considered part of 145 an improvement district subject to the provisions of Section 21A.48.060, and as such, 146 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT alternative materials may be utilized for park strips. Alternative material is subject to 147 planning director approval based on its compliance with the adopted “Circulation and 148 Streetscape Amenities Plan” or its successor. 149 b. That Subsection 21A.26.060.K shall be amended to read as follows: 150 151 K. Street Trees: Street trees are required and subject to the regulations in ChapterSection 152 21A.48.060. If a park strip does not exist, street trees are required when the sidewalk 153 width of at least 10’ can be maintained, to which required street trees shall be planted in 154 tree wells with tree grates with sufficient soil volume as determined by the Urban 155 Forestry Division. 156 157 SECTION 11. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.26.070.E. That Subsection 158 21A.26.070.E of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Commercial Districts: CG General 159 Commercial District: Landscape Yard Requirements), shall be and hereby is amended to read as 160 follows: 161 E. Landscape Yard Requirements: A landscape yard of five feet shall be required on all 162 front or corner side yards, conforming to the requirements of Section Chapter 21A.48.090 163 of this title. 164 165 SECTION 12. Amending the Text of Section 21A.28.010. That Section 21A.28.010 of 166 the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Manufacturing Districts: General Provisions), shall be and 167 hereby is amended as follows: 168 a. That Subsection 21A.28.010.B.1 shall be amended to read as follows: 169 170 B. Impact Controls Aand General Restrictions Iin Tthe Manufacturing Districts: 171 172 1. Refuse Control: Refuse containers must be covered and shall be stored within 173 completely enclosed buildings or screened in conformance with the requirements of 174 Section chapter 21A.4840.120 of this title. 175 b. That Subsection 21A.28.010.G shall be amended to read as follows: 176 177 G. Landscaping Aand Buffering: All uses in the manufacturing districts shall comply with 178 the provisions governing landscaping and buffering in cChapter 21A.48 of this title, 179 including section 21A.48.110 of this title. 180 181 182 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT SECTION 13. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.28.030.E. That Subsection 183 21A.28.030.E of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Manufacturing Districts: M-2 Heavy 184 Manufacturing District: Landscape Yard Requirements), shall be and hereby is amended to read 185 as follows: 186 E. Landscape Yard Requirements: The first twenty five feet (25’) of all required front yards 187 and the first fifteen feet (15’) of all required corner side yards shall be maintained as 188 landscape yards in conformance with the requirements of cChapter 21A.48 of this title, 189 including section 21A.48.110 of this title. 190 191 SECTION 14. Amending the Text of Section 21A.30.010. That Section 21A.30.010 of 192 the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Downtown Districts: General Provisions), shall be and hereby 193 is amended to read as follows: 194 21A.30.010: GENERAL PROVISIONS: 195 A. Statement of Intent: The downtown districts are intended to provide use, bulk, urban 196 design and other controls and regulations appropriate to the commercial core of the city 197 and adjacent areas in order to enhance employment opportunities; to encourage the 198 efficient use of land; to enhance property values; to improve the design quality of 199 downtown areas; to create a unique downtown center which fosters the arts, 200 entertainment, financial, office, retail and governmental activities; to provide safety and 201 security; encourage permitted residential uses within the downtown area; and to help 202 implement adopted plans. 203 B. Permitted Uses: The uses specified as permitted uses in Section 21A.33.050, “Table of 204 Permitted and Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts”, of this title are permitted; 205 provided, that they comply with all requirements of this chapter, the general standards set 206 forth in Part IV of this title, and all other applicable requirements of this title. 207 208 1. Conditional Uses: The uses specified as conditional uses in Section 21A.33.050, 209 “Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts”, of this title, may 210 be allowed in the downtown districts provided they are approved pursuant to the 211 standards and procedures for conditional uses set forth in Chapter 21A.54 of this title, 212 and comply with all other applicable requirements. 213 214 C. Impact Controls and General Restrictions in the Downtown Districts: 215 216 1. Refuse Control: Refuse containers must be covered and shall be stored within 217 completely enclosed buildings or screened in conformance with the requirements of 218 Section 21A.40.120chapter 21A.48 of this title. For buildings existing as of April 12, 219 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1995, this screening provision shall be required if the floor area or parking 220 requirements are increased by twenty five percent (25%) or more by an expansion to 221 the building or change in the type of land use. 222 2. Lighting: On site lighting, including parking lot lighting and illuminated signs, shall 223 be located, directed or designed in such a manner so as not to create glare on adjacent 224 properties. 225 3. Fencing for Vacant Lots in the D-1 Central Business District and D-4 Downtown 226 Secondary Central Business District: Fencing shall be required on those lots 227 becoming vacant, where no replacement use is proposed, in conformance with the 228 following: 229 230 a. Fencing, pursuant to Section 21A.40.120 of this title, is required to secure vacant 231 lots in the downtown area; 232 b. Fencing shall consist of wrought iron or other similar material (chainlink is 233 prohibited); and 234 c. Fencing shall be open so as not to create a visual barrier, and shall be limited to a 235 maximum of 4 feet in height, with the exception of a fence located within a sight 236 distance on any corner lot as noted in Section 21A.40.120 of this title. 237 238 The approval of a building permit shall be delegated to the building official with the 239 input of the planning director, to determine if the fencing materials, location, and 240 height are compatible with adjacent properties in a given setting. 241 242 D. Outdoor Sales, Display and Storage: “Sales and display (outdoor)” and “storage and 243 display (outdoor)”, as defined in Chapter 21A.62 of this title, are allowed where 244 specifically authorized in Section 21A.33.050, “Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses 245 for Downtown Districts”, of this title. These uses shall conform to the following: 246 247 1. The outdoor sales or display of merchandise shall not encroach into areas of required 248 parking for periods longer than 30 days; 249 2. The outdoor sales or display of merchandise shall not be located in any required yard 250 area within the lot when the required yard abuts a residential zoning district; 251 3. The outdoor sales or display of merchandise shall not include the use of banners, 252 pennants or strings of pennants; 253 4. Outdoor storage shall be allowed only where specifically authorized in the applicable 254 district regulation and shall be required to be fully screened with opaque fencing not 255 to exceed eight feet in height; and 256 5. Outdoor sales and display and outdoor storage shall also be permitted when part of an 257 authorized temporary use as established in Chapter 21A.42 of this title. 258 259 E. Restrictions on Parking Lots and Structures: An excessive amount of at or above ground 260 parking lots and structures can negatively impact the urban design objectives of the 261 Downtown Zzoning Ddistricts. To control such impacts, the following regulations apply 262 to surface parking and above grade structures: 263 264 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1. Parking shall be located behind principal buildings or incorporated into the principal 265 building provided the parking is wrapped on street facing facades with a use allowed 266 in the zone other than parking. 267 2. A parking lot shall not consist of more than two double-loaded parking aisles (bays) 268 adjacent to each other. The length of a parking lot shall not exceed 10 stalls. Parking 269 for government facilities necessary for public health and safety are exempt from this 270 provision. 271 272 Illustration of Regulation 21A.010.E.2 Surface Parking Lots 273 3. Parking lots, garages or parking structures, proposed as the only principal use on a 274 property that has frontage on a public street and that would result in a building 275 demolition are prohibited in the Downtown zoning districts. 276 4. No special restrictions shall apply to belowground parking facilities. 277 278 F. Midblock Walkways: As part of the city’s plan for the downtown area, it is intended that 279 midblock walkways be provided to increase pedestrian connectivity and overall livability 280 downtown through the creation of an intricate pedestrian network. The city has adopted 281 the Downtown Plan that includes a midblock walkway map and establishes a need for 282 such walkways as the Downtown grows. Because the districts within the downtown area 283 allow building heights that exceed those of other districts in the city, the requirement for 284 a midblock walkway is considered to be necessary to alleviate pedestrian impacts on the 285 public sidewalks by dispersing future use of the public sidewalks. All buildings 286 constructed after the effective date hereof within the Downtown zoning districts shall 287 conform to this officially adopted plan for midblock walkways, in addition to the 288 following standards: 289 290 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1. Any new development shall provide a midblock walkway if a midblock walkway on 291 the subject property has been identified in a master plan that has been adopted by the 292 city. 293 2. The following standards apply to the midblock walkway: 294 a. The midblock walkway must be a minimum of 15’ wide and include a minimum 295 6’ wide unobstructed path. 296 b. The midblock walkway may be incorporated into the building provided it is open 297 to the public. A sign shall be posted indicating that the public may use the 298 walkway. 299 c. Building encroachments into the midblock walkway are permitted if they include 300 one or more of the following elements: 301 302 (1) Colonnades; 303 (2) Staircases; 304 (3) Balconies: All balconies must be located at the third story or above. 305 (4) Building overhangs and associated cantilever: - These coverings may be 306 between 9 and 14’ above the level of the sidewalk. They shall provide a 307 minimum depth of coverage of six feet and project no closer to the curb than 308 three feet. 309 (5) Skybridge: A single skybridge is permitted. All skybridges must be located at 310 the third, fourth, or fifth stories. 311 (6) Other architectural element(s) not listed above that offers refuge from weather 312 and/or provide publicly accessible usable space. 313 314 Illustration of Regulation 21A.30.010.F Midblock Walkways 1 The midblock walkway must be a minimum of 15’ wide and include a minimum 6’ wide unobstructed path. 315 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT G. Sidewalks: For all downtown districts, sidewalks must be a clear walking path that is a 316 minimum of 10’ wide. Outdoor dining shall be permitted within the sidewalk if it 317 complies with the minimum width of a clear path as defined in the outdoor dining design 318 guidelines. 319 320 H. Landscaping and Buffers: All uses in the downtown districts shall comply with the 321 provisions governing landscaping and buffers in Chapter 21A.48 of this title. Where a 322 park strip does not exist, street trees are only required when the sidewalk width of at least 323 10’ can be maintained, in which required street trees shall be planted in tree wells with 324 tree grates. 325 326 IH. Additional Standards: All uses in the downtown districts shall comply with the standards 327 set in Part IV, Regulations of General Applicability, of this title, including the applicable 328 standards in the following chapters: 329 330 1. 21A.36 General Provisions 331 2. 21A.37 Design Standards 332 3. 21A.38 Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Structures 333 4. 21A.40 Accessory Uses, Buildings, and Structures 334 5. 21A.42 Temporary Uses 335 6. 21A.44 Off Street Parking, Mobility, and Loading 336 7. 21A.46 Signs 337 8. 21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers 338 9. Any other applicable chapter of this title that may include applicable provisions. 339 340 341 SECTION 15. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.30.020.C. That Subsection 342 21A.30.020.C of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Downtown Districts: D-1 Central Business 343 District), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 344 C. D-1 District General Regulations: The regulations established in this section apply to the 345 D-1 District as a whole. 346 347 1. Yard Requirements: No minimum yards are required. A maximum yard of eight feet 348 is allowed. 349 a. If provided, the yard must include one of the following elements: 350 351 i. Seating at a ratio of at least one bench for every 500 square feet of yard space; 352 or 353 ii. Landscaping that includes an increase of at least 25% in the total number of 354 trees required to be planted on the site; or 355 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT iii. Awning or a similar form of weather protection that covers at least five feet in 356 width and length from all street-facing building entrances. 357 b. Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized through the design review 358 process, subject to the requirements of Chapter 21A.59 of this title. 359 c. The planning director, in consultation with the transportation director, may 360 modify this requirement to accommodate a wider sidewalk if the adjacent public 361 sidewalk is less than 15’ wide and the resulting modification to the setback results 362 in a more efficient public sidewalk. The planning director may waive this 363 requirement for any addition, expansions, or intensification, which increases the 364 floor area or parking requirement by less than 50% if the planning director finds 365 the following: 366 367 i. The architecture of the addition is compatible with the architecture of the 368 original structure or the surrounding architecture, or 369 ii. The addition reduces the extent of the noncompliance of the existing building. 370 371 d. Regardless of the setback provided, doors shall be setback a minimum distance to 372 allow the door to operate without swinging into a right of way or midblock 373 walkway. 374 e. Interior Side Yards: No minimum interior side yard is required. 375 f. Rear Yard: No minimum rear yard is required. 376 377 4. Landscape Requirements For Demolition Sites: Vacant lots, resulting from 378 demolition activities where no replacement use is proposed, shall conform to chapter 379 21A.48 of this title, special landscape requirements applicable to the D-1 Central 380 Business District. 381 382 SECTION 16. Amending the Text of Section 21A.32.030. That Section 21A.32.030 of 383 the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Special Purpose Districts: BP Business Park District), shall be 384 and hereby is amended as follows: 385 a. That Subsection 21A.32.030.E shall be amended to read as follows: 386 387 E. Minimum Open Space Area: The minimum open space area for any use shall not be less 388 than fifteen percent (15%) of the lot area. 389 390 1. At least thirty three percent (33%) of the required open space area shall be covered 391 with vegetation. 392 2. All landscaped open space areas shall conform with the water efficient landscaping 393 standards found in section Chapter 21A.48.055 of this title. 394 395 396 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT b. That Subsection 21A.32.030.I shall be amended to read as follows: 397 398 I. Other District Regulations: In addition to the foregoing regulations, all uses shall comply 399 with the following requirements: 400 401 1. Enclosed Operations: All principal uses shall take place within entirely enclosed 402 buildings. 403 2. Outdoor Storage: Accessory outdoor storage shall be screened with a solid fence and 404 approved through the site plan review process. 405 3. Nuisance Impacts: Uses and processes shall be limited to those that do not create a 406 nuisance to the use and enjoyment of adjacent property due to odor, dust, smoke, 407 gases, vapors, noise, light, vibration, refuse matter or water carried waste. The use of 408 explosive or radioactive materials, or any other hazardous materials, shall conform to 409 all applicable State or Federal regulations. 410 4. Property Zoned Business Park: When a property zoned Business Park abuts, or is 411 across the street from, an AG-2 or AG-5 Zoning District the following standards shall 412 apply: 413 414 a. Buildings shall be prohibited within one hundred feet (100’) of the adjacent 415 property line; 416 b. Parking lots shall be prohibited within fifty feet (50’) of the adjacent property 417 line; and 418 c. The portion of the lot located between the adjacent property line and the parking 419 lot or building shall be improved in the form of a landscaped buffer with a 420 minimum five foot (5-’)foot berm and shall comply with the provisions of 421 subsection Chapter 21A.48.080D3 of this title. 422 423 SECTION 17. Amending the Text of Section 21A.32.040. That Section 21A.32.040 of 424 the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Special Purpose Districts: FP Foothills Protection District), 425 shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 426 21A.32.040: FP FOOTHILLS PROTECTION DISTRICT: 427 428 A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the FP Foothills Protection District is to protect the 429 foothill areas from intensive development in order to protect the scenic value of these 430 areas, wildlife habitats and to minimize flooding and erosion. This district is appropriate 431 in areas where supported by applicable master plans. 432 433 B. Uses: Uses in the FP Foothills Protection District as specified in sSection 21A.33.070, 434 “Table Oof Permitted Aand Conditional Uses Ffor Special Purpose Districts”, of this 435 title, are permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in sSection 21A.32.010 of 436 this chapter and this section. 437 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 438 C. Special Foothills Regulations: The regulations contained in sSubsection 21A.24.010.P of 439 this title, shall apply to the FP Foothills Protection District. 440 441 D. Minimum Lot Area Aand Lot Width: Any use, except trailheads, in the FP Foothills 442 Protection District shall comply with the following lot area and width requirements: 443 1. Minimum lot area: Sixteen (16) acres. 444 2. Minimum lot width: One hundred forty feet (140’). 445 446 E. Maximum Building Height: See sSubsection 21A.24.010.P of this title for special 447 foothills regulations governing building height. 448 F. Minimum Yard Requirements: No principal or accessory building shall be located within 449 twenty feet (20’) of the front or corner side lot line nor shall any principal or accessory 450 building be located within seventy five feet (75’) of any side or rear lot line. Accessory 451 structures (other than accessory buildings) shall conform to sSection 21A.36.020, 452 tTable 21A.36.020.B of this title. 453 G. Maximum Disturbed Area: The disturbed site area shall not exceed two (2) acres. For the 454 purposes of this district, “disturbed areas” shall be defined as areas of grading and 455 removal of existing vegetation for principal and accessory buildings and areas to be hard 456 surfaced. 457 H. Slope Restrictions: To protect the visual and environmental quality of foothill areas, no 458 building shall be constructed on any portion of the site that exceeds a thirty percent 459 (30%) slope for lots in subdivisions granted preliminary approval by the Pplanning 460 Ccommission after November 4, 1994. 461 I. Fence Restrictions: Fences and walls shall only be constructed after first obtaining a 462 building permit subject to the standards of this subsection. 463 1. Site Plan Submittal: As a part of the site plan review process, a fencing plan shall be 464 submitted which shall show: 465 a. Any specific subdivision approval conditions regarding fencing; 466 b. Material specifications and illustrations necessary to determine compliance with 467 specific subdivision approval limitations and the standards of this section. 468 2. Field Fencing Oof Designated Undevelopable Areas: Fencing on areas identified as 469 undevelopable areas or transitional areas on any subdivision granted preliminary 470 approval by the Pplanning Ccommission after November 4, 1994, or any lot 471 previously platted which identifies undevelopable areas or transitional areas shall be 472 limited to the following standards unless subdivision approval granted prior to 473 November 4, 1994, included specific fencing requirements which are more restrictive. 474 The more restrictive requirement shall apply. 475 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT a. A low visibility see through fence shall consist of flat black colored steel “T” 476 posts and not more than four (4) strands of nonbarbed steel wire, strung at even 477 vertical spacing on the “T” post, and erected to a height of not more than forty 478 two inches (42”) above the natural ground surface. 479 b. When fencing lot boundary lines, vegetation or native brush shall not be cleared 480 so as to create a visible demarcation from off site. 481 c. The existing surface of the ground shall not be changed by grading activities 482 when erecting boundary fences. 483 d. Fence materials and designs must not create a hazard for big game wildlife 484 species. 485 e. No field fencing shall be erected in conflict with pedestrian easements dedicated 486 to Salt Lake City. 487 3. Buildable Area Fencing: Fencing on any portions of a lot identified as buildable area 488 or required side yard on any subdivision granted preliminary approval by the 489 Pplanning Ccommission after November 4, 1994, or any lot previously platted which 490 identifies undevelopable areas or transitional areas shall be limited to the following 491 standards unless subdivision approval granted prior to November 4, 1994, includes 492 specific fencing requirements which are more restrictive. The more restrictive 493 requirement shall apply. 494 a. An open, see through fence shall be constructed of tubular steel, wrought iron or 495 similar materials, finished with a flat black, nonreflective finish constructed to a 496 height of six feet (6’) or less; or 497 b. A sight obscuring or privacy type fence shall be of earth tone colors, or similar 498 materials to the primary dwelling, and located in a way to screen private outdoor 499 living spaces from off site view. 500 4. Front Oor Corner Side Yard Fencing: Walls and fences located within the front or 501 corner side yards or along dedicated roads shall not exceed a maximum of forty two 502 inches (42”) in height. 503 J. Special Landscape Regulations: In addition to the regulations in Chapter 21A.48 504 “Landscaping and Buffers” the following special landscape regulations apply: 505 506 1. Landscape Plan: In addition to the landscape plan submittal requirements listed in 507 Section 21A.48.050, landscape plans shall also include: 508 509 a. Delineation between proposed revegetation of disturbed areas of the site, and 510 road/driveway areas. The landscape plan shall extend 100 feet beyond the 511 disturbed site area and 25 feet beyond the limits of grading for roads/driveways, 512 but need not include any portions of the site designated as undevelopable unless 513 these areas are disturbed. 514 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT b. As a condition of site plan approval, a plan for erosion protection. 515 c. An irrigation plan designed to provide sufficient water for at least the first 2 years 516 of growth to establish revegetation of natural areas. 517 518 519 2. Maximum Disturbed Area: The maximum disturbed area shall not exceed 10% of the 520 total site area. 521 3. Tree Preservation and Replacement: Existing trees over 2 inches in caliper that are 522 removed from the site to accommodate development shall be replaced. Whenever 523 microclimate conditions make it practical, the proportion of replacement tree species 524 shall be the same as the trees removed. 525 4. Limits on Turf: To minimize the impact on the natural landscape and promote the 526 intent of this district, the area of turf grasses shall not exceed 33% of the area to be 527 landscaped and shall not encroach into undevelopable areas. 528 5. Slope Revegetation: All slopes graded or otherwise disturbed shall be 529 restored/replanted. Restored vegetation shall consist of native or adapted grasses, 530 herbaceous perennials, or woody trees and shrubs as appropriate for slope, soil and 531 microclimate conditions. 532 533 SECTION 18. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.32.130.I. That Subsection 534 21A.32.130.I of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Special Purpose Districts: MU Mixed Use 535 District: Landscape Buffers), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 536 I. Landscape Buffers: Where a nonresidential or mixed use lot abuts a residential or vacant 537 lot within the MU Mixed Use District or any Residential District, a ten foot (10’) 538 landscape buffer shall be provided subject to the improvement requirements of subsection 539 Chapter 21A.48.080D of this title. 540 541 SECTION 19. Amending the Text of Section 21A.34.030. That Section 21A.34.030 of 542 the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Overlay Districts: T Transitional Overlay District), shall be and 543 hereby is amended to read as follows: 544 545 21A.34.030: T TRANSITIONAL OVERLAY DISTRICT: 546 547 A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the T Transitional Overlay District is to allow for the 548 redevelopment of certain older residential areas for limited commercial and light 549 industrial uses. This district is intended to provide a higher level of control over such 550 activity to ensure that the use and enjoyment of existing residential properties is not 551 substantially diminished by future nonresidential redevelopment. The intent of this 552 district shall be achieved by designating certain nonresidential uses as conditional uses 553 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT within the overlay district and requiring future redevelopment to comply with established 554 standards for compatibility and buffering as set forth in this section. 555 B. District Locational Criteria: Residential areas covered by the T Transitional Overlay 556 District are characterized by: 557 1. A land use designation in the Ccity’s General Plan identifying reuse or redevelopment 558 for nonresidential uses; 559 2. The presence of external influences, such as proximity to expressways, railroad tracks 560 and incompatible uses, which impact the long term viability of residential use; and 561 3. Deteriorating housing stock. 562 563 C. Permitted Uses: The uses specified as permitted uses in the table of permitted and 564 conditional uses set forth in pPart III of this title for the underlying district shall be 565 permitted uses and no other. 566 D. Conditional Uses: The uses specified as conditional uses in the table of permitted and 567 conditional uses set forth in pPart III of this title for the underlying district shall be 568 conditional uses. In addition to the conditional uses permitted in the underlying district, 569 the following uses shall be allowed as conditional uses in the T tTransitional oOverlay 570 dDistrict: 571 1. Light manufacturing and industrial assembly uses; 572 2. Warehouse and wholesale uses in which goods and materials are stored in completely 573 enclosed buildings; 574 3. Offices; 575 4. Furniture and appliance repair shops; 576 5. Commercial photography studios and photofinishing laboratories; 577 6. Retail goods establishments; 578 7. Retail services establishments; 579 8. Medical and dental offices and clinics; and 580 9. Medical laboratories. 581 582 E. Minimum Lot Area: The minimum lot area for any conditional use shall be ten thousand 583 (10,000) square feet. 584 F. Minimum Lot Width: The minimum lot width for any conditional use shall be sixty feet 585 (60’). 586 G. Maximum Building Height: The maximum building height for conditional uses shall be 587 thirty five feet (35’). 588 H. Site Design Criteria: The land use compatibility of a proposed conditional use shall be 589 assessed, through the application of the following criteria in addition to the standards for 590 conditional uses set forth in cChapter 21A.54, “Conditional Uses”, of this title. 591 1. The proposed principal building shall be located not less than twenty feet (20’) from 592 any residential dwelling; 593 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2. Interior side yards for lots abutting residential uses shall not be less than twelve feet 594 (12’); 595 3. Interior side yards for lots abutting another nonresidential use shall not be less than 596 eight feet (8’); 597 4. Front and corner side yards shall be provided consistent with the underlying zoning 598 district; 599 5. Rear yards shall not be less than twenty five feet (25’); 600 6. Signs should be limited to one flat nonilluminated identification sign not more than 601 six (6) square feet per fifty feet (50’) of lot frontage. 602 603 I. Buffer Requirements: All conditional uses shall conform to the buffer requirements 604 established in subsection 21A.48.100E of this title. 605 JI. Application: The application for a conditional use in the transitional overlay district shall 606 include information in sufficient detail so that the planning commission may judge the 607 compatibility of the conditional use with the existing residential conditions and the 608 adopted mixed use development policies and for the planning commission to assess the 609 impacts to the existing neighborhood. The following specific information shall also be 610 provided in the application: 611 612 1. The amount of employee, customer or other business related traffic (i.e., delivery and 613 pick up) expected to be generated by the proposed use; 614 2. Traffic impact analysis determining the anticipated effect on contiguous streets and 615 necessary improvements to the street network required to maintain an acceptable 616 level of service for the neighborhood; 617 3. The location and design of vehicular access to the proposed use, the amount of off 618 street parking facilities, and the location, arrangement and dimensions of loading and 619 unloading facilities; 620 4. Hours of operation of the business; 621 5. The amount of noise, noxious odors, fumes or vibration anticipated from the proposed 622 use; 623 6. Schematic elevations of all building facades indicating building materials, entries, 624 loading docks, signage and building height; 625 7. Schematic landscape plan. 626 627 KJ. Standards: In evaluating the suitability of a proposed conditional use, the planning 628 commission shall consider the following standards: 629 1. In addition to all the requirements, standards and criteria established for the 630 transitional overlay district, each conditional use must satisfy the requirements of 631 cChapter 21A.54, “Conditional Uses”, of this title. 632 2. The applicant has the burden of establishing to the planning commission that the 633 proposed conditional use meets the purposes of the transitional overlay district. 634 635 SECTION 20. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.34.040.FF. That Subsection 636 21A.34.040.FF of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Overlay Districts: AFPP Airport Flight Path 637 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Protection Overlay District: Airport Parking Lot Landscaping), shall be and hereby is amended 638 to read as follows: 639 FF. Airport Parking Lot Landscaping: All parking lots located within the airport 640 landscaping overlay district shall comply with the following guidelines: 641 642 1. General Landscaping Performance Standards: Landscaping plans for parking lots 643 shall be developed to reflect a balance between the responsibility of ensuring the 644 safety and security of persons and property with the objective of creating aesthetically 645 pleasing, environmentally sensitive landscapes. Landscaping should address city 646 goals related to reduction of urban heat islands, visual buffering of parking lots, 647 impacts of noise, water conservation, as well as minimization of dust, runoff and 648 sedimentation. Landscaping shall consist of a variety of landscape materials, which 649 may include trees, turf, ground cover, shrubs, perennials, managed water features, and 650 rock features. Drought tolerant, native, or adaptive or resistant vegetation, which 651 reflects the natural vegetation and geography of the region, should shall be used to 652 create an aesthetically appealing landscape. 653 2. Reduction Oof Urban Heat Islands: The following standards are intended to help 654 mitigate the contribution to the urban heat island effect from large parking areas. 655 Parking lot owners or operators may use a combination of any of the following 656 methods to reduce urban heat: 657 658 a. The total airport parking supply shall consist of a combination of surface and 659 structured parking lots. Structured parking shall offset the area of surface parking 660 that is otherwise required, thereby reducing the area that contributes to urban heat. 661 b. Landscaping within large land use areas may be evaluated in terms of a 662 comprehensive planned development program to consider the total landscaping 663 within the entire development area. Landscaping may be shifted from the interior 664 of parking lots to other areas within the developed area. 665 c. Landscaping, which includes trees, shrubs, ground cover and perennials, shall be 666 dispersed throughout parking lots to provide shade while ensuring trees are not 667 planted at a spacing or density that will encourage wildlife use or create an 668 aviation hazard. 669 d. Shade for pedestrians shall be provided in parking lots through the use of 670 pedestrian shelters integrated with landscaping. 671 e. Interior landscaped areas shall be provided in parking lots to reduce heat, provide 672 a visual buffer and reduce runoff. 673 f. No specific ratio of trees and shrubs to landscaped area is required. 674 675 3. Visual Buffering: Landscaped buffers, not less than ten feet (10’) in width, shall be 676 provided, where feasible, between parking lots and primary entrance and exit roads. 677 Visual screening shall be provided within landscape buffers to enhance aesthetics and 678 reduce visibility of parked vehicles. Visual screening may consist of a combination of 679 earth berms, shrubs, trees or other methods. 680 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 4. Water Conservation: To promote water conservation, landscape concepts shall 681 incorporate features that use trees, shrubs, ornamental grasses, ground cover, and 682 perennials that are drought tolerant, native, or adaptive or resistant species that can 683 withstand dry conditions once established. The plant list developed by the city, titled 684 “Water Conserving Plants Ffor Salt Lake City”, shall be used as the primary reference 685 in determining drought tolerance of plants. All irrigation systems shall be designed 686 for efficient use of potable water. Traditional Tturf areas is are prohibited should be 687 minimized in favor of alternative landscape practices to reduce the use of water. 688 5. Temporary Parking Lots: Parking lots that are intended to be in use for three (3) years 689 or less are exempt from parking lot landscaping requirements. Such parking lots may 690 exist to phase the construction of other facilities and shall be removed once the 691 facilities are completed. Temporary lots that are within the area of an approved 692 comprehensive plan may remain in use for the duration approved in the plan. 693 However, temporary parking lots shall still comply with applicable development 694 standards for parking lots as outlined in cChapter 21A.44 of this title. Parking lots 695 that remain in use by the public beyond three (3) years shall be brought into 696 compliance with these standards within twelve (12) months. 697 6. Operational Aand Maintenance Lots: Parking lots that are not available to the public 698 for parking and are used to store vehicles, operational materials, or maintenance 699 equipment are exempt from landscaping requirements. The portions of permanent 700 storage lots that are adjacent to public areas shall be landscaped using acceptable 701 landscaping principles contained herein to screen the storage area from public view. 702 7. Plan Approval: All landscape plans shall be coordinated with the city’s development 703 review team (DRT) and planning division, for review and comment on compliance 704 with city ordinances and these performance standards. The planning director and 705 director of airports shall jointly approve final landscaping plans for any airport 706 parking lot. 707 708 SECTION 21. Amending the Text of Section 21A.34.140. That Section 21A.34.140 of 709 the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Overlay Districts: Northwest Quadrant Overlay District), shall 710 be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 711 21A.34.140: NORTHWEST QUADRANT OVERLAY DISTRICT: 712 A. Northwest Quadrant Overlay District: 713 1. Purpose: The purpose of the Northwest Quadrant Overlay District is to protect 714 sensitive lands and wildlife habitat; allow for the continuation of agricultural uses; 715 and allow for the development of lands in appropriate areas that contribute to the 716 future economic growth of the Ccity and will not negatively impact sensitive lands, 717 habitats, and waterways in the area north of I-80 and west of the Salt Lake 718 International Airport. Sites within this area may be subject to difficult environmental 719 and site conditions. The overlay defines three (3) subareas: the Development Area, 720 the Eco-Industrial Buffer Area, and the Natural Area. 721 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2. Public Improvements Aand Dedications: The undeveloped land in the Northwest 722 Quadrant requires public improvements to ensure the long term development 723 potential and success of the area. All development subject to a site development or 724 building permit, shall be required to provide public improvements required by Ccity 725 departments as outlined in their Mmaster Pplans. 726 3. State Aand Federal Permits Required: A site development and/or building permit 727 shall not be granted unless the applicant has first obtained any necessary State and/or 728 Federal wetlands and/or stream alteration permits. 729 4. Precedence: For areas where the LC Lowland Conservancy Overlay District is 730 mapped within the Northwest Quadrant Development Area and/or the Northwest 731 Quadrant Eco-Industrial Buffer Area, the LC Lowland Conservancy Overlay District 732 shall take precedence. 733 734 B. Northwest Quadrant Development Area: The purpose of this area of the Northwest 735 Quadrant Overlay District is to allow for new development to occur in a way that allows 736 for the growth of light industrial uses in the Ccity while minimizing impacts to wildlife 737 and the surrounding sensitive Great Salt Lake shore lands. This area is identified on the 738 zoning map. 739 740 1. General Requirements: 741 742 a. Minimum Yard Requirements: 743 744 (1) Front Yard: Twenty feet (20’). 745 (2) Corner Side Yard: Twenty feet (20’). 746 (3) Interior Side Yard: None required. 747 (4) Rear Yard: None required. 748 749 b. Lighting: All lighting on the property, including lighting on the buildings, parking 750 areas, and for signs shall be shielded to direct light down and away from the edges 751 of the property to eliminate glare or light into adjacent properties and have cutoffs 752 to prevent upward lighting. Uplighting and event searchlights are prohibited. 753 c. Roof Color: Light reflective roofing material with a minimum solar reflective 754 index (SRI) of 82 shall be used for all roofs. 755 756 2. Landscaping Requirements: The purpose of the special landscaping for the Northwest 757 Quadrant Development Area is to provide appropriate native landscaping that can 758 survive in the unique conditions of the area, prevent noxious weeds, and to provide 759 landscaping that will not negatively impact the adjacent sensitive lands and birds 760 areas. 761 762 a. All landscaping shall consist only of native plants as identified in the “Salt Lake 763 City Northwest Quadrant Plant List” on file with the Ccity’s Pplanning Ddivision. 764 b. Any areas disturbed by construction activity that will be left undeveloped shall be 765 landscaped with plantings at an appropriate density to achieve complete cover 766 within two (2) years. 767 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT c. Noxious weed species as identified by the Utah Department of Agriculture and 768 Food (or its successor) in the State of Utah Noxious Weed List (or its successor) 769 shall be removed from landscaped areas and areas disturbed by construction 770 activity. Noxious weeds shall be controlled for a period of two (2) years and 771 methods of control shall be identified on the landscape plan. 772 d. Required Ttrees, including street trees, shall be chosen from the “Northwest 773 Quadrant Plant List” are not required for any landscaping as required elsewhere in 774 this title. Noxious trees, as identified by the Utah Department of Agriculture and 775 Food (or its successor) in the State of Utah Noxious Weed List (or its successor) 776 are prohibited. 777 e. Any shrub and tree plantings required by cChapter 21A.48 of this title shall be 778 selected from the “Salt Lake City Northwest Quadrant Plan List” and substituted 779 with allowed shrubs or with allowed plants that have a mature height of at least 780 three feet (3’). as identified in the “Salt Lake City Northwest Quadrant Plant 781 List”. 782 f. All other requirements in cChapter 21A.48 of this title apply. This section shall 783 take precedence in the case of a conflict with cChapter 21A.48 of this title. 784 785 C. Northwest Quadrant Eco-Industrial Buffer Area: The purpose of this area of the 786 Northwest Quadrant Overlay District is to provide an adequate buffer between the 787 Natural Area, the adjacent Inland Sea Shore and the development of light industrial uses. 788 Requirements in this area are meant to provide an area of transition from the natural 789 environment to the built environment that will limit impacts to wildlife and sensitive 790 areas. This area is identified on the zoning map. 791 792 1. In addition to the requirements listed in sSubsection B of this section, properties 793 located within the Northwest Quadrant Eco- Industrial Buffer Area are subject to the 794 following requirements: 795 796 a. Glass Requirements: For buildings with more than ten percent (10%) glass on any 797 building elevation, a minimum of ninety percent (90%) of all glass shall be treated 798 with applied films, coatings, tints, exterior screens, netting, fritting, frosted glass 799 or other means to reduce the number of birds that may collide with the glazing. 800 Any treatment must create a grid pattern that is equal to or smaller than 2 two 801 inches wide by 4 four inches tall. 802 b. Fencing: When adjacent to the Northwest Quadrant Natural Area or the western 803 Ccity boundary, a see through fence that is at least fifty percent (50%) open with a 804 minimum height of six feet (6’) shall be erected along the property line to protect 805 the Natural Area from development impacts and trespass. 806 807 D. Northwest Quadrant Natural Area: The purpose of this area of the Northwest Quadrant 808 Overlay District is to protect sensitive lands and wildlife near the Great Salt Lake 809 shorelands, to allow for the continuation of existing uses, and to limit new uses and new 810 development in this area. This area is identified on the zoning map. 811 812 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1. Permitted Uses Aand Improvements: Within the Natural Area, permitted 813 developments and improvements to land are limited to the following: 814 815 Accessory use (associated with an allowed principal use). 816 Agricultural use. 817 Living quarters for caretaker or security guard. 818 Maintenance to existing infrastructure. 819 Natural open space. 820 Necessary infrastructure to support an allowed use. 821 Utility, building or structure (public). 822 Utility, transmission wire, line, pipe or pole (public). 823 Wildlife and game preserves. 824 825 2. Conditional Uses Aand Standards: 826 827 a. Uses Aand Improvements: The following uses and improvements are subject to 828 conditional use standards contained in cChapter 21A.54 of this title: 829 830 Hunting club, (when allowed by the underlying zoning). 831 832 Underground utility transmission infrastructure (private), subject to the following: 833 834 (1) An appropriate plan for mitigation of any construction activities shall be 835 prepared, and 836 (2) Absent any State or Federal regulations, a plan for creating no adverse impact 837 should the line be abandoned shall be prepared. 838 839 Utility, building or structure (private). 840 841 Utility, transmission wire, line, pipe or pole (private). 842 843 b. Conditional Use Standards: In addition to demonstrating conformance with the 844 conditional use standards contained in cChapter 21A.54 of this title, each 845 applicant for a conditional use within the Northwest Quadrant Natural Area must 846 demonstrate conformance with the following standards: 847 848 (1) The development will not detrimentally affect or destroy natural features such 849 as ponds, streams, wetlands, and forested areas, nor impair their natural 850 functions, but will preserve and incorporate such features into the 851 development’s site; 852 (2) The location of natural features and the site’s topography have been 853 considered in the designing and siting of all physical improvements; 854 (3) Adequate assurances have been received that the clearing of the site topsoil, 855 trees, and other natural features will not occur before the commencement of 856 building operations; only those areas approved for the placement of physical 857 improvements may be cleared; 858 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT (4) The development will not reduce the natural retention storage capacity of any 859 watercourse, nor increase the magnitude and volume of flooding at other 860 locations; and that in addition, the development will not increase stream 861 velocities; 862 (5) The soil and subsoil conditions are suitable for excavation and site 863 preparation, and the drainage is designed to prevent erosion and 864 environmentally deleterious surface runoff; 865 (6) The proposed development activity will not endanger health and safety, 866 including danger from the obstruction or diversion of flood flow; 867 (7) The proposed development activity will not destroy valuable habitat for 868 aquatic or other flora and fauna, adversely affect water quality or groundwater 869 resources, increase stormwater runoff velocity so that water levels from 870 flooding increased, or adversely impact any other natural stream, floodplain, 871 or wetland functions, and is otherwise consistent with the intent of this title; 872 (8) The proposed water supply and sanitation systems are adequate to prevent 873 disease, contamination and unsanitary conditions; and 874 (9) The availability of alternative locations not subject to flooding for the 875 proposed use. 876 877 3. Landscaping: Landscaping is not required for uses and improvements within the 878 Natural Area, except: 879 880 a. Any areas disturbed by construction activity that will be left undeveloped shall be 881 revegetated with native plants as listed in the “Salt Lake City Northwest Quadrant 882 Plant List”. 883 b. Noxious weed species as identified by the Utah Department of Agriculture and 884 Food (or its successor) in the State of Utah Noxious Weed List (or its successor) 885 shall be removed from landscaped areas and areas disturbed by construction 886 activity. Noxious weeds shall be controlled for a period of two (2) years and 887 methods of control shall be identified on the landscape plan. 888 889 SECTION 22. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.37.050.P. That Subsection 890 21A.37.050.P of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Design Standards: Design Standards Defined: 891 Streetscape Standards), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 892 P. Streetscape Standards: These standards are required for landscaping that is within the 893 public right of way. This is defined as the space between the private property line and the 894 back of the curb. All properties must comply with the park strip landscaping regulations 895 in Chapter 21A.48. Where there is a conflict between the requirements in Chapter 21A.48 896 and the requirements of this Subsection, the requirements in this Subsection shall apply. 897 898 1. Tree Canopy Coverage: No tree canopy shall cover less than the specified percentage 899 according to Section 21A.37.060, Table 21A.37.060 of this chapter. The defined 900 percentage represents the canopy coverage at maturity. At installation, a minimum of 901 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 20% of all trees shall have a minimum caliper of 3”. Where tree canopy coverage 902 percentage is indicated in Table 21A.37.060, tree canopy coverage shall not count 903 towards the minimum coverage requirements for park strip vegetation. 904 905 2. Minimum Vegetation Standards: The percentage of vegetation shall be no less than 906 the specified amount according to Chapter 21A.48. The vegetation shall be planted in 907 the public right of way. 908 909 Illustration of Regulation 21A.37.050.P.1 Tree Canopy Coverage 1 No tree canopy coverage shall cover less than the specified percentage according to Section 21A.37.060, Table 21A.37.060 of this chapter. Illustration of Regulation 21A.37.050.P.2 Minimum Vegetation Standards (References the measurements in Table D, Downtown Districts) [Illustration to be deleted] LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 910 23. Street Trees: All new development must provide street trees in accordance with the 911 requirements in Street trees are required and subject to the regulations in Section 912 Chapter 21A.48.080. Where specified in Table 21A.37.060 of this chapter, In addition 913 to those standards, for every new development, there shall be one street tree planted 914 for every 30’ of street frontage. 915 34. Soil Volume: In order to promote street tree health and longevity, each tree shall have 916 an adequate volume of soil. The soil volume surrounding a tree shall be 750ft3 to 917 1,000ft3 per tree, provided that this area is exclusive of the soils volume calculation 918 for adjacent trees. The soil volume may be reduced if under ground utilities are 919 present within the soil volume and the soil volume cannot be extended horizontally 920 due to other obstructions or barriers. 921 922 923 45. Minimize Curb Cuts: As an effort to emphasize the public realm and encourage the 924 safety of pedestrians, places where cars intersect the street shall be minimized. More 925 specifically, curb cuts are encouraged to be concentrated at midblock and alley 926 locations. The sidewalk material shall continue at ground level of the curb cuts. 927 928 1 The percentage of vegetation shall be no less than the specified percentage according to Chapter 21A.48. 2 Vegetation shall be planted in the public right of way. Illustration of Regulation 21A.37.050.P.34 Soil Volume 1 The soil volume surrounding a tree shall be 750ft3 to 1,000ft3 per tree, provided that this area is exclusive of the soils volume calculation for adjacent trees. Illustration of Regulation 21A.37.050.P.45 Minimize Curb Cuts LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 929 56. Overhead Cover: Overhead covers are required at building entrances to provide 930 weather protection to pedestrians and may encroach into a required yard as indicated 931 in this section or into a public right of way with an approved encroachment agreement 932 with the Ccity. These coverings are required to be between 9 and 14’ above the level 933 of the sidewalk. They shall also provide coverage with a minimum depth of 6’ and 934 project no closer to the curb than 3’. 935 936 1 Curb cuts are encouraged to be concentrated at midblock and alley locations. Illustration of Regulation 21A.37.050.P.56 Overhead Cover 1 The shade structure shall occur between 9 and 14’ above the level of the sidewalk. The shade shall provide a minimum coverage of 6’ in width. LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 937 7. Streetscape Landscaping: All vegetation used along the streetscape must comply with 938 the landscape requirements set forth in Chapter 21A.48. 939 940 SECTION 23. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.37.060. That Subsection 941 21A.37.060 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Design Standards: Design Standards Required 942 in Each Zoning District), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 943 This section identifies each design standard and to which zoning districts the standard applies. If 944 a box is checked (X), that standard is required. If a box is blank, it is not required. If a specific 945 dimension or detail of a design standard differs among zoning districts or differs from the 946 definition, it will be indicated within the box. In cases where a dimension in this table conflicts 947 with a dimension in the definition, the dimensions listed in the table shall take precedence. 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 The cover shall project no closer than 3’ to the curb. LEGISLATIVE DRAFT TABLE 21A.37.060 955 A. Residential Districts: 956 957 Standard (Code Section) District RMF-30 RMF-35 RMF-45 RMF-75 RB R-MU-35 R-MU-45 R-MU RO Ground floor use (%) (21A.37.050.A.1) 75 75 Ground floor use + visual interest (%) (21A.37.050.A.2) Building materials: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050B.3) 80 80 Building materials: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.B.4) Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.C.1) 60 60 40 Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.C.2) Building entrances (feet) (21A.37.050.D) 75 75 X Blank wall: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.E) 15 15 15 Street facing facade: maximum length(feet) (21A.37.050.F) Upper floor stepback (feet) (21A.37.050.G.2 and 21A.37.050.G.3) 10 Lighting: exterior (21A.37.050.H) Lighting: parking lot (21A.37.050.I) X X Screening of mechanical equipment (21A.37.050.J) X X X Screening of service areas (21A.37.050.K.1) X X X Ground floor residential entrances for dwellings with individual unit entries (21A.37.050.L) LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Parking garages or structures (21A.37.050.M) Residential character in RB District (21A.37.050.N) X 958 B. Commercial Districts: 959 960 Standard (Code Section) District SNB CN CB CS CC CSHBD CG1 TSA Ground floor use (%) (21A.37.050.A.1) 80 802 80 Ground floor use + visual interest (%) (21A.37.050.A.2) 60/25 70/20 60/25 Building materials: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.B.3) 80 70 90 Building materials: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.B.4) 60 60 Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.C.1) 40 40 40 40 60 60 Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.C.2) 25 Reflective Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.C.1) 0 Reflective Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.C.2) 40 Building entrances (feet) (21A.37.050.D) X X X X X 40 40 40 Blank wall: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.E) 15 15 15 15 20 15 Street facing facade: maximum length (feet)(21A.37.050.F) 200 200 200 Upper floor stepback (feet) (21A.37.050.G.2 and 21A.37.050.G.3) 15 X Façade height for required stepback (21A.37.050.G.2) 30 Lighting: exterior (21A.37.050.H) X X X Lighting: parking lot (21A.37.050.I) X X X X X X X X Screening of mechanical equipment (21A.37.050.J) X X X X X Screening of service areas (21A.37.050.K) X X X X X X LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Ground floor residential entrances for dwellings with individual unit entries (21A.37.050.L) X Parking garages or structures (21A.37.050.M) X Primary entrance design SNB District (21A.37.050.O) X Tree canopy coverage (%)(21A.37.050.P.1) 40 Minimum vegetation standards (%) (21A.37.050.P.2) X Street trees (21A.37.050.P.32) X Soil volume (21A.37.050.P.43) X Minimize curb cuts (21A.37.050.P.54) X Overhead cover (21A.37.050.P.65) X Streetscape landscaping (21A.37.050.P.7) X Height transitions: angular plane for adjacent buildings (21A.37.050.Q) Horizontal articulation (21A.37.050.R) X Notes: 961 1. These standards only apply to the portion of the CG district within the boundaries of north of 900 S, south of 200 S, west 300 W and east of I-15. 962 2. Maximum width of the entrance shall be 35’ if the additional 20% is used for an entrance to a parking structure. 963 964 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT C. Manufacturing Districts: 965 966 Standard (Code Section) District M-1 M-2 Ground floor use (%) (21A.37.050.A.1) Ground floor use + visual interest (%) (21A.37.050.A.2) Building materials: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.B.1) Building materials: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.B.2) Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.C.1) Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.C.2) Building entrances (feet) (21A.37.050.D) Blank wall: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.E) Street facing facade: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.F) Upper floor stepback (feet) (21A.37.050.G) Lighting: exterior (21A.37.050.H) X X Lighting: parking lot (21A.37.050.I) X X Screening of mechanical equipment (21A.37.050.J) Screening of service areas (21A.37.050.K) LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Ground floor residential entrances (21A.37.050.L) Parking garages or structures (21A.37.050.M) 967 D. Downtown Districts: 968 Standard (Code Section) District D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4 Ground floor use (%) (21A.37.050.A.1) 90 80 80 80 Ground floor use + visual interest (%) (21A.37.050.A.2) 80/10 70/20 70/20 70/20 Building materials: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.B.1) 70 80 701 70 Building materials: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.B.2) 50 50 701 50 Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.C.1) 60 60 60 60 Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.C.2) 50 50 50 50 Reflective Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.C.1) 0 0 0 0 Reflective Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.C.2) 50 50 50 50 Building entrances (feet) (21A.37.050.D) 40 40 60 60 Blank wall: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.E) 20 20 20 20 Street facing facade: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.F) 150 200 150 150 Upper floor stepback (feet) (21A.37.050.G.1) X X X X Lighting: exterior (21A.37.050.H) X X Lighting: parking lot (21A.37.050.I) X Screening of mechanical equipment (21A.37.050.J) X X X X LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Screening of service areas (21A.37.050.K) X X X X Ground floor residential entrances for dwellings with individual unit entries (21A.37.050.L) Parking garages or structures (21A.37.050.M) X2 X2 Tree canopy coverage (%) (21A.37.050.P.1) 40 40 40 40 Minimum vegetation standards (21A.37.050.P.2) X X X X Street trees (21A.37.050.P.32) X X X X Soil volume (21A.37.050.P.43) X X X X Minimize curb cuts (21A.37.050.P.54) X X X X Overhead cover (21A.37.050.P.65) X X X X Streetscape landscaping (21A.37.050.P.7) X X X X Height transitions: angular plane for adjacent zone districts (21A.37.050.Q) X X X Horizontal articulation (21A.37.050.R) X X X X Notes: 969 1. In the D-3 zoning district this percentage applies to all sides of the building, not just the front or street facing facade. 970 2. Parking structures shall be located behind principal buildings. This requirement may be modified so that structures may 971 be located at least 15’ from front and corner side lot lines if a minimum of seventy five percent (75%) of the ground 972 floor adjacent to a sidewalk is used for retail goods/service establishments, office and/or restaurant space to encourage 973 pedestrian activity. The facades of the ground floor shall be designed to be compatible and consistent with the 974 associated retail or office portion of the building and other retail uses in the area. 975 976 E. Gateway Districts: 977 Standard (Code Section) District G-MU Ground floor use (%) (21A.37.050.A.1) 80 Ground floor use + visual interest (%) (21A.37.050.A.2) 70/20 Building materials: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.B.1) 70 Building materials: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.B.2) 50 Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.C.1) 60 Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.C.2) 50 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Reflective Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.C.1) 0 Reflective Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.C.2) 50 Building entrances (feet) (21A.37.050.D) 40 Blank wall: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.E) 15 Street facing facade: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.F) 150 Upper floor stepback (feet) (21A.37.050.G.1) X Lighting: exterior (21A.37.050.H) X1 Lighting: parking lot (21A.37.050.I) X1 Screening of mechanical equipment (21A.37.050.J) X Screening of service areas (21A.37.050.K) X Ground floor residential entrances for dwellings with individual unit entries (21A.37.050.L) Parking garages or structures (21A.37.050.M) X2 Tree canopy coverage (%) (21A.37.050.P.1) 40 Minimum vegetation standards (21A.37.050.P.2) X Street trees (21A.37.050.P.32) X Soil volume (21A.37.050.P.43) X Minimize curb cuts (21A.37.050.P.54) X Overhead cover (21A.37.050.P.65) X Streetscape landscaping (21A.37.050.P.7) X Height transitions: angular plane for adjacent zone districts (21A.37.050.Q) X Horizontal articulation (21A.37.050.R) X Notes: 978 1. Sidewalks and street lamps installed in the public right-of- way shall be of the type specified in the sidewalk/street 979 lighting policy document adopted by the city. 980 2. Parking structures shall be located behind principal buildings. This requirement may be modified so that structures may 981 be located at least 15’ from front and corner side lot lines if a minimum of seventy five percent (75%) of the ground 982 floor adjacent to a sidewalk is used for retail goods/service establishments, office and/or restaurant space to encourage 983 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT pedestrian activity. The facades of the ground floor shall be designed to be compatible and consistent with the 984 associated retail or office portion of the building and other retail uses in the area. 985 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 986 F. Special Purpose Districts: 987 Standard (Code Section) District RP BP FP AG AG-2 AG-5 AG-20 PL PL-2 I UI OS NOS MH EI MU Ground floor use (%) (21A.37.050.A.1) Ground floor use + visual interest (%) (21A.37.050.A.2) Building materials: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.B.1) Building materials: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.B.2) Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.C.1) 40-70 Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.C.2) Building entrances (feet) (21A.37.050.D) X Blank wall: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.E) 15 Street facing facade: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.F) Upper floor stepback (feet) (21A.37.050.G) LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Lighting: exterior (21A.37.050.H) X X X Lighting: parking lot (21A.37.050.I) X X Screening of mechanical equipment (21A.37.050.J) X Screening of service areas (21A.37.050.K) X Ground floor residential entrances (21A.37.050.L) Parking garages or structures (21A.37.050.M) Tree canopy coverage (%) (21A.37.050.P.1) Minimum vegetation standards (21A.37.050.P.2) Street trees (21A.37.050.P.32) Soil Volume (21A.37.050.P.43) Minimize curb cuts (21A.37.050.P.54) Overhead cover (21A.37.050.P.65) Streetscape landscaping (21A.37.050.P.7) LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Height transitions: angular plane for adjacent zone districts (21A.37.050.Q) Horizontal articulation (21A.37.050.R) 988 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT G. Form Based Districts: 989 Standard (Code Section) District FB-UN1 FB-UN2 FB-MU11 FB-SC FB-SE Ground floor use (%) (21A.37.050.A.1) 75 753 75 75 Ground floor use + visual interest (%) (21A.37.050.A.2) Building materials: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.B.3) 70 70 70 70 70 Building materials: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.B.4) 70 70 70 70 70 Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.C.1) 601 601 601 601 601 Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.C.2) 15 15 15 15 15 Reflective Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.C.1) Reflective Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.C.2) Building entrances (feet) (21A.37.050.D) 75 75 75 75 75 Blank wall: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.E) 15 15 30 30 30 Street facing facade: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.F) 200 200 200 200 200 Upper floor step back (feet) (21A.37.050.G.4) X X X X Lighting: exterior (21A.37.050.H) X X X X X Lighting: parking lot (21A.37.050.I) X X X Screening of mechanical equipment (21A.37.050.J) X X X Screening of service areas (21A.37.050.K.1) X X X2 Ground floor residential entrances for dwellings with individual unit entries (21A.37.050.L) X X X Parking garages or structures (21A.37.050.M) X X X X X Tree canopy coverage (%) (21A.37.050.P.1) 40 40 40 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Minimum vegetation standards (21A.37.050.P.2) X X X Street trees (21A.37.050.P.32) X X X X X Soil volume (21A.37.050.P.43) X X X Minimize curb cuts (21A.37.050.P.54) X X X Overhead cover (21A.37.050.P.65) Streetscape landscaping (21A.37.050.P.7) X X X Height transitions: angular plane for adjacent zone districts (21A.37.050.Q) X X X Horizontal articulation (21A.37.050.R) X X X Notes: 990 1. This may be reduced to twenty percent (20%) if the ground floor is within one of the 991 following building types: urban house, two-family, cottage, and row house. 992 2. Except where specifically authorized by the zone. 993 3. For buildings with street facing building facades over 100' in length: 994 a. A minimum length of 30% of the ground floor street facing façade shall consist of 995 non-residential active uses allowed by Subsection 21A.37.050.A.1. 996 b. An additional minimum length of 45% of the ground floor street facing façade shall 997 consist of any active uses allowed by Subsection 21A.37.050.A.1. 998 c. This footnote does not apply to the rowhouse building form. 999 1000 1001 SECTION 24. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.40.120.E.1. That Subsection 1002 21A.40.120.E.1 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures: 1003 Regulation of Fences, Walls and Hedges: Height Restrictions and Gates), shall be and hereby is 1004 amended to read as follows: 1005 E. Height Restrictions and Gates: 1006 1007 1. Fences, walls, and hedges shall comply with the following regulations based on the 1008 following zoning districts: 1009 1010 a. Nonresidential Zoning Districts: 1011 1012 (1) Notwithstanding Subsection 21A.40.120.1.b.(l), in the M-2 and EI zoning 1013 districts fences, walls, or hedges may be up to six (6) feet in height if located 1014 between the front property line and the front yard setback line. 1015 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT (2) If there is no minimum front yard setback in the underlying zoning district, a 1016 fence, wall, or hedge of a maximum six (6) feet in height may be placed no 1017 closer than ten (10) feet from the property line. 1018 (3) Outdoor storage, when permitted in the zoning district, shall be located behind 1019 the primary facade of the principal structure and shall be screened with a solid 1020 wall or fence and shall comply with the requirements in Section 5.60.120. 1021 1022 (4) All refuse disposal and recycling dumpsters, except those located in the M-2, 1023 LO and EI districts shall be screened on all sides by a solid wood fence, 1024 masonry wall or an equivalent opaque material to a height of not less than 6 1025 feet but not more than 8 feet. 1026 1027 SECTION 25. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.44.060.A. That Subsection 1028 21A.44.060.A of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Off Street Parking, Mobility and Loading: 1029 Parking Location and Design), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 1030 A. Generally: 1031 1032 1. Parking Located on Same Lot as Use or Building Served: All parking spaces 1033 required to serve buildings or uses erected or established after the effective date 1034 of this ordinance shall be located on the same lot as the building or use served, 1035 unless otherwise allowed pursuant to Subsection 21A.44.060.A.4, “Off-Site 1036 Parking Permitted”. 1037 2. Biodetention and Landscape Islands in General and Neighborhood Center 1038 Contexts Parking Lot Interior and Perimeter Landscaping Areas: Retention of 1039 the 80th percentile storm is required for all impervious surface parking lots with 1040 50 or more parking spaces. Where this is not feasible, as defined in the 1041 SLCDPUs Standard Practices Manual, an approved Stormwater Best 1042 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Management Practices (Stormwater BMPs) is required. All proposed 1043 Stormwater BMPs are subject to Public Utilities Division review, approval, and 1044 inspection. For parking lots with one hundred (100) or more parking spaces in 1045 the General Context and Neighborhood Center Context areas, parking lot 1046 islands or biodetention areas shall be provided on the interior of the parking lot 1047 to help direct traffic flow and to provide landscaped areas within such lots. 1048 3. Parking Location and Setbacks: All parking shall comply with the parking restrictions 1049 within yards pursuant to Table 21A.44.060-A, “Parking Location and Setback 1050 Requirements”. Parking lots with 150 or more stalls and within 20’ of a lot line that 1051 are in a required yard area or abutting a building are subject to Section 21A.48.070 1052 Parking Lot Landscaping. 1053 TABLE 21A.44.060-A: PARKING LOCATION AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS: N = parking prohibited between lot line and front line of the principal building Zoning District Front Lot Line Corner Side Lot Line Interior Side Lot Line Rear Lot Line TABLE 21A.44.060-A: PARKING LOCATION AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS: N = parking prohibited between lot line and front line of the principal building Zoning District Front Lot Line Corner Side Lot Line Interior Side Lot Line Rear Lot Line GENERAL CONTEXT Residential (FR Districts, RB, RMF, RO) FR N Parking in driveways that comply with all applicable city standards is exempt from this restriction. 6 ft. 0 ft. R-1, R-2, SR- 1, SR-2 0 ft. RMF-30 N 0 ft.; or 10 ft. when abutting any 1-2 family residential district RMF-35, RMF-45, RMF-75, RO 0 ft.; or 10 ft. when abutting any 1-2 family residential district. Limited to 1 side yard except for single-family attached lots. Commercial and Manufacturing (CC, CS, CG, M-1, M-2, SNB) CC 15 ft. 0 ft.; or 7 ft. when abutting any residential district CS LEGISLATIVE DRAFT CG 10 ft. 0 ft.; or 15 ft. when abutting any residential district M-1 15 ft. M-2 0 ft.; or 50 ft. when abutting any residential district Special Purpose Districts A 0 ft. 0 ft. AG, AG-2, AG-5, AG-20 N BP 8 ft.; or 30 ft. when abutting any residential district EI 10 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft. 20 ft. FP 20 ft. 6 ft. 0 ft. I 0 ft.; or 15 ft. when abutting any residential district MH 0 ft. OS 30 ft. 10 ft. PL 0 ft.; or 10 ft. when abutting any residential district PL-2 20 ft. RP 30 ft. 8 ft.; or 30 ft. when abutting any residential district NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER CONTEXT CB, CN, SNB N 0 ft.; or 7 ft. when abutting any 1-2 family residential district R-MU-35, R- MU-45 Surface Parking: N Parking Structures: 45’ or located behind principal building Limited to 1 side yard, 0 ft,; or 10 ft. when abutting any 1-2 family residential district 0 ft.; or 10 ft. when abutting any 1-2 family residential district RB, SR-3, FB-UN1, FB- SE N 0 ft. URBAN CENTER CONTEXT LEGISLATIVE DRAFT CSHBD1 N 0 ft.; or 7 ft. when abutting any residential district CSHBD2 0 ft.; or 7 ft. when abutting any 1-2 family residential district D-2 Surface Parking: 20 ft. Parking Structures: N 0 ft. MU Surface Parking: 25 ft. or located behind principal structure Parking Structures: 45 ft. or located behind principal structure 0 ft.; limited to 1 side yard 0 ft. TSA-T See Subsection 21A.44.060.B.2 0 ft. TRANSIT CONTEXT D-1 See Subsection 21A.44.060.B.1 D-3 D-4 See Subsection 21A.44.060.B.1 0 ft. G-MU FB-UN2, FB- UN3, FB-SC N TSA-C See Subsection 21A.44.060.B.2 R-MU Surface Parking: 30 ft. Parking Structures: 45 ft. or located behind principal structure 0 ft.; or 10 ft. when abutting any 1-2 family residential district Surface parking at least 30 ft. from front lot line 0 ft.; or 10 ft. when abutting any 1-2 family residential district UI 0 ft; Hospitals: 30 ft. 0 ft.; or 15 ft. when abutting any 1-2 family residential district; Hospitals: 10 ft. 0 ft.; or 15 ft. when abutting any 1-2 family residential district; Hospitals: 10 ft. 4. Off-Site Parking Permitted: When allowed as either a permitted or conditional use 1054 per Chapter 21A.33, “Land Use Tables”, off-site parking facilities may be used to 1055 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT satisfy the requirements of this chapter and shall comply with the following 1056 standards: 1057 1058 a. Maximum Distance of Off-Site Parking: Off-site parking shall be located 1059 according to the distance established in Table 21A.44.060-B, “Maximum 1060 Distances for Off-Site Parking” (measured in a straight line from the property 1061 boundary of the principal use for which the parking serves to the closest point of 1062 the parking area). 1063 Table 21A.44.060-B: Maximum Distances for Off-Site Parking: Context Maximum Distance to Off-Site Parking Neighborhood Center 600 ft. General Legal Nonconforming Use in Residential District Urban Center 1,200 ft. Transit 1,000 ft. 1064 b. Documentation Required: 1065 1066 (1) The owners of record involved in an off-site parking arrangement shall submit 1067 written documentation of the continued availability of the off-site parking 1068 arrangement to the planning director for review. 1069 (2) The planning director shall approve the off-site parking arrangement if the 1070 director determines the location meets the standards of this section. No zoning 1071 or use approval shall be issued until the director has approved the off-site 1072 parking arrangement and the documentation has been recorded in the office of 1073 the Salt Lake County Recorder. 1074 (3) If the off-site parking arrangement is later terminated or modified and the 1075 planning director determines that the termination or modification has resulted 1076 in traffic congestion, overflow parking in residential neighborhoods, or threats 1077 to pedestrian, bicycle, or vehicle safety, the property owners of the uses for 1078 which the off-site parking was provided may be held in violation of this 1079 chapter. 1080 1081 5. Circulation Plan Required: Any application for a building permit shall include a site 1082 plan, drawn to scale, and fully dimensioned, showing any off street parking or loading 1083 facilities to be provided in compliance with this title. A tabulation of the number of 1084 off street vehicle and bicycle parking, loading, and stacking spaces required by this 1085 chapter shall appear in a conspicuous place on the plan. 1086 6. Driveways and Access: 1087 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1088 a. Compliance with Other Adopted Regulations: 1089 (1) Parking lots shall be designed in compliance with applicable city codes, 1090 ordinances, and standards, including but not limited to Title 12 of this code: 1091 Vehicles and Traffic and the Off Street Parking Standards Manual to the 1092 maximum degree practicable, with respect to: 1093 1094 (A) Minimum distances between curb cuts; 1095 (B) Proximity of curb cuts to intersections; 1096 (C) Provisions for shared driveways; 1097 (D) Location, quantity and design of landscaped islands; and 1098 (E) Design of parking lot interior circulation system. 1099 1100 (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of Subsection 21A.44.060.A.6.a(1) above, 1101 relocation of a driveway for a single-family, two-family, or twin home 1102 residence in any zoning district shall only be required when the residence is 1103 replaced, and shall not be required when the residence is expanded or 1104 renovated in compliance with the city code. 1105 1106 b. Access Standards: Access to all parking facilities shall comply with the following 1107 standards: 1108 1109 (1) To the maximum extent practicable, all off street parking facilities shall be 1110 designed with vehicular access to a street or alley that will least interfere with 1111 automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic movement. 1112 (2) Parking facilities in excess of five (5) spaces that access a public street shall 1113 be designed to allow vehicles to enter and exit the lot in a forward direction. 1114 (3) Parking facilities on lots with less than one hundred feet (100’) of street 1115 frontage shall have only one (1) curb cut, and lots with one hundred feet 1116 (100’) of street frontage or more shall be limited to two (2) curb cuts, unless 1117 the transportation director determines that additional curb cuts are necessary 1118 to ensure pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle safety or to comply with the fire 1119 code. Public safety uses shall be exempt from limitations on curb cuts. 1120 (4) All vehicular access roads/driveways shall be surfaced as required in 1121 accordance with Subsection 21A.44.060.A.8, “Surface Materials”. 1122 1123 c. Driveway Standards: All driveways shall comply with the following standards: 1124 1125 (1) Driveway Location in Residential Zoning Districts: With the exception of 1126 legal shared driveways, driveways shall be at least twenty feet (20’) from 1127 street corner property lines and five feet (5’) from any public utility 1128 infrastructure such as power poles, fire hydrants, and water meters. Except for 1129 entrance and exit driveways leading to approved parking areas, no curb cuts or 1130 driveways are permitted. 1131 (2) Driveway Widths: All driveways serving residential uses shall be a minimum 1132 eight feet wide and shall comply with the standards for maximum driveway 1133 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT widths listed in Table 21A.44.060-C, “Minimum and Maximum Driveway 1134 Width”. 1135 TABLE 21A.44.060-C: MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY WIDTH: Zoning District Minimum Driveway Width (in front and corner side yard) Maximum Driveway Width* (in front and corner side yard) TABLE 21A.44.060-C: MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY WIDTH: Zoning District Minimum Driveway Width (in front and corner side yard) Maximum Driveway Width* (in front and corner side yard) SR-1, SR-2 and SR-3 8 ft. 22 ft. MH 8 ft. 16 ft. Other Residential Zoning Districts 8 ft. 30 ft. M-1 and M-2 12 ft. single lane and 24 ft. for two-way 50 ft. Other Non-Residential Zoning Districts 12 ft. single lane and 24 ft. for two-way 30 ft. * Maximum width is for all driveways combined when more than one driveway is provided 1136 (3) Shared Driveways: Shared driveways, where two (2) or more properties share 1137 one (1) driveway access, may be permitted if the transportation director 1138 determines that the design and location of the shared driveway access will not 1139 create adverse impacts on traffic congestion or public safety. 1140 (4) Driveway Surface: All driveways providing access to parking facilities shall 1141 be improved and maintained pursuant to the standards in the Off Street 1142 Parking Standards Manual. 1143 1144 7. Minimum Dimensional Standards: All parking spaces shall comply with the 1145 dimensional standards in the Off Street Parking Standards Manual. 1146 8. Surface Materials: All parking spaces shall comply with the standards for surfacing of 1147 access, driving, and parking surfacing in the Off Street Parking Standards Manual. 1148 9. Grading and Stormwater Management: All surface parking areas shall comply with 1149 city grading and stormwater management standards and shall be reviewed for best 1150 management practices by Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities. Refer to the 1151 Salt Lake City Stormwater Master Plan, Storm Drainage Manual, and Green 1152 Infrastructure Toolbox for additional information. 1153 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 10. Sight Distance Triangles: All driveways and intersections shall comply with the sight 1154 distance triangle standards as defined in the Off Street Parking Standards Manual. 1155 11. Landscaping and Screening: All parking areas and facilities shall comply with 1156 the landscaping and screening standards in Chapter 21A.48 and Section 1157 21A.40.120, “Landscaping and Buffers” of this title. 1158 12. Lighting: Where a parking area or parking lot is illuminated, the light source shall be 1159 shielded so that the light source is not directly visible from any abutting property or 1160 abutting private or public street. 1161 13. Signs: All signs in parking areas or related to parking facilities shall comply with 1162 Chapter 21A.46, “Signs”, and applicable provisions of the Manual on Uniform 1163 Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). 1164 14. Pedestrian Walkways: The following standards shall apply to 1165 1166 a. Ssurface parking lots with between twenty-five (25) and one hundred (100) or 1167 more parking spaces shall provide a pedestrian walkway or sidewalk through the 1168 parking lot to the primary entrance of the principal building. Pedestrian walkways 1169 shall be identified by a change in color, material, surface texture, or grade 1170 elevation from surrounding driving surfaces. 1171 b. Parking lots with more than one hundred (100) parking spaces shall provide: 1172 1173 a.(1) One (1) or more grade-separated Ppedestrian walkway(s) shall be at least 1174 five feet (5’) in width, and located in an area that is not a driving aisle surface, 1175 leading from the farthest row of parking spaces to the primary entrance of the 1176 principal building. 1177 b.(2) Vehicles shall not overhang the pedestrian walkway(s). 1178 c.(3) Where the walkway(s) crosses a drive aisle, pedestrian walkway(s) shall be 1179 identified by a change in color, material, surface texture, or grade elevation 1180 from surrounding driving surfaces, but such identification cannot be curbing of 1181 the walkway. 1182 d.(4) One (1) pedestrian walkway meeting these standards shall be provided for 1183 every ach 50 one hundred (100) parking spaces provided on site or part 1184 thereof, after the first 20 one hundred (100) parking spaces. 1185 1186 15. Parking Garages: The following standards shall apply to all above-ground parking 1187 garages except those located in the FB zones subject to Subsection 21A.27.030.C.4, 1188 whether freestanding or incorporated into a building: 1189 1190 a. Each façade or a parking garage adjacent to a public street or public space shall 1191 have an external skin designed to conceal the view of all parked cars. Examples 1192 include heavy gauge metal screen, precast concrete panels, live green or 1193 landscaped walls, laminated or safety glass, or decorative photovoltaic panels. 1194 b. No horizontal length of the parking garage façade shall extend longer than 40 feet 1195 without the inclusion of architectural elements such as decorative grillwork, 1196 louvers, translucent screens, alternating building materials, and other external 1197 features to avoid visual monotony. Facade elements shall align with parking 1198 levels. 1199 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT c. Internal circulation shall allow parking surfaces to be level (without any slope) 1200 along each parking garage facade adjacent to a public street or public space. All 1201 ramps between levels shall be located along building facades that are not adjacent 1202 to a public street or public space, or shall be located internally so that they are not 1203 visible from adjacent public streets or public spaces. 1204 d. The location of elevators and stairs shall be highlighted through the use of 1205 architectural features or changes in façade colors, textures, or materials so that 1206 visitors can easily identify these entry points. 1207 e. Interior parking garage lighting shall not produce glaring sources toward adjacent 1208 properties while providing safe and adequate lighting levels. The use of sensor 1209 dimmable LEDs and white stained ceilings are recommended to control light 1210 levels on-site while improving energy efficiency. 1211 f. In the Urban Center Context and Transit Context areas, the street-level facades of 1212 all parking garages shall be designed to meet applicable building code standards 1213 for habitable space to allow at least one (1) permitted or conditional use, other 1214 than parking, to be located where the parking garage is located. 1215 g. Vent and fan locations shall not be located on parking garage facades facing 1216 public streets or public spaces, or adjacent to residential uses, to the greatest 1217 extent practicable. 1218 1219 16. Tandem Parking: Where more than one (1) parking space is required to be provided 1220 for a residential dwelling unit, the parking spaces may be designed as tandem parking 1221 spaces, provided that: 1222 1223 a. No more than two (2) required spaces may be included in the tandem parking 1224 layout; and 1225 b. Each set of two (2) tandem parking spaces shall be designated for a specific 1226 residential unit. 1227 1228 17. Cross-Access between Adjacent Uses: The transportation director may require that 1229 access to one or more lots be through shared access points or cross-access through 1230 adjacent parcels when the transportation director determines that individual access to 1231 abutting parcels or limited distance between access points will create traffic safety 1232 hazards due to traffic levels on adjacent streets or nearby intersections. Such a 1233 determination shall be consistent with requirements of state law regarding property 1234 access from public streets. Required cross- access agreements shall be recorded with 1235 the Salt Lake County Recorder’s Office. 1236 1237 SECTION 26. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.44.070.B. That Subsection 1238 21A.44.070.B of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Off Street Parking, Mobility and Loading: Off 1239 Street Loading Areas: Location and Design of Loading Areas), shall be and hereby is amended to 1240 read as follows: 1241 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT B. Location and Design of Loading Areas: 1242 1243 1. All required loading berths shall be located on the same development site as the 1244 use(s) served. 1245 2. No loading berth shall be located within thirty feet (30’) of the nearest point of 1246 intersection of any two (2) streets. 1247 3. No loading berth shall be located in a required front yard. 1248 4. Each required loading berth shall be located and designed to: 1249 1250 a. Allow all required vehicle maneuvering and backing movements on-site; 1251 b. Minimize conflicts with pedestrian, bicycle, and traffic movement or 1252 encroachments into any pedestrian walkway, bicycle lane, public right-of-way, 1253 and fire lane; and 1254 c. Avoid the need to back into a public street while leaving the site to the maximum 1255 extent practicable, as determined by the planning director and the transportation 1256 director. 1257 1258 5. Landscaping and screening of all loading berths shall be provided to comply with the 1259 requirements of Chapter 21A.48 Subsection 21A.40.120, “Regulation of Fences, 1260 Walls, and Hedges Landscaping and Buffers”. 1261 6. Where a loading berth is illuminated, the light source shall be shielded so that the 1262 light source is not directly visible from any abutting property or abutting private or 1263 public street. 1264 7. All signs in loading areas shall comply with Chapter 21A.46, “Signs”, and applicable 1265 provisions of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 1266 8. All required loading berths shall comply with the surfacing standards of the Off Street 1267 Parking Standards Manual. 1268 1269 SECTION 27. Amending the Text of Chapter 21A.48. That Chapter 21A.48 of the Salt 1270 Lake City Code (Zoning: Landscaping and Buffers), shall be and hereby is amended to read as 1271 follows: 1272 21A.48: LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERS 1273 1274 SECTION: 1275 21A.48.010: Purpose Statement and Intent 1276 21A.48.020: Enforcement Of Landscape Requirements Applicability 1277 21A.48.030: Landscape Plan Authority 1278 21A.48.040: Selection, Installation And Maintenance Of Plant Materials Responsibility 1279 & Maintenance 1280 21A.48.050: Design Standards And Guidelines Landscape Plan 1281 21A.48.055: Water Efficient Landscaping 1282 21A.48.060: Park Strip Landscaping Landscape Requirements 1283 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 21A.48.070: Parking Lot Or Vehicle Sales Or Lease Lots Landscaping Parking Lot 1284 Landscaping 1285 21A.48.080: Landscape Buffers General Standards 1286 21A.48.090: Landscape Yards Private Lands Tree Preservation 1287 21A.48.100: Special Landscape Regulations Appeal 1288 21A.48.110: Freeway Scenic Landscape Setback 1289 21A.48.120: Screening Of Refuse Disposal Dumpsters 1290 21A.48.130: Innovative Landscaping 1291 21A.48.135: Private Lands Tree Preservation 1292 21A.48.140: Changes To Approved Landscape Plans 1293 21A.48.150: Automobile Sales Establishments 1294 21A.48.160: Appeal 1295 21A.48.170: Landscaping Provided As A Condition Of Building Permit Issuance 1296 21A.48.010: PURPOSE STATEMENT: 1297 The landscaping and buffering requirements specified in this chapter are intended to foster 1298 aesthetically pleasing development which will protect and preserve the appearance, character, 1299 health, safety and welfare of the community. These regulations are intended to increase the 1300 compatibility of adjacent uses and, in doing so, minimize the harmful impacts of noise, dust 1301 and other debris, motor vehicle headlight glare or other artificial light intrusions, and other 1302 objectionable activities or impacts conducted or created by an adjoining or nearby use, 1303 thereby fostering compatibility among different land uses. These regulations are also 1304 intended to preserve, enhance and expand the urban forest and promote the prudent use of 1305 water and energy resources. 1306 21A.48.020: ENFORCEMENT OF LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS: 1307 Wherever the submission and approval of a landscape plan is required by this title, such 1308 landscape plan shall be an integral part of any application for a building permit and 1309 occupancy permit. No permit shall be issued without city approval of a landscape plan as 1310 required herein. The requirements of this chapter may be modified by the zoning 1311 administrator, on a case by case basis, in response to input from the city police department 1312 regarding the effects of required landscaping on crime prevention. 1313 21A.48.030: LANDSCAPE PLAN: 1314 A. Landscape Plan Required: A landscape plan shall be required whenever landscaping or 1315 alteration of landscaping is required by this title. Such landscape plan shall be drawn in 1316 conformance with the requirements specified in this chapter. Landscape plans must be 1317 approved by the zoning administrator prior to the issuance of a building permit. 1318 Landscape plans for planned developments or conditional uses, or other uses requiring 1319 site plan review approval shall be reviewed and approved by the development review 1320 team. The construction of detached single- family residences and two-family residences 1321 shall be exempt from this landscape plan requirement, except for dwellings in the FP, FR-1322 1 and FR-2 districts, which shall conform to the requirements of this chapter. 1323 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT B. Content Of Landscape Plan: All landscape plans submitted for approval shall contain the 1324 following information, unless specifically waived by the zoning administrator: 1325 1326 1. The location and dimensions of all existing and proposed structures, property lines, 1327 easements, parking lots and drives, roadways and rights of way, sidewalks, bicycle 1328 paths, ground signs, refuse disposal and recycling areas, bicycle parking areas, fences, 1329 freestanding electrical equipment, tot lots and other recreational facilities, and other 1330 freestanding structural features as determined necessary by the zoning administrator; 1331 2. The location, quantity, size and name, both botanical and common names, of all 1332 proposed plants; 1333 3. The location, size and common names, of all existing plants including trees and other 1334 plants in the parkway, and indicating plants to be retained and removed; 1335 4. The location of existing buildings, structures and plants on adjacent property within 1336 twenty feet (20’) of the site, as determined necessary by the zoning administrator; 1337 5. Existing and proposed grading of the site indicating contours at two foot (2’) 1338 intervals. Proposed berming shall be indicated using one foot (1’) contour intervals; 1339 6. Elevations of all fences and retaining walls proposed for location on the site; 1340 7. Elevations, cross sections and other details as determined necessary by the zoning 1341 administrator; 1342 8. Water efficient irrigation system (separate plan required); 1343 9. Summary data indicating the area of the site in the following classifications: 1344 1345 a. Total area and percentage of the site in landscape area, 1346 b. Total area and percentage of the site in turf grasses, and 1347 c. Total area and percentage of the site in drought tolerant plant species. 1348 21A.48.040: SELECTION, INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF PLANT 1349 MATERIALS: 1350 A. Selection: Plants used in conformance with the provisions of this chapter shall be of good 1351 quality, and capable of withstanding the extremes of individual site microclimates. Size 1352 and density of plants both at the time of planting and at maturity, are additional criteria 1353 which shall be considered by the zoning administrator when approving plants. The use of 1354 drought tolerant plants is preferred when appropriate to site conditions. 1355 B. Installation: All landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the current planting 1356 procedures established by the American Association of Nurserymen. The installation of 1357 all plants required by this chapter may be delayed until the next optimal planting season, 1358 as determined by the zoning administrator. 1359 C. Maintenance: 1360 1361 1. Responsibility: The owner of the premises shall be responsible for the maintenance, 1362 repair and replacement of all landscaping materials and barriers, including refuse 1363 disposal areas, as may be required by the provisions of this chapter. 1364 2. Landscaping Materials: All landscaping materials shall be maintained in good 1365 condition so as to present a healthy, neat and orderly appearance, and plants not in 1366 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT this condition shall be replaced when necessary and shall be kept free of refuse and 1367 debris. 1368 3. Fences, Walls And Hedges: Fences, walls and hedges shall be maintained in good 1369 repair. 1370 4. Irrigation Systems: Irrigation systems shall be maintained in good operating condition 1371 to promote the conservation of water. 1372 21A.48.050: DESIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES: 1373 Landscape plans shall be prepared based on the following design standards and guidelines. 1374 Design standards are numerically measurable design requirements that can be definitively 1375 evaluated for compliance. Design guidelines are not precisely measurable, but compliance 1376 can be determined through the evaluation process of landscape plan review. The evaluation 1377 and approval of landscape plans shall be based on compliance with both the design standards 1378 and guidelines. 1379 1380 A. Design Standards At Time Of Planting: 1381 1382 1. Deciduous Trees: All deciduous trees shall have a minimum trunk size of two inches 1383 (2”) in caliper, unless otherwise specified. 1384 2. Evergreen Trees: All evergreen trees shall have a minimum size of five feet (5’) in 1385 height, unless otherwise specified. 1386 3. Ornamental Trees: All ornamental trees shall have a minimum trunk size of one and 1387 one-half inches (11/2”) in caliper, unless otherwise specified. 1388 4. Shrubs: All shrubs shall have a minimum height or spread of eighteen inches (18”) 1389 depending on the plant’s natural growth habit, unless otherwise specified. Plants in 1390 five (5) gallon containers will generally comply with this standard. 1391 5. Drought Tolerant Species: Site conditions in Salt Lake City are generally arid, and the 1392 selection of plant species suited to dry conditions is appropriate. To promote water 1393 conservation, not less than eighty percent (80%) of the trees and eighty percent (80%) 1394 of the shrubs used on a site shall be drought tolerant species that can withstand dry 1395 conditions once established. The city has compiled a list titled “Water Conserving 1396 Plants For Salt Lake City”, that may be locally available. 1397 6. Existing Street Trees: The removal of trees within the street right of way is prohibited 1398 without the approval of the zoning administrator in consultation with the urban 1399 forester. 1400 1401 B. Design Guidelines: 1402 1403 1. Scale And Nature Of Landscaping Material: The scale and nature of landscaping 1404 materials shall be appropriate to the size of the structures. Large scale buildings, for 1405 example, should generally be complemented by larger scale plants. 1406 2. Selection Of Plants: Plants shall be selected for form, texture, color, pattern of growth 1407 and adaptability to local conditions. 1408 3. Evergreens: Evergreens should be incorporated into the landscape treatment of a site, 1409 particularly in those areas where screening and buffer is required. 1410 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 4. Softening Of Walls And Fences: Plants shall be placed intermittently against long 1411 expanses of building walls, fences, and other barriers to create a softening effect. 1412 5. Planting Beds: Planting beds may be mulched with bark chips, decorative stone, or 1413 similar materials. Mulch shall not be used as a substitute for plants. 1414 6. Detention/Retention Basins And Ponds: Detention/retention basins and ponds shall be 1415 landscaped. Such landscaping may include shade and ornamental trees, evergreens, 1416 shrubbery, hedges, turf, ground cover and/or other plant materials. 1417 7. Water Conservation: Landscape design pursuant to the requirements of this chapter 1418 must recognize the climatic limitations of the Salt Lake City area and the need for 1419 water conservation. While irrigation systems are required for certain landscape areas, 1420 and may be desirable for other applications, all irrigation systems shall be designed 1421 for efficient use of water. 1422 8. Turf Grasses: Turf grasses should be used in areas with less than a fifty percent (50%) 1423 slope to prevent the runoff of irrigation water. 1424 9. Energy Conservation: Plant placement shall be designed to reduce the energy 1425 consumption needs of the development. 1426 1427 a. Deciduous trees should be placed on the south and west sides of buildings to 1428 provide shade from the summer sun. 1429 b. Evergreens and other plant materials should be concentrated on the north side of 1430 buildings to dissipate the effect of winter winds. 1431 1432 10. Preservation Of Existing Plants: Existing plants should be incorporated into the 1433 landscape treatment of a site as required herein or as required by the site plan review 1434 process found in chapter 21A.58 of this title. Trees in the public right of way shall not 1435 be removed without the approval of the zoning administrator and urban forester. 1436 11. Berming: Earthen berms and existing topographic features should be, whenever 1437 determined practical by the zoning administrator, incorporated into the landscape 1438 treatment of a site, particularly when combined with plant material to facilitate 1439 screening. 1440 21A.48.055: WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPING: 1441 A. Applicability: 1442 1443 1. New Development: All new development as specified below requiring approval by the 1444 city shall comply with the provisions of this section. 1445 1446 a. Residential: 1447 1448 (1) Large subdivisions with ten (10) or more lots which also have a common 1449 landscaped area (applies to common area only); 1450 (2) Multi-family residential, three (3) units or more; 1451 (3) Planned unit developments that include residential units; 1452 (4) Single-family and two-family homes on lots that have a landscaped area 1453 greater than one-half (1/2) acre; 1454 (5) Common areas of condominium and/or planned developments; and 1455 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT (6) Mixed use developments including residential elements. 1456 1457 b. Nonresidential: 1458 1459 (1) Industrial; 1460 (2) Commercial; 1461 (3) Institutional (including public facilities); and 1462 (4) Mixed use developments including industrial, commercial, or institutional 1463 elements. 1464 1465 2. Existing Development: The regulations in this section shall apply to all existing 1466 nonresidential, mixed use and multi-family residential development projects that 1467 increase the square footage of the footprint of the building or the parking requirement 1468 by twenty five percent (25%) or more. 1469 3. Exemptions: The following developments and uses are exempt from the provisions of 1470 this section unless otherwise specified: 1471 1472 a. New single- and two-family homes on lots one-half (1/2) acre or less of 1473 landscaped area; 1474 b. Treasured landscapes; 1475 c. Plant collections as part of botanical gardens and arboretums open to the public; 1476 d. Community gardens and portions of private gardens dedicated to edible plants; 1477 e. Cemeteries; 1478 f. Parks, athletic fields and playgrounds; 1479 g. Ecological restoration projects that do not require a permanent irrigation system; 1480 and 1481 h. Similar uses and activities as determined by the zoning administrator in 1482 consultation with the public utilities department or designee. 1483 1484 B. Submittal Requirements: In addition to the submittal requirements set forth in section 1485 21A.48.030, “Landscape Plan”, of this chapter the applicant shall complete any 1486 additional submittal requirements identified in the “Salt Lake City Landscape BMPs For 1487 Water Resource Efficiency And Protection”. The landscape submittal packet shall be 1488 prepared by a licensed landscaped architect, licensed civil engineer, licensed architect, 1489 certified irrigation professional, or other landscape professional appropriately licensed or 1490 recognized by the state of Utah or Salt Lake City. It shall contain the submittal 1491 information listed in the “Salt Lake City Landscape BMPs For Water Resource 1492 Efficiency And Protection” unless specifically waived in writing by the zoning 1493 administrator in consultation with the public utilities department director. 1494 C. Review Procedures: The following review procedures shall be followed for all 1495 landscaping plans and irrigation systems subject to this section: 1496 1. Landscaping plans shall be submitted concurrently with a development application. 1497 2. Backflow prevention plans shall be reviewed by the public utilities department. 1498 D. Standards: All developments subject to this section shall comply with the following 1499 standards: 1500 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1. Required Plants: All landscapes in developments subject to this section shall use 1501 plants identified in the “Salt Lake City Plant List And Hydrozone Schedule” or plants 1502 identified as being water wise or low water plants in other guides approved by the 1503 public utilities department as listed in the “Salt Lake City Landscape BMPs For 1504 Water Resource Efficiency And Protection”. 1505 2. Plant Substitutions: Landscaping shall be installed consistent with the approved 1506 planting plans, but plant substitutions may be made provided that the substituted 1507 plants are from the same hydrozone and of similar plant type (grass for grass, tree for 1508 tree, etc.) as the plant originally specified in the approved landscape plan. 1509 3. Hydrozones: All landscape plans shall identify and indicate each plant, and all plants 1510 shall be grouped into appropriate hydrozones as listed in the “Salt Lake City Plant 1511 List And Hydrozone Schedule” and as described in the “Salt Lake City Landscape 1512 BMPs For Water Resource Efficiency And Protection”. Mixing plants from different 1513 hydrozones and with different water demands is strongly discouraged. Landscape 1514 areas with a mix of plants from different hydrozones shall be designated on landscape 1515 submittals as being of the hydrozone of the highest water demand plant within that 1516 irrigation zone. 1517 4. Water Budget: All developments with a total landscaped area greater than one-half 1518 (1/2) acre must install an irrigation meter at the expense of the applicant and shall be 1519 assigned a tier 2 water target by the public utilities department. 1520 5. Small Landscaped Areas: To prevent overspray and water waste, landscaped areas 1521 eight feet (8’) or smaller in any perimeter dimension, including, but not limited to, 1522 park strips, parking lot islands, and landscaped areas separated by walkways from 1523 other landscaped areas, shall only be irrigated with a system designed to prevent 1524 overspray. 1525 6. Soil Amendment/Preparation: Where appropriate, the use of organic soil amendments 1526 or additives, such as aged compost, are encouraged. See the “Salt Lake City 1527 Landscape BMPs For Water Resource Efficiency And Protection” for more 1528 information. 1529 7. Mulch: Where mulch is required or allowed in a landscape plan by this section, it 1530 shall be installed and maintained at a minimum depth of three inches to four inches 1531 (3” - 4”). Fiber barriers and plastic sheeting that are not porous to air and water are 1532 prohibited. 1533 8. Preservation Of Existing Specimen Trees: All specimen trees located within a 1534 landscape plan area shall be protected as provided in section 21A.48.135, “Private 1535 Lands Tree Preservation”, of this chapter. 1536 9. Water Features: Unless it is a natural water body or stream, recirculating systems 1537 shall be used for all water features such as fountains, ponds, reflecting pools, and 1538 other similar water features. 1539 10. Irrigation Systems: Irrigation systems shall be designed, installed, and maintained to 1540 work efficiently, as defined in the “Salt Lake City Landscape BMPs For Water 1541 Resource Efficiency And Protection”. 1542 11. Backflow Prevention: Backflow prevention assemblies shall be designed and installed 1543 according to the standards as outlined in the “Salt Lake City Landscape BMPs For 1544 Water Resource Efficiency And Protection”. 1545 21A.48.060: PARK STRIP LANDSCAPING: 1546 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT A. Intent: The intent of these requirements is to maintain the appearance of park strips, and 1547 expand landscape design flexibility while not unreasonably inhibiting access for repair 1548 and maintenance of public utilities, encourage water conservation through the use of 1549 water conserving plants and generally to improve environmental conditions along the 1550 city’s streets. It is also the intent to protect the users of park strips by prohibiting the use 1551 of materials that may cause harm or injury to pedestrians or vehicles, and to provide for 1552 safe and convenient visual and physical access across park strips to and from vehicles 1553 that may park at the curb. 1554 B. Applicability: The requirements of this section shall apply to all “park strips”, as defined 1555 in section 21A.62.040 of this title, except as otherwise noted. 1556 1557 1. Properties With Curbs And Gutters: These standards apply to all properties in the 1558 city, including vacant lots that have street curb and/or gutter. Owners of property on 1559 streets that do not have curb and gutter are not required to maintain formal 1560 landscaping within the public right of way. 1561 2. Improvement Districts: These requirements shall not apply to official improvement 1562 districts where exceptions to park strip standards are approved pursuant to subsection 1563 E of this section. 1564 3. Discretionary Authority: The zoning administrator may modify the standards of this 1565 section to better achieve its intent and address site specific conditions such as, among 1566 other things, steep grades between the curb and sidewalk or the presence of canals or 1567 drainage channels. 1568 1569 C. General Landscape Requirements: 1570 1571 1. Property Owner Responsibility: All park strips shall be landscaped by the abutting 1572 property owner, in conformance with the provisions of this section. For permits 1573 involving new construction of a principal building, the contractor shall be responsible 1574 for landscaping the park strips as part of the building permit. In general, this 1575 landscaping will involve improving the ground surface of the park strip with plant 1576 material, or hard surface treatments where permitted. Park strip trees shall also be 1577 provided as required herein. 1578 2. Maintenance: All park strip landscaping shall be maintained in a safe and well kept 1579 condition by the abutting property owner. Trash, other debris, and noxious weeds 1580 shall not be allowed to collect or grow in these areas. 1581 3. Watering: Sufficient water shall be provided for vegetative ground cover, annuals, 1582 perennials, shrubs and trees to keep them in a healthy condition. 1583 4. Definition Of An “Operable Irrigation System”: For purposes of this section, 1584 “operable irrigation system” shall mean a fixed underground irrigation system 1585 connected to the adjacent property’s water supply, but does not include a movable 1586 hose, sprinkler or other portable watering system. 1587 1588 D. Park Strip Trees: 1589 1590 1. Spacing And Size: Park strip trees, when required, shall be provided at the equivalent 1591 of at least one tree for each thirty feet (30’) of street frontage and may be clustered or 1592 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT spaced linearly as deemed appropriate by the city forester. Tree size shall be a 1593 minimum of two inch (2”) caliper (measured at a point 6 inches above the soil line) at 1594 time of planting. 1595 2. Tree Grates: If new trees are proposed in a park strip in which the area surrounding 1596 the tree will have an impervious surface, the property owner responsible for 1597 installation shall ensure that tree wells with grates are provided which have 1598 dimensions adequate to accommodate the recommended tree species. All new 1599 installation of tree grates shall be accompanied by an operable irrigation system to 1600 ensure adequate water to the tree, and structural soil shall be installed according to 1601 Salt Lake City engineering standards. 1602 3. Permit And Planting: No tree shall be planted in a park strip without first obtaining a 1603 permit from the urban forestry division of the Salt Lake City public services 1604 department (section 2.26.210 of this code). Tree species and location shall be 1605 approved by the city forester. 1606 4. Tree Maintenance: Planting and maintenance of trees shall be done in conformance 1607 with the Salt Lake City urban forestry standards and specifications which are 1608 available and shall be administered and enforced through the urban forestry office. 1609 No work (pruning, removal, etc.) shall be performed on street trees without first 1610 obtaining a permit from the urban forestry office. 1611 1612 E. Park Strip Ground Surface Treatment: The intent of this section is to provide a palette of 1613 allowed plant, organic and/or natural materials that allow for creative landscaping, 1614 maintain a healthy street tree canopy, and create an attractive pedestrian environment 1615 while encouraging actual, not merely perceptual, water conservation. In many instances, 1616 a water wise turf grass/sod remains the most effective park strip plant material. 1617 1618 1. Plant Coverage: Live plant materials, not to exceed twenty two inches (22”) in height, 1619 are allowed. Plants with heights up to thirty six inches (36”) tall may be allowed as 1620 specimen or accent plants when not located within sight distance areas. These plants 1621 may not be planted in a manner that would create a visual barrier between the street 1622 and the sidewalk. 1623 At least thirty three percent (33%) or more of the park strip surface must be covered 1624 with turf, perennial or low growing shrub vegetation within three (3) years of planting 1625 or when planting has reached maturity, whichever comes first. For lots with two (2) 1626 or more street frontages, this standard shall be applied separately to each adjacent 1627 park strip on each street frontage. In new park strips, or when replacing landscaping 1628 in existing park strips, it is recommended that water conserving plants constitute at 1629 least eighty percent (80%) of all plants used. 1630 Plants which have thorns, spines, or other sharp, rigid parts are hazardous to 1631 pedestrians and bicyclists, and are difficult to walk across and are generally 1632 prohibited except that limited use of thorn bearing flowers, such as roses, may be 1633 acceptable subject to the approval of the zoning administrator. 1634 2. Erosion: It shall be the property owner’s responsibility to ensure that erosion does not 1635 deposit soil or other material on sidewalks or in the street. Where annual or perennial 1636 plants are planted in the park strip, an organic much is required on the park strip 1637 during the dormant season to prevent erosion. 1638 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 3. Organic Mulch: Materials such as bark, shredded plant material, and compost, may be 1639 used as water conserving mulch for plants and may also be used as the only material 1640 in portions of a park strip. 1641 4. Gravel, Rocks, And Boulders: Because rock, gravel and other hard surface materials 1642 as a ground cover retain and emit heat during the summer months when water is 1643 scarce, they may not be used within a thirty six inch (36”) radius (72 inch diameter) 1644 of any street tree, unless an operable irrigation system is provided. Otherwise, gravel, 1645 rocks, and boulders, may be used on portions of the park strip. Organic mulch or 1646 gravel, as approved by the city forester, shall be used near existing street trees. Rocks 1647 are limited to twenty inches (20”) in height. Boulders as an accent material are 1648 limited to thirty six inches (36”) in height, and may not be arranged in a manner that 1649 creates a continuous visual obstruction. 1650 Any rock raised above the curb height shall be set back from the curb by at least 1651 twenty four inches (24”). 1652 Large diameter rocks (over 6 inches) or boulders shall be kept a minimum of twenty 1653 four inches (24”) away from street trees. 1654 Any material placed beneath gravel, rocks or boulders designed to block weed growth 1655 must be of a porous nature, allowing water to percolate to plant root systems. 1656 5. Paving Materials: Paving materials, limited to poured concrete, concrete pavers, brick 1657 pavers, or natural stone pavers, may be used in portions of a park strip subject to the 1658 following limitations: 1659 1660 a. Paving Materials Near Existing Street Trees: Poured concrete shall not be placed 1661 in any park strip with existing street trees unless the park strip is being improved 1662 as part of an improvement district or pedestrian traffic counts warrant (as 1663 determined by Salt Lake City transportation and engineering divisions) and tree 1664 grates and an operable irrigation system is being installed, except as otherwise 1665 noted. Organic mulch or gravel, as approved by the city forester, shall be used 1666 near existing street trees. Poured concrete or rocks/gravel may not be used in any 1667 park strip unless an operable irrigation system is provided to the street trees. 1668 b. Twenty Four Inch Wide Park Strips: Except as specified in subsection E5a of this 1669 section, any allowed paving material listed in this section may be used in a park 1670 strip that is twenty four inches (24”) or less in width. If poured concrete is used, it 1671 shall be finished with a stamped pattern resembling brick or natural stone or 1672 scored with another decorative pattern to distinguish it from the adjacent 1673 sidewalk. 1674 c. Less Than Thirty Six Inch Wide Park Strips: In park strips that are less than thirty 1675 six inches (36”) in width, brick pavers, concrete pavers, or natural stone pavers 1676 may be used. Poured concrete shall not be used except for carriageways as 1677 outlined in subsection E6 of this section. The use of plants in combination with 1678 paving materials is encouraged. 1679 d. Park Strips Thirty Six Inches Wide Or Greater: In park strips thirty six inches 1680 (36”) in width or greater, the combination of all paving materials, gravel, rocks, 1681 and boulders shall not exceed sixty seven percent (67%) of the total park strip 1682 surface area. Poured concrete shall not be used except for carriageways as 1683 outlined in subsection E6 of this section. 1684 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 6. Carriageways: In order to provide for safe and convenient access across park strips to 1685 and from vehicles that may park at the curb, carriageways (walkways between the 1686 curb and sidewalk) through planted area are encouraged. The material of 1687 carriageways may be poured concrete, concrete pavers, brick pavers, or flat, natural 1688 stone paving materials such as flagstone or a combination of these materials. If 1689 poured concrete is used, the carriageway shall be not more than four feet (4’) in width 1690 and shall be located so as to provide the most direct route from the curb to the 1691 sidewalk. The area of carriageways shall be included in calculating the percentage of 1692 inorganic material in the park strip. 1693 7. Retaining Walls, Fences And Other Similar Structural Encroachments: Retaining 1694 walls, fences, steps, raised planter boxes and other similar structural encroachments in 1695 park strips are only permitted when specifically approved by the engineering 1696 department pursuant to adopted standards and/or recognized engineering principles, 1697 and by: 1698 1699 a. The historic landmark commission if the proposed structure is located with the H 1700 historic preservation overlay district; 1701 b. The planning commission if the proposed structure is part of a development 1702 proposal that requires planning commission approval; 1703 c. The planning director or the planning director’s designee if the proposed structure 1704 is not within an H historic preservation overlay district and not part of a 1705 development proposal that requires planning commission approval; or 1706 d. The city council if the proposed structure is part of an adopted improvement 1707 district. 1708 1709 Structural encroachments in park strips are generally limited because they may block 1710 access from the street to the sidewalks and create obstructions to, and increase the 1711 cost of performing maintenance of public improvements and utilities within the park 1712 strip. Structural encroachments are not permitted unless the relevant decision making 1713 entities identified in this section find that: 1714 1715 a. The proposed structures will serve the general public and are part of general 1716 public need, or 1717 b. The proposed structures are necessary for the functional use of the adjacent 1718 property (such as a mailbox near the curb, steps or a retaining wall on a sloping 1719 site, fence behind the sidewalk, etc.), and 1720 c. There are no other practical locations for the structure on the adjacent private 1721 property. 1722 1723 Any raised structure or retaining wall shall be set back from the curb by at least 1724 twenty four inches (24”). 1725 This subsection E7 does not apply to outdoor dining that is subject to section 1726 21A.40.065 of this title or ground mounted utility boxes governed by section 1727 21A.40.160 of this title. 1728 1729 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 8. Plants And Objects Within Sight Distance Areas: Because of safety and visibility 1730 issues related to both pedestrians and automobile drivers, tall objects are not allowed 1731 in sight distance triangle areas. Except for street trees, or mailboxes, no plant, 1732 boulder, monument, structure or other object which is over twenty two inches (22”) in 1733 height shall be planted or located within sight distance areas. 1734 9. Turf And Gravel On Steep Park Strips: Turf and gravel are not permitted in park 1735 strips with a slope greater than three to one (3:1) (3 feet horizontal distance to 1 foot 1736 vertical distance). Turf is difficult to mow on steep slopes and gravel will migrate 1737 down the slope and collect in the gutter. Larger rocks (a diameter greater than 6 1738 inches) or boulders used on steep park strips shall be buried in the ground to a depth 1739 equal to at least one-third (1/3) of the rock or boulder’s average dimension in order to 1740 anchor them into the slope. 1741 10. Exceptions To Park Strip Standards: Exceptions to the park strip policies established 1742 herein shall be limited to the following: 1743 1744 a. Improvement District: Variations from these standards may be approved as part of 1745 improvement districts. Areas where alternative park strip materials could be 1746 considered include identifiable nonresidential areas. The improvement district 1747 concept is not intended to respond to one or two (2) properties but an identifiable 1748 district. The improvement district concept is not generally applicable to 1749 residential areas where a predominant design theme consisting of vegetation has 1750 been established. 1751 b. Nonconforming Provision: All vegetation located in park strips prior to November 1752 5, 1992, may be maintained subject to city transportation division approval for 1753 sight distance and public way safety requirements. 1754 c. Bus Stop Benches And Shelters, And Bike Share Stations: Concrete pads for bus 1755 stop benches and/or shelters and bike share stations are permitted with zoning 1756 administrator approval and subject to all permitting requirements. Concrete used 1757 for this purpose shall not be included in calculating the percentage of inorganic 1758 material in the park strip. 1759 d. Outdoor Dining: Park strip materials may be modified by the zoning administrator 1760 when outdoor dining is approved pursuant to section 21A.40.065 of this title. 1761 21A.48.070: PARKING LOT OR VEHICLE SALES OR LEASE LOTS LANDSCAPING: 1762 A. Applicability: All hard surfaced parking lots or hard surfaced vehicle sales or lease lots, 1763 for passenger cars and light trucks, with fifteen (15) or more parking spaces shall provide 1764 landscaping in accordance with the provisions of this section. Smaller parking lots shall 1765 not be required to provide landscaping other than yard area landscaping and landscaped 1766 buffer requirements as specified in other sections of this title. 1767 B. Interior Parking Lot And Vehicle Sales Or Lease Lots Landscaping: 1768 1769 1. Area Required: Not less than five percent (5%) of the interior of a parking lot or 1770 vehicle sales or lease lots shall be devoted to landscaping. Landscaping areas located 1771 along the perimeter of a parking lot or vehicle sales or lease lots beyond the curb or 1772 edge of pavement of the lot shall not be included toward satisfying this requirement. 1773 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2. Landscaped Areas: The landscaped areas defined in subsection B1 of this section 1774 shall be improved in conformance with the following: 1775 1776 a. Dispersion: Interior parking lot or vehicle sales or lease lots landscaping areas 1777 shall be dispersed throughout the parking lot or vehicle sales or lease lots. 1778 b. Minimum Size: Interior parking lot or vehicle sales or lease lots landscaping areas 1779 shall be a minimum of one hundred twenty (120) square feet in area and shall be a 1780 minimum of five feet (5’) in width, as measured from back of curb to back of 1781 curb. 1782 c. Landscape Material: The plants used to improve the landscape areas defined 1783 above shall conform to the following: 1784 1785 (1) Type: The primary plant materials used in parking lots or vehicle sales or 1786 lease lots shall be shade tree species in conformance with applicable 1787 provisions of subsections 21A.48.050A and B of this chapter. Ornamental 1788 trees, shrubbery, hedges, and other plants may be used to supplement the 1789 shade tree plantings, but shall not be the sole contribution to such landscaping; 1790 (2) Quantity: One shade tree shall be provided for every one hundred twenty 1791 (120) square feet of landscaping area; 1792 (3) Ground Cover: A minimum of fifty percent (50%) of every interior parking 1793 lot or vehicle sales or lease lots landscaping area shall be planted with an 1794 approved ground cover in the appropriate density to achieve complete cover 1795 within two (2) years, as determined by the zoning administrator. 1796 1797 3. Exceptions: In the CG, M-1, M-2 and EI districts, hard surfaced areas used as 1798 operational yard areas for trucks, trailers and other incidental vehicles, other than 1799 passenger automobiles and light trucks, and which are not parking lots for employees, 1800 clients, and customers, are exempt from the parking lot interior landscaping 1801 standards. 1802 1803 C. Perimeter Parking Lot Landscaping: 1804 1805 1. Applicability: Where a parking lot is located within a required yard, or within twenty 1806 feet (20’) of a lot line, perimeter landscaping shall be required along the 1807 corresponding edge of the parking lot in conformance with the provisions in table 1808 21A.48.070G of this section. Perimeter landscaping for vehicle sales or lease lots 1809 shall include rear and interior side yard landscaping only. Front and corner side yard 1810 landscaping for vehicle sales or lease lots shall be provided as specified in each 1811 zoning district. Where both landscape buffers and parking lot landscaping is required, 1812 the more restrictive requirement shall apply. 1813 2. Landscape Area: Where perimeter landscaping is required, it shall be provided within 1814 landscape areas at least seven feet (7’) in width, as measured from the back of the 1815 parking lot curb and extending any parking space overhang area. 1816 3. Required Improvements: Within the landscape area required above, landscape 1817 improvements shall be required as established in table 21A.48.070G of this section. 1818 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT D. Parking Lot Fencing: Fences along parking lot perimeters may be required through the 1819 site plan review process pursuant to the provisions of chapter 21A.58 of this title or when 1820 required by the zoning administrator to satisfy buffer requirements outlined in section 1821 21A.48.080 of this chapter. 1822 E. Parking Lot Curb Controls: Six inch (6”) poured concrete curb controls shall be 1823 constructed around all required landscaping on the perimeter and within parking lots. 1824 F. Discretionary Authority: The zoning administrator may modify requirements of this 1825 section to better achieve the intent of this section and address site specific conditions. 1826 These modifications shall be limited to the location of required plants and shall not 1827 permit a reduction in the required total number of plants. 1828 G. Landscape Improvements Table: 1829 1830 TABLE 21A.48.070G 1831 REQUIRED PERIMETER PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS 1832 General Intent: The landscape requirements identified in this table provide for the 1833 enhancement of parking lots by recognizing two (2) distinct conditions. The first is where 1834 parking lots are located within front and corner side yards, and a uniform scheme of 1835 landscaping is required to protect the aesthetics along public streets. The second condition is 1836 where parking lots are located within rear and interior side yards, and minimum requirements 1837 for beautification of both residential and nonresidential uses are the city’s goal. The intent is 1838 to require a higher level of landscaping for residential uses (principally multi-family uses) 1839 than for nonresidential uses. The improvements established in this table are required only for 1840 parking lots with fifteen (15) or more spaces and where the lot is located within a required 1841 yard or within twenty feet (20’) of a lot line. The reduction of impacts between dissimilar 1842 uses is addressed by section 21A.48.080 of this chapter. Where both parking lot landscaping 1843 and landscape buffers are required, the more restrictive shall apply. 1844 Required Landscaping Front And Corner Side Yards Required Landscaping Front And Corner Side Yards Shade trees 1 tree per 50 feet of yard length, measured to the nearest whole number (in addition to required parkway trees) Shrubs 1 shrub per 3 feet, on center along 100 percent of the yard length. Shrubs with mature height not more than 3 feet unless a lower shrub height is specifically required in this chapter for front yard areas Ground cover Landscape area outside of shrub masses shall be established in turf or other ground cover Rear And Interior Side Yards LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Required Landscaping Residential Use (Including Institutional Residential Uses) Nonresidential Use Shade trees 1 tree per 30 feet of yard length, measured to the nearest whole number 1 tree per 50 feet of yard length, measured to the nearest whole number Shrubs 1 shrub per 3 feet, on center along 100 percent of the yard length. Shrubs shall have a mature height not less than 3 feet 1 shrub per 3 feet, on center along 50 percent of the yard length. Shrubs shall have a mature height of not less than 3 feet Ground cover Landscape area outside of shrub masses shall be established as per section 21A.48.090 of this chapter Landscape area outside of shrub masses shall be established as per section 21A.48.090 of this chapter H. Landscaping Performance Standards For Airport District (A): Parking lot landscaping in 1845 Airport District shall comply with the specifications set forth in subsections 1846 21A.34.040EE and FF of this title. 1847 21A.48.080: LANDSCAPE BUFFERS: 1848 A. Applicability: The regulations of this section shall establish the dimensions and 1849 improvement requirements of landscape buffers as required for transitions between 1850 dissimilar uses. 1851 B. General Restrictions: Landscape buffers shall be reserved for planting and fencing as 1852 required within this section. No parking, driveways, sidewalks, accessory buildings or 1853 other impervious surfaces shall be permitted, unless specifically authorized through the 1854 site plan review process. Landscape buffers may be located within required yards or 1855 required landscape yards as established in the applicable district regulations. Where both 1856 landscape buffers and parking lot landscaping is required the more restrictive shall apply. 1857 C. Size Of Landscape Buffers: The minimum size of landscape buffers for various situations 1858 is set forth below: 1859 1860 1. RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45, RMF-75, R-MU-35, R-MU-45, R-MU, RO, MU, PL, 1861 PL-2 And OS Districts: Lots in the RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45, RMF-75, R-MU-35, 1862 R-MU-45, R-MU, RO, MU, PL, PL-2 or OS Districts which abut a lot in a single-1863 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT family or two-family residential district, shall provide a ten foot (10’) wide landscape 1864 buffer. 1865 2. RB And FB-UN1 Districts: A landscape buffer is not required for lots in an RB or 1866 FB-UN1 District which abut a lot in a residential district. 1867 3. CN, CB, CC And CSHBD Districts: Lots in the CN, CB, CC or CSHBD Districts 1868 which abut a lot in a residential district shall provide a seven foot (7’) landscape 1869 buffer. 1870 4. CS And CG Districts: Lots in the CS or CG Districts which abut a lot in a residential 1871 district shall provide a fifteen foot (15’) landscape buffer. 1872 5. M-1 District: Lots in the M-1 District which abut a lot in a residential, AG-2 1873 Agriculture, or AG-5 Agriculture District shall provide a fifteen foot (15’) landscape 1874 buffer. 1875 6. M-2 District: Lots in the M-2 District which abut a lot in a residential district shall 1876 provide a fifty foot (50’) landscape buffer. 1877 7. RP And BP Districts: Lots in the RP or BP Districts which abut a lot in a residential 1878 district shall provide a thirty foot (30’) landscape buffer. 1879 8. I Institutional District: Lots in the I Institutional District which abut a lot in a 1880 residential district shall provide a landscape buffer fifteen feet (15’) in width or equal 1881 to the average height of the facade of the principal building facing the buffer, 1882 whichever is greater. 1883 9. UI Urban Institutional District: Lots in the UI Urban Institutional District which abut 1884 a lot in a single-family or two-family residential district shall provide a fifteen foot 1885 (15’) landscape buffer. 1886 10. MH Mobile Home District: A landscape buffer of twenty feet (20’) in width shall be 1887 provided around the perimeter of each mobile home park. 1888 11. EI Extractive Industries And LO Landfill Overlay Districts: A landscape buffer of 1889 thirty feet (30’) shall be provided around the perimeter of each use. 1890 12. TSA District: Lots in the TSA District which abut a lot in an OS, R-1, R-2, SR, 1891 RMF-30, RMF-35 or RMF-45 District shall provide a ten foot (10’) landscape buffer. 1892 13. All Other Non-Residential Districts: Where not otherwise specified by this 1893 subsection, lots in a non-residential district which abut a lot in an R-1, R-2, SR, RMF-1894 30, RMF-35 or RMF-45 District shall provide a seven foot (7’) landscape buffer. The 1895 provided landscape buffer shall be improved to the same standards required for lots in 1896 the CN Zone. 1897 1898 D. Improvement Of Landscape Buffers: Required planting and fencing shall be installed in 1899 conformance with the following provisions: 1900 1901 1. RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45, RMF-75, R-MU-35, R-MU-45, R-MU, RO, MU, PL, 1902 PL-2 And OS Districts: In the RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45, RMF-75, R-MU-35, R-1903 MU-45, R-MU, RO, MU, PL, PL-2 and OS Districts, the following improvements 1904 shall be provided: 1905 1906 a. Shade trees shall be planted at the rate of one tree for every thirty (30) linear feet 1907 of landscape buffer. 1908 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT b. A continuous evergreen or deciduous shrub hedge shall be planted along the 1909 entire length of landscape buffer. This shrub hedge shall have a mature height of 1910 not less than four feet (4’). 1911 c. A fence not exceeding six feet (6’) in height may be combined with the shrub 1912 hedge, subject to the approval of the Zoning Administrator. 1913 d. Landscape yards shall be maintained per section 21A.48.090 of this chapter. 1914 1915 2. CN, CB, CC And CSHBD Districts: In the CN, CB, CC, and CSHBD Districts, the 1916 following improvements shall be provided: 1917 1918 a. Shade trees shall be planted at the rate of one tree for every thirty (30) linear feet 1919 of landscape buffer; 1920 b. Shrubs, having a mature height of not less than four feet (4’), shall be planted 1921 along the entire length of the landscape buffer; 1922 c. Landscape yards shall be maintained per section 21A.48.090 of this chapter; and 1923 d. A solid fence between four feet (4’) and six feet (6’) in height shall be erected 1924 along the property line unless waived by the Zoning Administrator. 1925 1926 3. CS, CG, TSA, M-1, I, UI, MH, RP And BP Districts: In the CS, CG, TSA, M-1, I, UI, 1927 MH, RP and BP Districts, the following improvements shall be provided: 1928 1929 a. Shade trees shall be planted at the rate of one tree per twenty five (25) linear feet 1930 along the entire length of the landscape yard. Shade trees may be clustered subject 1931 to the site plan review approval. Evergreen trees may be substituted for a portion 1932 of the shade trees; 1933 b. Shrub masses, at least two (2) rows deep and with shrubs alternately spaced, shall 1934 be provided along the entire length of the landscape yard. Shrubs shall reach a 1935 mature height of not less than four feet (4’); 1936 c. Landscape yards shall be maintained per section 21A.48.090 of this chapter; and 1937 d. A solid fence six feet (6’) in height shall be located on the property line along the 1938 required landscape buffer unless waived by the Zoning Administrator. 1939 1940 4. M-2 District: In the M-2 District, the following improvements shall be provided: 1941 1942 a. Shade trees shall be planted at a rate of one tree for every twenty feet (20’) of 1943 length of the landscape buffer. Shade trees may be grouped or clustered, subject 1944 to site plan review approval. Evergreen trees may be used as substitutes for some 1945 of the shade trees. 1946 b. Shrub masses, at least two (2) rows deep and with shrubs alternately spaced, shall 1947 be provided along seventy five percent (75%) of the length of the landscape yard. 1948 Shrubs shall reach a mature height of not less than four feet (4’). 1949 c. Landscape yards shall be maintained per section 21A.48.090 of this chapter. 1950 1951 5. EI And LO Districts: Each use in the EI and LO Districts must submit a landscape 1952 plan to the Zoning Administrator indicating how the proposed landscaping will 1953 mitigate noise, dust or other impacts on surrounding and nearby uses. 1954 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 21A.48.090: LANDSCAPE YARDS: 1955 Landscape yards are yards devoted exclusively to landscaping except, however, that 1956 driveways and sidewalks needed to serve the use and buildings on the lot may be located 1957 within a required landscape yard. As used in this chapter, the term “landscaping” shall be 1958 defined as set forth in section 21A.62.040, “Definitions Of Terms”, of this title. No specific 1959 improvements are required within landscape yards, except that all landscape areas shall be 1960 maintained with at least one-third (1/3) of the yard(s) area covered by vegetation, which may 1961 include trees, shrubs, grasses, annual or perennial plants and vegetable plants. Mulches such 1962 as organic mulch, gravel, rocks and boulders shall be a minimum depth of three inches to 1963 four inches (3” - 4”), dependent on the material used, to control weeds and erosion in 1964 unplanted areas and between plants, and that these aforementioned items at all times cover 1965 any installed weed block barriers that cover the ground surface. 1966 1967 A. Bond Requirement: All developers and/or contractors shall be required to post a bond 1968 with the City for the total amount of the landscaping contract for all multi-family 1969 dwellings and commercial development. 1970 21A.48.100: SPECIAL LANDSCAPE REGULATIONS: 1971 In addition to the foregoing requirements, special landscape regulations shall apply to certain 1972 zoning districts. These regulations are established below: 1973 1974 A. FP Foothills Protection District: 1975 1976 1. Landscape Plan Required: A landscape plan, conforming to sections 21A.48.030 and 1977 21A.48.050 of this chapter, shall be required for all uses within this district. This plan 1978 shall delineate the proposed revegetation of disturbed areas of the site, and 1979 road/driveway areas. The landscape plan shall extend one hundred feet (100’) beyond 1980 the disturbed site area and twenty five feet (25’) beyond the limits of grading for 1981 roads/driveways, but need not include any portions of the site designated as 1982 undevelopable unless these areas are disturbed. 1983 2. Maximum Disturbed Area: The maximum disturbed area shall not exceed ten percent 1984 (10%) of the total site area. 1985 3. Tree Preservation And Replacement: Existing trees over two inches (2”) in caliper 1986 that are removed from the site to accommodate development shall be replaced. 1987 Whenever microclimate conditions make it practical, the proportion of replacement 1988 tree species shall be the same as the trees removed. 1989 4. Limits On Turf: To help promote the intent of this district by minimizing the impact 1990 on the natural landscape, the area of turf grasses shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) 1991 of the area to be landscaped and shall not encroach into undevelopable areas. 1992 5. Slope Revegetation: All slopes graded or otherwise disturbed shall be 1993 restored/replanted. Restored vegetation shall consist of native or adapted grasses, 1994 herbaceous perennials, or woody trees and shrubs as appropriate for slope, soil and 1995 microclimate conditions. 1996 6. Irrigation: Irrigation shall be installed to provide needed water for at least the first two 1997 (2) years of growth to establish revegetation of natural areas. Irrigation for areas of 1998 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT turf and ornamental landscaping shall be provided at the discretion of the property 1999 owner, however, all systems shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning 2000 Administrator. 2001 7. Erosion Protection: As a condition of site plan approval, a plan for erosion protection 2002 shall be submitted with the landscape plan. 2003 2004 B. FR-1 And FR-2 Foothills Residence Districts: 2005 2006 1. Landscape Plan Required: A landscape plan, conforming to sections 21A.48.030 and 2007 21A.48.050 of this chapter, shall be required for all uses within this district. This plan 2008 shall delineate the proposed revegetation of disturbed site areas. 2009 2. Tree Preservation And Replacement: Existing trees over two inches (2”) in caliper 2010 that are removed from the site to accommodate development shall be replaced. 2011 Whenever microclimate conditions make it practical, the proportion of replacement 2012 tree species shall be the same as the trees removed. 2013 3. Slope Revegetation: All slopes graded or otherwise disturbed shall be 2014 restored/replanted. Restored vegetation shall consist of native or adapted grasses, 2015 herbaceous perennials, or woody trees and shrubs as appropriate for slope and 2016 microclimate conditions. 2017 4. Irrigation: Irrigation shall be installed to provide needed water for at least the first two 2018 (2) years of growth to establish revegetation of natural areas. Irrigation for areas of 2019 turf and ornamental landscaping shall be provided at the discretion of the property 2020 owner, however, all systems shall be subject to city review and approval. 2021 5. Erosion Protection: As a condition of site plan approval, a plan for erosion protection 2022 shall be submitted with the landscape plan. 2023 2024 C. CC Commercial District: 2025 2026 1. Special Front Yard Landscaping: Special front yard landscaping shall be required in 2027 conformance with the following: 2028 2029 a. The first fifteen feet (15’) of lot depth shall be devoted to landscaping. Driveways 2030 and sidewalks may be located within this area to serve the building and use on the 2031 lot; 2032 b. Shrubs limited to a height of not more than three feet (3’) shall be provided at the 2033 rate of one shrub for every two feet (2’) of lot width. A mix of shrub species is 2034 recommended, and at least forty percent (40%) of the shrubs must be evergreen; 2035 c. Trees shall be provided at the rate of one tree for every twenty five feet (25’) of 2036 lot width, rounded to the nearest whole number. Evergreen trees or shade trees 2037 may be substituted with ornamental trees, subject to the review and approval of 2038 the development review team; and 2039 d. Areas not planted with shrubs or trees shall be maintained in turf or as vegetative 2040 ground cover. A drought tolerant ground cover is recommended. 2041 2042 2. Irrigation: Permanent irrigation shall be installed and used as needed to maintain plant 2043 material in a healthy state. 2044 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 3. Maintenance: Landscaping shall be installed and maintained in substantial 2045 conformance with the approved landscape plan. Landscaping shall be kept free of 2046 weeds and litter. 2047 2048 D. D-1 Central Business District And D-4 Downtown Secondary Central Business District: 2049 2050 1. Right Of Way Landscaping: The principal area of focus for landscaping in the D-1 2051 and D-4 districts shall be along sidewalks and parkways. Landscaping on private 2052 property shall be subject to the regulations below and in the D-1 and D-4 districts. 2053 2054 a. Location: Landscape areas shall be located a minimum of two feet (2’) from back 2055 of the street curb and shall be located in conformance with the adopted 2056 beautification plan for an approved beautification district. If the beautification 2057 plan does not address the site in question, the location of landscape areas shall be 2058 determined through the site plan review process. 2059 b. Trees: Shade trees shall be planted as specified through the site plan review 2060 process. 2061 c. Shrubs/Ground Cover: The ground surface of the landscape area may be suitable 2062 for the planting of shrubs, ground cover or flowers depending on use and 2063 pedestrian patterns. Tree grates or other improvements may be required to 2064 facilitate pedestrian circulation along the street. The ground surface shall be 2065 determined by the beautification plan, or in the absence of specific direction from 2066 the plan, the site plan review process. 2067 2068 2. Landscaping For Vacant Lots: Special landscaping shall be required on those lots 2069 becoming vacant, where no replacement use is proposed, in conformance with the 2070 following: 2071 2072 a. Landscape Yard Requirement: A landscape yard of fifteen feet (15’) shall be 2073 required as measured from any point along all property lines. Fencing, pursuant to 2074 section 21A.40.120 of this title, can be used as an element of the overall 2075 landscaping plan, however, shall not be used in lieu of the landscaping 2076 requirements of this section. The purpose of any fencing on downtown lots is for 2077 aesthetic value only, and shall consist of wrought iron or other similar material 2078 (no chainlink). Fencing shall be open so as not to create a visual barrier, and shall 2079 be limited to a maximum of four feet (4’) in height, with the exception of a fence 2080 located on any corner lot as noted in subsection 21A.40.120E of this title. The 2081 approval of a final landscape plan, that includes a fencing element, shall be 2082 delegated to the building official with the input of the planning director, to 2083 determine if the fencing materials, location, and height are compatible with 2084 adjacent properties in a given setting. 2085 b. Trees: Shade trees shall be provided at the rate of one tree per thirty feet (30’) of 2086 yard length, rounded up to the nearest whole number. 2087 c. Shrubs: Shrubs shall be provided at the rate of one plant for every three feet (3’) 2088 of yard length, evenly spaced, limited to a height of not more than three feet (3’). 2089 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT All plants shall be drought tolerant; consult the Salt Lake City water wise plant 2090 list for suggestions. At least forty percent (40%) of the plants must be evergreen. 2091 d. Ground Cover: Areas not planted with shrubs and trees shall be maintained in 2092 drought tolerant vegetative ground cover. 2093 e. Irrigation: Permanent irrigation shall be installed and used as needed to maintain 2094 plant materials in a healthy state. 2095 f. Maintenance: Landscaping shall be installed and maintained in conformance with 2096 the approved landscape plan. Landscaping shall be kept free of weeds and litter. 2097 E. Transitional Overlay District: All conditional uses in the transitional overlay district shall 2098 conform to the following landscape/buffer requirements. Permitted uses shall be exempt 2099 from these requirements. 2100 2101 1. Landscaped Front And Corner Side Yard: All front and corner side yards shall be 2102 maintained as landscape yards. The improvement of such landscape yards shall be 2103 consistent with the character of the residential neighborhood. 2104 2. Landscaped Interior Side Yard: Where the interior side yard abuts a residential use, a 2105 landscape yard eight feet (8’) in width shall be provided. This landscape yard shall be 2106 improved as set forth below: 2107 2108 a. A six foot (6’) high solid fence or wall shall be constructed from the front yard 2109 setback line to the rear lot line. The outside edge of this fence or wall shall be 2110 located no less than seven feet (7’) from the side lot line. The requirement for a 2111 fence or wall may be waived by the zoning administrator if the building elevation 2112 facing the residential property is of a design not requiring screening by a fence or 2113 wall; 2114 b. Deciduous shade trees shall be planted within the landscape yard. One tree per 2115 thirty (30) linear feet of landscape yard shall be required, although the spacing of 2116 trees may be arranged in an informal manner; 2117 c. A continuous row of shrubs (deciduous or evergreen) shall be planted along the 2118 entire length of the landscape yard. The size of the shrubs shall not be less than 2119 four feet (4’) in height at the time of maturity. The spacing of shrubs shall not be 2120 greater than five feet (5’) on center. Shrubs must be set back from the side lot line 2121 at least four feet (4’) on center; and 2122 d. Landscape yards shall be maintained per section 21A.48.090 of this chapter. 2123 2124 3. Landscaped Rear Yard: Where the rear yard abuts a residential use, a solid fence or 2125 wall shall be constructed along the entire length of the rear lot line. The requirement 2126 for a fence or wall may be waived if conditions on the lot, including landscape 2127 screening within the rear yard, eliminate the need for a fence or wall. 2128 21A.48.110: FREEWAY SCENIC LANDSCAPE SETBACK: 2129 A. Purpose Statement: Freeway scenic landscape setbacks shall be established along all 2130 federal interstate highways to enhance the visual appearance of Salt Lake City, reduce 2131 visual distractions to motorists and promote the general health, safety and welfare of Salt 2132 Lake City. 2133 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT B. Applicability: Freeway scenic landscape setbacks shall be required for all lots abutting an 2134 interstate highway that are subdivided after April 12, 1995, for construction of a principal 2135 building, or for a twenty five percent (25%) floor area increase of a principal building, or 2136 for any new use of a previously undeveloped site or twenty five percent (25%) expansion 2137 of an existing use on a developed site, in all zones except single- family, R-2 single- and 2138 two-family residential districts. 2139 C. Scenic Landscape Location: Freeway scenic landscape setbacks shall be located directly 2140 adjacent to an interstate highway right of way line. For applicable properties adjacent to 2141 an interstate highway, a scenic landscape setback shall be provided along the full length 2142 of its frontage along such interstate highway. 2143 D. Size Of Scenic Landscape Setback: For lots platted after April 12, 1995, scenic landscape 2144 setbacks shall be twenty feet (20’) in width. For lots existing as of April 12, 1995, the 2145 width of the scenic setback may be reduced, upon approval of the zoning administrator, if 2146 such reduction is necessary to achieve the required off street parking. The width of the 2147 scenic landscape setback shall not be less than ten feet (10’). 2148 E. Planting Of Scenic Landscape Setback: All scenic landscape setbacks shall be planted to 2149 achieve a significant vegetative screen. To accomplish this, the following planting shall 2150 be required within a scenic landscape setback. 2151 2152 1. Shade Trees: One shade tree shall be planted for each three hundred (300) square feet 2153 of setback area. 2154 2. Evergreen Trees: Evergreen trees may be substituted for one hundred percent (100%) 2155 of the shade trees required in subsection E1 of this section, where microclimate 2156 conditions support the use of evergreen trees, subject to the approval of the zoning 2157 administrator. 2158 3. Ornamental Trees: Ornamental trees, having a mature canopy size less than thirty feet 2159 (30’), may be substituted for up to thirty percent (30%) of the shade trees required in 2160 subsection E1 of this section. 2161 4. Large Shrubs: Large shrubs may be substituted for up to ten percent (10%) of the 2162 shade trees required in subsection E1 of this section. Three (3) large shrubs shall be 2163 planted for each shade tree substitution. 2164 5. Ground Cover: To promote water conservation and the visual character of the native 2165 landscape, scenic landscape setbacks shall use native grasses, wildflowers and shrubs 2166 for the establishment of ground cover. In areas with greater exposure to sun and 2167 drought conditions, herbaceous perennials and shrubs will be used to create a native 2168 ground cover. 2169 2170 F. Drought Tolerant Material: All of the plant material used shall be drought tolerant species 2171 conforming to the current list maintained by the zoning administrator, or as otherwise 2172 approved. 2173 G. Irrigation: A permanent water efficient irrigation system shall be installed within each 2174 scenic landscape setback. 2175 H. Waiver Of Requirements: Some or all of the requirements of this section may be waived 2176 by the zoning administrator if conformance with such will not benefit the visual 2177 appearance of the city or the general public welfare. Specifically, the zoning 2178 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT administrator may waive the requirement where property abuts interstate highway bridges 2179 and underpasses and where the change of grade/elevation would not allow for views of 2180 the scenic landscape setback. 2181 21A.48.120: SCREENING OF REFUSE DISPOSAL DUMPSTERS: 2182 All refuse disposal dumpsters, except those located in the CG, M-2, LO and EI districts shall 2183 be screened on all sides by a solid wood fence, masonry wall or an equivalent opaque 2184 material to a height of not less than six feet (6’) but not more than eight feet (8’). This 2185 requirement shall not apply to recycling containers and devices. 2186 21A.48.130: INNOVATIVE LANDSCAPING: 2187 Innovative landscaping design is encouraged and shall be considered as a positive attribute in 2188 connection with any request for a variation from the requirements of this chapter. 2189 21A.48.135: PRIVATE LANDS TREE PRESERVATION: 2190 A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of these tree preservation provisions is to recognize and 2191 protect the valuable asset embodied in the trees that exist on private lands within the city 2192 and ensure that the existing trees of Salt Lake City continue to provide benefit to its 2193 citizens. Essential to effective tree preservation is the understanding of tree growth 2194 requirements having to do with space, water, and soil quality needs, among other 2195 qualities. Good, early planning, site design, and construction management practices are 2196 key to allowing trees to prosper. Preconstruction planning and mitigation of potential 2197 impacts that development may have on trees is necessary and one of the purposes of this 2198 section. Numerous community and personal benefits arise from the presence of trees in 2199 urbanized areas - both on residential and nonresidential lands - and it is the intent of this 2200 section through the preservation of the trees to: 2201 2202 1. Enhance the quality of life in the city and protect public health and safety; 2203 2. Preserve and enhance the visual and aesthetic qualities of the city; 2204 3. Enhance public and private property for greater enjoyment and usability due to the 2205 shade, cooling, and the aesthetic beauty afforded by trees; 2206 4. Protect and improve the real estate values of the city; 2207 5. Preserve and enhance air and water quality; 2208 6. Reduce noise, glare, dust, and heat, and moderate climate, including urban heat island 2209 effect; 2210 7. Increase slope stability, and control erosion and sediment runoff into streams and 2211 waterways; 2212 8. Protect the natural habitat and ecosystems of the city; 2213 9. Conserve energy by reducing heating and cooling costs; and 2214 10. Preserve the function of mature trees to absorb greenhouse gases such as carbon 2215 dioxide. 2216 2217 B. Applicability: 2218 2219 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1. General: The standards in this section shall apply to new development in the city 2220 unless exempted in accordance with subsection C, “Exemptions”, of this section. The 2221 standards in this section shall apply at the time of a development application for 2222 “development” as defined in the zoning ordinance. 2223 2. Other Regulations: Title 2, chapter 2.26 of this code, the Salt Lake City urban forestry 2224 ordinance, addressing the protection of trees located on public property owned by the 2225 city and in rights of way, shall remain in effect. 2226 3. Specimen Trees: The city forester shall maintain a list of trees or tree types that are 2227 deemed to be specimen trees subject to subsection E, “Standards”, of this section. 2228 2229 C. Exemptions: The following specimen tree removal activities may be exempt from the 2230 standards of this section upon confirmation and approval by the city forester: 2231 2232 1. The removal of dead, damaged, or naturally fallen trees, or in cases of community 2233 emergency; 2234 2. When in conjunction with the construction of a single- or two- family residence not 2235 part of a proposed new subdivision; 2236 3. The removal of trees on an existing legal lot when not associated with new 2237 development; 2238 4. The removal of trees in such a condition that they pose a threat to structures or natural 2239 features on the site, on adjoining properties, or in the public right of way; 2240 5. The removal of diseased trees posing a threat to adjacent trees; 2241 6. The selective and limited removal of trees necessary to obtain clear visibility at 2242 driveways or intersections; 2243 7. The removal of trees associated with development at the Salt Lake City International 2244 Airport only as necessary to provide safe operations; 2245 8. The removal of trees when requested by the city forester for the purposes of conflict 2246 with utilities or streets; and 2247 9. The removal of trees deemed appropriate by the city forester, based on tree species, 2248 site conditions, or other variables. 2249 D. Definitions: For purposes of this chapter, the following terms shall have the following 2250 meanings: 2251 CALIPER: The dimension of the diameter of a tree trunk measured at a distance of 2252 six inches (6”) from the soil line. 2253 dbh: Diameter at breast height. 2254 DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT: The dimension of the diameter of a tree trunk 2255 measured at a distance of four feet six inches (4’6”) from the ground. 2256 MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE: No feasible or practical alternative exists, 2257 as determined by the city forester, and all possible efforts to comply with the 2258 standards or regulations and minimize potential harmful or adverse impacts have been 2259 undertaken by the applicant. Economic considerations may be taken into account but 2260 shall not be the overriding factor in determining “maximum extent practicable”. 2261 SPECIMEN TREE: A structurally sound and healthy tree or grouping of trees, having 2262 an individual or combined dbh measuring greater than ten inches (10”); whose future 2263 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT vitality can be reasonably expected and maintained with proper protection and 2264 regularly scheduled care; and whose absence from the landscape would significantly 2265 alter the site’s appearance, environmental benefit, character or history. 2266 TREE PROTECTION FENCING: The fencing required to be installed, and 2267 maintained during construction activities, to delineate required tree protection zones. 2268 TREE PROTECTION ZONE: The area of a development site that includes the area 2269 located within the drip line of specimen trees and also includes the area that supports 2270 tree health requirements and interactions as determined by the city forester. 2271 E. Standards: 2272 1. Preservation Of Specimen Trees: Specimen trees shall be preserved to the maximum 2273 extent practicable as determined by the city forester, in consultation with the zoning 2274 administrator, unless exempted pursuant to subsection C, “Exemptions”, of this 2275 section. 2276 2277 a. In determining if preservation is impracticable, the city shall consider the 2278 following criteria, including, but not limited to: 2279 2280 (1) Whether an alternative location or configuration of the development including 2281 elements such as parking or structures on the site would be feasible to 2282 accomplish tree preservation, without negatively impacting adjacent 2283 properties, 2284 (2) Whether preservation of the specimen tree would render all permitted 2285 development on the property infeasible, or 2286 (3) If development of the property will provide significant community benefits 2287 that outweigh tree preservation. 2288 2289 b. The zoning administrator may modify any dimensional standard, such as setbacks 2290 and height limits, by up to twenty percent (20%) if such modification will result 2291 in preservation of a specimen tree. 2292 2293 2. Cutting, Removal, Or Damage Prohibited: Specimen trees, required to be preserved, 2294 shall not be cut, removed, pushed over, killed, or otherwise damaged. 2295 3. Paving, Fill, Excavation, Or Soil Compaction Prohibited: The tree protection zone of 2296 any protected specimen tree shall not be subjected to paving, filling, excavation, or 2297 soil compaction. 2298 4. Mitigation: Where the city determines it is not practicable to preserve a specimen tree 2299 on the development site, the following mitigation provisions shall apply. 2300 2301 a. Replacement Tree Required: Two (2) caliper inches of replacement trees shall be 2302 provided for each dbh of specimen tree removed (for example, if a 24 inch dbh 2303 specimen tree is removed, it must be replaced with at least 24 trees of a minimum 2304 2 inch caliper or 8 trees with a 6 inch caliper). Each replacement tree shall be a 2305 minimum of two inches (2”) in caliper, and shall either be replanted prior to 2306 certificate of occupancy or within a conditional time frame as approved by the 2307 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT city forester. Consult the “Salt Lake City Plant List And Hydrozone Schedule” for 2308 recommendations on tree selection. 2309 Replacement trees shall be planted on the lot or site where the specimen tree was 2310 removed except where the city forester, in consultation with the zoning 2311 administrator, finds the following: 2312 2313 (1) The site does not provide for adequate landscape surface area to 2314 accommodate the total number of replacement trees; or 2315 (2) That due to unique soil types, topography, or unusual characteristics of the 2316 site, the likelihood of successful tree growth is diminished. 2317 In such cases, the applicant shall mitigate for the loss of the specimen tree in 2318 the form of payment to the city’s tree fund as provided below. 2319 2320 b. Cash In Lieu Payment/Tree Fund Contribution: Applicants who are permitted to 2321 remove a specimen tree but not plant a replacement tree on site shall make a cash 2322 in lieu payment, in the amount of the cost to purchase and plant the required 2323 number of replacement trees, into the city’s tree fund. 2324 F. Specimen Tree Protection During Construction: 2325 1. Owner’s Responsibility: During construction, the owner of the property shall be 2326 responsible for the ongoing health of specimen trees located on the site. This includes 2327 basic tree maintenance and watering throughout the term of construction. The owner 2328 shall also ensure the erection of barriers necessary to protect any specimen tree from 2329 damage during and after construction. 2330 2. Tree Protection Zone Fencing: Tree protection fencing shall be erected to protect all 2331 preserved trees from excavation, fill, compaction, or other impacts that would 2332 threaten tree health. Specimen trees shall be fenced in accordance with this subsection 2333 before any grading, excavating, or other land disturbing activity begins on a 2334 construction site. No construction, grading, equipment or material storage, or any 2335 other activity shall be allowed within the tree protection zone, as delineated by the 2336 required tree protection fencing, except in accordance with the standards in 2337 subsection F3, “Encroachments Into Tree Protection Zones And Root Zones”, of this 2338 section. Fencing shall be maintained until the land disturbance activities are complete, 2339 and shall not be removed or altered without first obtaining written consent from the 2340 city forester. 2341 The tree protection fencing shall be clearly shown on the required development 2342 applications such as a site plan, building permit, or grading permit application. 2343 a. Location: Fencing shall extend at least one foot (1’) in distance from the edge of 2344 the drip line of a specimen tree or group of specimen trees or as directed by the 2345 city forester to best protect a specimen tree’s critical root zone and still allow 2346 construction access. 2347 b. Type Of Fencing: The developer shall erect a chainlink fence, a minimum of four 2348 feet (4’) in height, secured to metal posts driven into the ground. Such fencing 2349 shall be secured to withstand construction activity and weather on the site and 2350 shall be maintained in a functional condition for the duration of work on the 2351 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT property. This is not considered permanent fencing subject to section 21A.40.120, 2352 “Regulation Of Fences, Walls And Hedges”, of this title. 2353 c. Timing: All required tree protection measures shall be installed, inspected and 2354 approved by the city forester prior to the commencement of any land disturbing 2355 activities. 2356 2357 3. Encroachments Into Tree Protection Zones And Root Zones: Encroachments into a 2358 tree protection zone or within the critical root zones of trees protected in accordance 2359 with this subsection shall occur only in rare instances, and only upon obtaining 2360 written authorization from the city forester. If such encroachment is anticipated, tree 2361 preservation measures including, but not limited to, the following may be required: 2362 2363 a. Tree Crown And/Or Root Pruning: The pruning, or cutting, of specimen tree 2364 branches or roots shall only be done under the supervision of an ISA certified 2365 arborist, and only upon approval of the city forester. 2366 b. Soil Compaction Impact Mitigation: Where compaction might occur due to 2367 planned, temporary traffic through or materials placed within the protection zone, 2368 the area shall first be mulched with a minimum four inch (4”) layer of woodchips 2369 or a six inch (6”) layer of pine straw. Plywood sheet or metal plate coverage of 2370 the impacted area may be accepted by the city forester when high moisture 2371 conditions warrant. Equipment or materials storage shall not be allowed within 2372 the tree protection zone. 2373 c. Grade Change Impact Mitigation: In the event proposed site development requires 2374 soil elevation changes tree protection measures designed to mitigate harm to the 2375 tree(s) shall be coordinated with the city forester and the zoning administrator. 2376 d. Construction Debris/Effluent Strictly Prohibited: In no instance shall any debris or 2377 effluent, associated with the construction process, including equipment or vehicle 2378 washing, concrete mixing, pouring, or rinsing processes, be permitted to drain 2379 onto lands within tree protection zones, as delineated by the chainlink tree 2380 protection fencing. 2381 2382 G. Enforcement: These tree preservation provisions shall be subject to the zoning and 2383 development enforcement codes as adopted by the city. 2384 21A.48.140: CHANGES TO APPROVED LANDSCAPE PLANS: 2385 Any change or deviation to an approved landscape plan shall require the approval of the 2386 zoning administrator. Changes which do not conform to this chapter shall be subject to the 2387 procedures for a variance as established in chapter 21A.18 of this title. Landscape 2388 improvements made to a lot that are not in conformance with an approved landscape plan 2389 shall be a violation of this title, and subject to the fines and penalties established herein. 2390 21A.48.150: AUTOMOBILE SALES ESTABLISHMENTS: 2391 In the absence of more restrictive regulations of the applicable zoning district, automobile 2392 sales and lease establishments shall be required to provide a five foot (5’) landscape front and 2393 corner side yard. 2394 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 21A.48.160: APPEAL: 2395 Any person adversely affected by a final decision of the zoning administrator on a 2396 landscaping or buffer requirement may appeal to the appeals hearing officer in accordance 2397 with the provisions of chapter 21A.16 of this title. 2398 21A.48.170: LANDSCAPING PROVIDED AS A CONDITION OF BUILDING 2399 PERMIT ISSUANCE: 2400 The landscaping required by this chapter shall be provided as a condition of building permit 2401 issuance for any addition, expansion or intensification of a property that increases the floor 2402 area and/or parking requirement by fifty percent (50%) or more. The zoning administrator 2403 may waive the landscaping requirement if an existing building is located in an area of the lot 2404 that is required to be landscaped and compliance with the landscaping requirements of this 2405 chapter necessitates removing all or a portion of an existing building. 2406 2407 21A.48.010: PURPOSE & INTENT: 2408 The purpose of this chapter is to promote water conservation, preserve and expand Salt Lake 2409 City’s urban tree canopy, improve air quality, and reduce urban heat islands and stormwater 2410 runoff. 2411 These regulations are intended to encourage low impact development principals into overall 2412 landscape design in a way that is attractive, and to mitigate impacts through buffering 2413 between dissimilar zoning districts. 2414 21A.48.020: APPLICABILITY: 2415 A. The provisions of this chapter apply to all properties within the city. 2416 B. Any modification of required landscaping shall come into greater compliance with this 2417 chapter. 2418 21A.48.030: AUTHORITY: 2419 A. The requirements of this chapter may be modified by the zoning administrator, on a case-2420 by-case basis where innovative landscaping design that furthers the purpose and intent of 2421 this chapter is implemented, or in response to input from: 2422 2423 1. Police Department; 2424 2. Public Utilities; or 2425 3. Urban Forestry. 2426 2427 21A.48.040: RESPONSIBILITY & MAINTENANCE: 2428 A. All landscaping shall: 2429 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2430 1. Maintain a clearance from grade level to 7 feet above the sidewalk, or 10 feet above a 2431 street; 2432 2. Not create a hedge or visual barrier between the sidewalk and street; 2433 3. Not create obstructions within the sight distance triangle, as defined and illustrated in 2434 Chapter 21A.62 of this title; 2435 3. Be maintained in live condition to present a reasonably healthy appearance; and 2436 4. Be kept free of refuse, debris, and noxious weeds. 2437 2438 B. Landscape Yards. 2439 2440 The owner of the property shall be responsible for the correct installation, maintenance, 2441 repair, or replacement of all landscaping, and obtain permits as required by the provisions 2442 of this chapter. 2443 2444 C. Park Strips. 2445 2446 1. The owner of the property abutting the park strip shall be responsible for the correct 2447 installation, maintenance, repair, or replacement of all landscaping and obtain permits 2448 as required by the provisions of this chapter. 2449 2. Exclusions: Any street tree planting or maintenance pursuant to Subsections 2450 21A.48.040.D.1 and 21A.48.040.D.2. 2451 2452 D. Street Trees. 2453 2454 1. Salt Lake City’s expectation is to preserve street trees. Planting, cutting, removing, 2455 pruning, and any other maintenance of street trees is subject to approval by the Salt 2456 Lake City Urban Forestry Division as described in Section 2.26.210 of this code. 2457 2. It is the abutting property owner’s responsibility to: 2458 2459 a. Contact the Salt Lake City Urban Forestry Division to request maintenance on a 2460 street tree and obtain required approval for any changes made to a street tree. 2461 b. Provide sufficient irrigation to a street tree located in the abutting park strip. 2462 2463 3. Root Zone Protection: The root zone of all street trees shall be protected when 2464 impacted by any construction work on the abutting property or within the right-of-2465 way when a street tree is present. 2466 4. Irrigation. 2467 2468 a. When a Landscaping Plan is required, as described in Section 21A.48.050, street 2469 trees shall be irrigated with a permanent automatic irrigation system. 2470 b. Street tree irrigation systems are the responsibility of the abutting property owner 2471 to install and maintain. It shall provide water adequately and efficiently to each 2472 street tree, as determined by the Salt Lake City Urban Forestry Division. 2473 2474 E. Irrigation Systems: 2475 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2476 1. Shall be maintained in good operating condition to eliminate water waste or run-off 2477 into the public right-of-way. 2478 2. Shall be appropriate for the designated plant material and achieves the highest water 2479 efficiency. 2480 3. All irrigation systems, including drip irrigation shall be equipped with a pressure 2481 regulator, filter, flush-end assembly, and backflow preventer. 2482 4. Each valve shall irrigate landscaping with similar site, slope, soil conditions, and 2483 similar watering needs. 2484 5. Turf and planting beds shall be irrigated on separate irrigation valves; and, 2485 6. Drip emitters and sprinklers shall be placed on separate irrigation valves. 2486 7. Irrigation systems are required to use an irrigation controller that can automatically 2487 adjust the frequency and duration of irrigation in response to changing weather 2488 conditions and have a US-EPA WaterSense label. 2489 8. Any fountain, pond, and other similar water feature supplied through the culinary 2490 water system shall have a recirculating system. 2491 9. Backflow preventer assemblies shall be designed and installed and maintained 2492 according to the standards as outlined in the “Salt Lake City Landscape BMPs For 2493 Water Resource Efficiency and Protection” or the documents’ successor. 2494 21A.48.050: LANDSCAPE PLAN: 2495 A. Landscape Plan Required: A landscape plan shall be required for the following: 2496 2497 1. New construction of a primary structure. 2498 2. Any addition, expansion or intensification of a property that increases the floor area 2499 by 50% or more, increases the number of parking stalls required by 50% or more, or 2500 modifies any required landscaping by 50% or more. Single- and two- family uses are 2501 exempt from this provision. 2502 3. When required elsewhere in this title. 2503 2504 B. Modifications to an Approved Landscape Plan: Any change to an approved landscape 2505 plan requires the approval of the zoning administrator, except for changes from one plant 2506 species to another plant species that have similar watering needs and meet all other 2507 standards within this chapter. 2508 C. Unauthorized Modifications: Landscape improvements made to a lot that are not 2509 authorized and not in conformance with a required and approved landscape plan shall be 2510 a violation of this title, and subject to the fines and penalties established in Chapter 2511 21A.20. 2512 D. Contents of a Complete Landscape Plan: A complete landscape plan shall include at least 2513 the following information unless specifically waived by the zoning administrator. All 2514 plans shall be drawn at the same scale: 2515 2516 1. Planting Plan: 2517 2518 a. Property lines, easements, and street names. 2519 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT b. Location and dimensions of existing and proposed structures, parking lots, drive 2520 aisles, and fencing. 2521 c. Location of existing and proposed sidewalks, bicycle paths, ground signs, refuse 2522 disposal, freestanding electrical equipment, and all other structures. 2523 d. The location of existing buildings, structures, and trees on adjacent property 2524 within 20 feet of the site. 2525 e. The location, size, and common names of all existing trees. 2526 f. Sight distance triangles at curb cuts or corners, as defined and illustrated in 2527 Chapter 21A.62. 2528 g. Root Zone Protection Plan required when construction work will occur near a 2529 street tree or other protected tree and is subject to approval from the Urban 2530 Forestry Division. 2531 h. Minimum tree soil standards set by the Salt Lake City Urban Forestry Division. 2532 i. The location, quantity, size at maturity, and name (botanical and common) of 2533 proposed plants and trees. 2534 j. Summary table that specifies the following for each landscaping location 2535 separately: 2536 (1) Area and percentage of each required landscape location. 2537 (2) Area and percentage of each landscape location covered in turf grasses, 2538 impervious surfaces. 2539 (3) Area and percentage of each landscape location covered in adaptive or native 2540 plant species and adaptive or native trees at maturity. 2541 2542 k. A signature by a Landscape Architect licensed with the State of Utah, or an US-2543 EPA WaterSense certified professional verifying planting plan compliance with 2544 the standards of this chapter. 2545 2546 2. Grading Plan: 2547 2548 a. Property lines, street names, existing and proposed structures, turf areas, and 2549 paved areas. 2550 b. Existing and proposed grading of the site indicating contours at 2-foot intervals. 2551 c. Any proposed berming shall be indicated using 1-foot contour intervals. 2552 d. Delineate and label areas with a grade greater than 25% (4 feet Horizonal: 1 foot 2553 Vertical). 2554 2555 3. Irrigation Plan: 2556 2557 a. Layout of the irrigation system and a legend summarizing the type and size of all 2558 components of the system. 2559 b. Delineate and label each hydrozone in accordance with the Salt Lake City Plant 2560 List and Hydrozone Schedule. 2561 c. Location and coverage of individual sprinkler heads. 2562 d. Use of a water efficient irrigation system. 2563 e. Type of US-EPA WaterSense automatic controller. 2564 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT f. A signature by a Landscape Architect licensed with the State of Utah, or an US-2565 EPA WaterSense certified professional verifying irrigation plan compliance with 2566 the standards of this chapter. 2567 g. Separate plans from the irrigation plan are required for: 2568 2569 (1) Backflow Prevention Plan. 2570 (2) Water Feature Recirculating Plan, if applicable. 2571 2572 E. Specific Landscape Regulations: Various zoning districts in this title have specific 2573 landscaping regulations in addition to the requirements found in this chapter. Refer to the 2574 respective zoning district for specific landscaping regulations. Landscape plans for 2575 properties subject to zoning district specific landscape regulations shall be in compliance 2576 with all applicable landscape and district specific requirements. 2577 F. Compliance Certification: A letter of compliance shall be prepared and submitted to the 2578 city upon completion of the landscape plan installation and prior to the issuance of a 2579 certificate of occupancy, or commencement of the use of the property. Compliance 2580 certification shall be signed by a landscape architect licensed with the State of Utah, or an 2581 US-EPA WaterSense certified professional verifying that all landscape plan elements 2582 have been installed in compliance with the approved landscape plan. 2583 G. Planting Season Installation: The landscape plan installation may be delayed until the 2584 next optimal planting season. A Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO) may be 2585 issued and subsequent TCO fees waived between October 15 and the following April 1 2586 where it is not favorable to install landscaping. The landscape plan shall be installed, and 2587 a letter of compliance submitted within 30 days following April 1. Temporary Certificate 2588 of Occupancy fees pursuant to Section 18.32.035 of this code shall be reinstated where no 2589 letter of compliance is submitted by the end of the 30-day period. 2590 21A.48.060: LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS: 2591 A. Landscape Locations: 2592 2593 1. Applicability: The following graphics illustrate required landscape locations that are 2594 regulated by the standards identified in this chapter. 2595 2. Landscape Yards: All required front and corner side yards shall be maintained as 2596 landscaped yards, unless otherwise exempted in this title. 2597 3. Landscape Buffers: Landscape buffers and freeway buffers may be located within a 2598 required side or rear yard. 2599 4. Coverage and Quantity calculations: 2600 2601 a. Vegetation coverage is measured at plant maturity. 2602 b. The total area of an existing tree canopy, or a tree canopy at the time of planting, 2603 may be included in the vegetation coverage calculations of the required 2604 landscaping location the tree is within. A maximum of 50% Ttree canopy may be 2605 included in the vegetation coverage calculations of the required landscaping 2606 location the tree is within. 2607 c. Fractional landscaping quantities shall be measured to the nearest whole number. 2608 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT d. Streets, drives and sidewalks necessary for reasonable access may be excluded 2609 from impervious surface calculations. 2610 2611 5. Conflicting Standards: 2612 2613 a. Where there are conflicting standards in this chapter, the more restrictive 2614 requirements shall apply. 2615 b. Where the standards in this chapter conflict with specific district regulations, the 2616 specific district regulations shall prevail. 2617 2618 2619 B. Park Strip Standards: 2620 Park Strips Street Trees Minimum of 1 street tree planted on center between back of street curb and the sidewalk. Additional street trees shall be provided at the following rate per each frontage length: 1 small tree per 20 feet, or 1 medium tree per 30 feet, or 1 large tree per 40 feet. The largest tree that is appropriate to the park strip size shall be used. 1, 2 Vegetation Minimum 33% coverage. Turf Prohibited LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Impervious Surfaces The combination of all paving materials shall not exceed 20% of the total park strip area. 1. Street trees shall be an appropriate species chosen from the Urban Forestry Street Tree List based on park strip size, shall have sufficient separation from public utilities, and shall be approved by the Urban Forestry Division. 2. Park strips with a width of 36” or less are exempt from this provision. C. Landscape Yard Standards 2621 1. Residential Districts (all districts included in Chapter 21A.24): 2622 Landscape Yards Vegetation Minimum 33% coverage. Turf Maximum 33% 1 (Landscape yard areas less than 250 sq. ft. are exempt) Impervious Surfaces Maximum 20% Inorganic mulches 1. Turf limitations established in 21A.48.080.B shall apply. 2. Manufacturing Districts (all districts included in Chapter 21A.28): 2623 Landscape Yards Vegetation Minimum 33% coverage. Turf Prohibited. Impervious Surfaces Maximum 20% up to a maximum of 1,200 sq. ft. 3. All Other Districts Not Included in Chapters 21A.24 and 21A.28: 2624 Landscape Yards Vegetation Minimum 33% coverage (may be decreased if specified within specific district regulations). Turf Only permitted in active recreation areas. 1 Impervious Surfaces Maximum 20% (may be increased if specified within specific district regulations). 1. Turf limitations established in Subsection 21A.48.080.B shall apply. 2625 D. Landscape Buffer Standards: 2626 District When Abutting 1 Required Landscape / Freeway Buffer Widths All districts (except Single- and Two- Family, Foothill, Single- and Two- Family, Foothill, & Special Development 10’ LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Special Development Pattern, SNB, FB-UN1, and those districts listed below that require a greater buffer width) All districts Freeway 2 20’ All other non-residential districts (except SNB, FB- UN1, and those districts listed below that require a greater buffer width) RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45, & RMF- 75 10’ M-1 Any district that allows residential uses, AG districts, & OS 15’ M-2 Any district that allows residential uses 50’ AG districts & OS 30’ BP & RP All residential districts (in Chapter 21A.24) 30’ EI All districts 30’ MH All districts 20’ 1. Or when required elsewhere by this title. 2. The zoning administrator may approve a reduced freeway buffer if there’s an existing sound wall or required off-street parking cannot be met. If such a reduction is necessary, the buffer may not be less than 10’ in width. Landscape Buffer Standards 1 tree for every 30 linear feet of landscape buffer. 1 shrub every 3 feet, with a mature height of no less than 4’, along the entire length of the buffer. A 6-foot solid fence along the length of the required landscape buffer unless modified by the zoning administrator to better meet the fence height provisions in Section 21A.40.120. Turf is limited to active recreation areas. Freeway Landscape Buffer Standards (buffer standards for those properties abutting a freeway) 1 tree for every 15 linear feet of required freeway landscape buffer. Trees shall be staggered along the length of the buffer. 100% coverage required, may include adaptive or native grasses, wildflower, and shrubs. Turf is prohibited. 21A.48.070: PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING: 2627 A. Applicability: 2628 2629 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1. Hard surfaced parking lots with 150 or more parking spaces shall provide landscaping 2630 in accordance with the provisions of this section. The following graphic depicts 2631 landscape location required and corresponding standards identified in this chapter. 2632 2. Parking lots with less than 150 parking spaces are exempt from parking lot 2633 landscaping but shall provide the required landscape yards and landscape buffers. 2634 2635 B. Interior Parking Lot Landscaping: 2636 2637 1. Minimum Area: A minimum of 5% of the parking lot shall be interior parking lot 2638 landscaping in the locations identified below and dispersed throughout the parking 2639 lot. Landscaping areas located along the perimeter of a parking lot shall not be 2640 included toward satisfying this requirement. 2641 2. Location: Interior landscape areas shall be provided in the following locations: 2642 2643 a. At each end of a parking row containing 6 stalls or more, where not abutting 2644 required perimeter landscaping. 2645 b. Parallel to parking lot stalls, at a rate of 1 interior landscape area for every 6 2646 parking spaces, or landscape areas may be provided along the interior length of 2647 double-loaded parking rows. 2648 c. Along the interior length of a double-loading parking row; 2649 2650 3. Size: Interior landscape areas shall have a minimum width equal to the width of 2651 average parking stall within the parking lot of 10 feet, as measured from the inside of 2652 the curbing, and shall have a minimum length equal to the length of the abutting 2653 parking spaces. Where interior landscape areas do not abut parking spaces, a 2654 minimum length of 10’ is required. 2655 4. Planting Requirements: 2656 2657 Interior Landscape Areas Shade trees A minimum of 1 tree is required per interior landscape area. Additional trees are required at a rate of 1 tree for every additional 140 square feet in each required interior landscape area. Shrubs A minimum of 2 shrubs are required per interior landscape area. Additional shrubs are required at a rate of 2 shrubs for every additional 140 square feet in each landscape area. Adaptive or native ornamental grasses or wildflowers with a minimum height of 3’ may be used as an alternative. Ground cover / Mulch Landscape area outside of shrub masses shall be established in ground cover or mulched consistent with the standards of this chapter. Turf is prohibited. 2658 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2659 2660 2661 2662 5. Modifications to Interior Parking Lot Landscaping: The zoning administrator may 2663 waive interior landscape area requirements if a solar energy system is integrated into 2664 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT the roof structure of a carport, or if the parking lot perimeter landscaping width is 2665 increased to 15’ and with an equal number of trees, as required in the interior, and 2666 perimeter parking lot landscaping, are provided. 2667 C. Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping: 2668 2669 1. Applicability: Landscaping along the perimeter of the parking lot shall be provided 2670 when the parking lot is located: 2671 2672 a. Within a required yard (where permitted in Sections 21A.44.060 or 21A.36.020) 2673 b. Within 20 feet of a lot line; or 2674 c. Abutting a principal building. 2675 2676 2. Where both landscape buffers and perimeter parking lot landscaping are required, the 2677 more restrictive shall apply. 2678 3. Where a surface parking lot is adjacent to another surface parking lot, on the same or 2679 separate parcels or lots, the perimeter parking lot landscaping provision may be 2680 waived by the zoning administrator if the required number trees are located elsewhere 2681 within the development. 2682 4. Size: 2683 2684 a. In a required yard or within 20 feet of a property line: 10 feet in width, as 2685 measured from the back of the parking lot curb and extending into any parking 2686 space overhang area. 2687 b. Abutting a building on the same property: A minimum 5-foot-wide required 2688 landscaping and 3-foot walkway shall be required to buffer buildings from 2689 parking spaces. 2690 2691 5. Planting Requirements: 2692 Perimeter Parking Lot Landscaping: Shade Tress 1 tree per 300 square feet of perimeter parking lot area. Trees may be clustered or spaced throughout the landscaping areas. Perimeter landscaping abutting a building does not need to be included in the square footage calculation.1 Shrubs 1 shrub per 3 feet, on center, along 100 percent of the yard length. Shrubs with mature height not more than 3 feet Ground cover / Mulch Required landscaping outside of shrub masses shall be established in ground cover or mulched consistent with the standards of this chapter. Turf is prohibited. Parking Lot Fences/Walls: Fences or walls along parking lot perimeters may be required to satisfy landscape buffer requirements outlined in Section 21A.48.060 of this chapter. 1. Required perimeter trees species shall be chosen from the Urban Forestry Street Tree List and shall be approved by the Salt Lake City Urban Forestry Division. LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2693 2694 2695 2696 2697 D. Curbing: Concrete curbing shall be installed at the perimeter of internal landscape areas 2698 and perimeter parking where parking lots vehicular access aisles or stalls directly abuts 2699 required landscaping. Biodetention areas are exempt from curbing requirements, however 2700 a vehicle stop is required when biodetention areas directly abut parking stalls. 2701 E. Biodetention in Parking Lot Interior and Perimeter Landscaping Areas: Retention of the 2702 80th percentile storm is required for all impervious surface parking lots with 50 or more 2703 parking spaces. Where this is not feasible, as defined in the SLCDPUs Standard Practices 2704 Manual, an approved Stormwater Best Management Practices (Stormwater BMPs) is 2705 required. All proposed Stormwater BMPs are subject to Public Utilities Division review, 2706 approval, and inspection. 2707 F. Stormwater BMP Approval Required: A SLC Approved Stormwater Best Management 2708 Practice (Stormwater BMP) for all hard surfaced parking lots is required prior to 2709 discharge to the public storm drain and gutter, as required in Subsection 21A.44.060.A.2: 2710 2711 1. All Stormwater BMPs are subject to Public Utilities Division review, approval, and 2712 inspection. 2713 2. Plantings within BMPs are to be drought tolerant, salt tolerant, winter hardy, and able 2714 to be submerged. 2715 21A.48.080. GENERAL STANDARDS 2716 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT All required landscape plans shall be prepared based on the following standards. All 2717 landscape improvements in the required landscape locations, as described in Sections 2718 21A.48.060 and 21A.48.070 shall meet the regulations described in this section. 2719 2720 A. Installation: All landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the current planting 2721 procedures established by the American Association of Nurserymen. The installation of 2722 all plants required by this chapter may be delayed until the next optimal planting season, 2723 as determined by the zoning administrator. 2724 2725 1. At the time of planting: 2726 2727 a. Deciduous Trees: All deciduous trees shall have a minimum trunk size of 1.5 2728 inches in caliper. 2729 b. Evergreen Trees: All evergreen trees shall have a minimum size of 5 feet in 2730 height. 2731 c. Shrubs: All shrubs shall have a minimum height or spread of 10 inches depending 2732 on the plant’s natural growth habit, unless otherwise specified. Plants in 2-gallon 2733 containers will generally comply with this standard. 2734 2735 B. General Landscaping Standards: 2736 2737 1. Drought Tolerant or Native Species: 100% of required shrubs, perennial plants, and 2738 groundcover used on a site shall be drought tolerant, adaptive or native species. The 2739 city has compiled a list titled “Salt Lake City Plant List & Hydrozone Schedule”, 2740 established and maintained by Public Utilities, shall be used to satisfy this 2741 requirement. Other plants that are not on the list but are considered drought tolerant, 2742 adaptive or native and require similar watering needs may also be used. 2743 2. Turf: Turf is not permitted: 2744 2745 a. In the park strip. 2746 b. In parking lot perimeter and interior landscaping areas. 2747 c. In areas that are less than 8 feet in any dimension at the narrowest point. 2748 d. In areas with a slope greater than 25% (4 feet horizontal: 1 foot vertical). 2749 e. In required landscape buffer areas. 2750 2751 3. Mulch: Mulch shall be: 2752 2753 a. At least 3 inches in depth, 2754 b. Used in areas that are not covered with landscaping. 2755 c. Permeable to air and water. 2756 d. Permanent fiber barriers, plastic sheeting, or other impervious barriers are 2757 prohibited as an underlayment. 2758 e. Crushed rubber is prohibited. 2759 f. Rock used as a mulch material is limited to 20% of an area where landscaping is 2760 required by this chapter. 50% of the overall mulch used, the other 50% shall be 2761 an organic mulch material. 2762 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2763 4. Artificial turf is prohibited in any location where landscaping is regulated by this 2764 chapter. 2765 5. Berming is prohibited in parking lot and park strip landscaping unless required in 2766 specific district regulations. 2767 2768 C. Specific Park Strip Standards: In addition to General Landscape Standards these 2769 provisions shall apply to park strips. 2770 2771 1. Street Trees: 2772 2773 a. Substitutions. The Urban Forester may approve a substitute of the required street 2774 tree provision for a cash in lieu payment if the number of required trees cannot be 2775 met due to conflicts related to public utilities or right-of-way regulations. A cash 2776 in lieu payment, in the amount of cost to purchase and plant the required number 2777 of street trees, shall be contributed to the city’s Tree Fund; 2778 2779 b. Tree Grates: If new street trees are proposed in a location where the area 2780 surrounding the tree will have an impervious surface, tree wells with grates shall 2781 be provided with adequate dimensions and sufficient soil volume to accommodate 2782 the proposed tree species, subject to review by the Urban Forestry Division. 2783 2784 c. Tree Root Protection: Rock or gravel shall maintain a 2-foot separation from the 2785 trunk of a street tree. 2786 2787 2. Vegetation with Thorned, Spined, or Other Sharp Rigid Parts: Vegetation with thorns, 2788 spines, or other sharp, rigid parts hazardous to pedestrians and bicyclists, and difficult 2789 to walk across are prohibited within 3 feet of a curb, sidewalk, walkway, or driveway. 2790 2791 3. Storm Drain Protection: 2792 2793 a. Rock or gravel shall be set at or below top back of curb or abutting sidewalk 2794 grade. 2795 b. Rock or gravel shall have 1 inch or greater diameter. Grades abutting public 2796 streets exceeding 4%, as indicated by Public Utilities Division’s “4% Grade 2797 Streets Map”, shall have rock or gravel 3 inch or greater diameter. 2798 2799 4. Pathways: Impervious surface pathways provided between the curb and sidewalk, are 2800 permitted subject to the following: 2801 2802 a. Shall not be more than 5 feet in width and shall be located to provide the most 2803 direct route from curb to sidewalk. 2804 b. A maximum of 1 pathway per 20 linear feet of park strip is permitted. 2805 c. The pathway area shall be included in impervious surface percentage calculation. 2806 2807 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 5. Stormwater Curb Controls: Integration of LID (Low Impact Development) practices 2808 are encouraged in park strip areas. Stormwater curb cuts are permitted to allow 2809 stormwater to enter the landscaped area subject to the following provisions: 2810 2811 a. The design and construction of the stormwater curb cut shall comply with the 2812 SLCDPU Standards Practices Manual. 2813 b. All stormwater curb controls are subject to Public Utilities Division review and 2814 approval. 2815 2816 6. Encroachments in the Right-of-Way: Structural encroachments are only permitted 2817 when specifically approved by city divisions and applicable decision-making bodies 2818 (or their designee) and may require an encroachment permit. 2819 2820 a. All encroachments are subject to the following standards, unless specifically 2821 allowed elsewhere in this title: 2822 2823 (1) Any raised structure shall be setback from the curb a minimum of 24 inches, 2824 (2) There are no other practical locations for the structure on the private property, 2825 and 2826 (3) The proposed structures will serve the general public and are part of general 2827 public need, or the proposed structures are necessary for the functional use of 2828 the property. 2829 2830 b. Bus Stops and Bike Share Stations: Concrete pads for bus stop benches and/or 2831 shelters and bike share stations may be permitted with zoning administrator 2832 approval. Impervious surface limitations may be modified upon review. 2833 c. Outdoor Dining: Park strip materials and structural standards may be modified by 2834 the Zoning Administrator when outdoor dining is approved pursuant to 2835 Section 21A.40.065 of this title. 2836 d. Bike Paths: Bike paths that are separated from the travel lanes with cars are 2837 permitted in any existing park strip. Any space between the bike path and the 2838 sidewalk and/or curb of the travel lanes are subject to the requirements of this 2839 section. 2840 21A.48.090: PRIVATE LANDS TREE PRESERVATION: 2841 A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of these tree preservation provisions is to recognize and 2842 protect the valuable asset embodied in the trees that exist on private lands within the city 2843 and ensure that the existing trees of Salt Lake City continue to provide benefit to its 2844 citizens. Essential to effective tree preservation is the understanding of tree growth 2845 requirements having to do with space, water, and soil quality needs, among other 2846 qualities. Good, early planning, site design, and construction management practices are 2847 key to allowing trees to prosper. Preconstruction planning and mitigation of potential 2848 impacts that development may have on trees is necessary and one of the purposes of this 2849 section. Numerous community and personal benefits arise from the presence of trees in 2850 urbanized areas - both on residential and nonresidential lands - and it is the intent of this 2851 section through the preservation of the trees to: 2852 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2853 1. Enhance the quality of life in the city and protect public health and safety; 2854 2. Preserve and enhance the visual and aesthetic qualities of the city; 2855 3. Enhance public and private property for greater enjoyment and usability due to the 2856 shade, cooling, and the aesthetic beauty afforded by trees; 2857 4. Protect and improve the real estate values of the city; 2858 5. Preserve and enhance air and water quality; 2859 6. Reduce noise, glare, dust, and heat, and moderate climate, including urban heat island 2860 effect; 2861 7. Increase slope stability, and control erosion and sediment runoff into streams and 2862 waterways; 2863 8. Protect the natural habitat and ecosystems of the city; 2864 9. Conserve energy by reducing heating and cooling costs; and 2865 10. Preserve the function of mature trees to absorb greenhouse gases such as carbon 2866 dioxide. 2867 2868 B. Applicability: 2869 2870 1. General: The standards in this section shall apply to new development in the city 2871 unless exempted in accordance with Subsection C, “Exemptions”, of this section. The 2872 standards in this section shall apply at the time of a development application for 2873 “development” as defined in the zoning ordinance. 2874 2. Other Regulations: Title 2, Chapter 2.26 of this code, the Salt Lake City urban 2875 forestry ordinance, addressing the protection of trees located on public property 2876 owned by the city and in rights of way, shall remain in effect. 2877 3. Specimen Trees: The city forester shall maintain a list of trees or tree types that are 2878 deemed to be specimen trees subject to Subsection E, “Standards”, of this section. 2879 2880 C. Exemptions: The following specimen tree removal activities may be exempt from the 2881 standards of this section upon confirmation and approval by the city forester: 2882 2883 1. The removal of dead, damaged, or naturally fallen trees, or in cases of community 2884 emergency; 2885 2. When in conjunction with the construction of a single- or two- family residence not 2886 part of a proposed new subdivision; 2887 3. The removal of trees on an existing legal lot when not associated with new 2888 development; 2889 4. The removal of trees in such a condition that they pose a threat to structures or natural 2890 features on the site, on adjoining properties, or in the public right of way; 2891 5. The removal of diseased trees posing a threat to adjacent trees; 2892 6. The selective and limited removal of trees necessary to obtain clear visibility at 2893 driveways or intersections; 2894 7. The removal of trees associated with development at the Salt Lake City International 2895 Airport only as necessary to provide safe operations; 2896 8. The removal of trees when requested by the city forester for the purposes of conflict 2897 with utilities or streets; and 2898 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 9. The removal of trees deemed appropriate by the city forester, based on tree species, 2899 site conditions, or other variables. 2900 2901 D. Standards: 2902 1. Preservation of Specimen Trees: Specimen trees shall be preserved to the maximum 2903 extent practicable as determined by the city forester, in consultation with the zoning 2904 administrator, unless exempted pursuant to Subsection C, “Exemptions”, of this 2905 section. 2906 2907 a. In determining if preservation is impracticable, the city shall consider the 2908 following criteria, including, but not limited to: 2909 2910 (1) Whether an alternative location or configuration of the development including 2911 elements such as parking or structures on the site would be feasible to 2912 accomplish tree preservation, without negatively impacting adjacent 2913 properties, 2914 (2) Whether preservation of the specimen tree would render all permitted 2915 development on the property infeasible, or 2916 (3) If development of the property will provide significant community benefits 2917 that outweigh tree preservation. 2918 2919 b. The zoning administrator may modify any dimensional standard, such as setbacks 2920 and height limits, by up to 20% if such modification will result in preservation of 2921 a specimen tree. 2922 2923 2. Cutting, Removal, or Damage Prohibited: Specimen trees, required to be preserved, 2924 shall not be cut, removed, pushed over, killed, or otherwise damaged. 2925 3. Paving, Fill, Excavation, or Soil Compaction Prohibited: The tree protection zone of 2926 any protected specimen tree shall not be subjected to paving, filling, excavation, or 2927 soil compaction. 2928 4. Mitigation: Where the city determines it is not practicable to preserve a specimen tree 2929 on the development site, the following mitigation provisions shall apply. 2930 2931 a. Replacement Tree Required: 2 caliper inches of replacement trees shall be 2932 provided for each dbh of specimen tree removed (for example, if a 24 inch dbh 2933 specimen tree is removed, it must be replaced with at least 24 trees of a minimum 2934 2 inch caliper or 8 trees with a 6 inch caliper). Each replacement tree shall be a 2935 minimum of 2 inches in caliper, and shall either be replanted prior to certificate of 2936 occupancy or within a conditional time frame as approved by the city forester. 2937 Consult the “Salt Lake City Plant List and Hydrozone Schedule” for 2938 recommendations on tree selection. 2939 Replacement trees shall be planted on the lot or site where the specimen tree was 2940 removed except where the city forester, in consultation with the zoning 2941 administrator, finds the following: 2942 2943 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT (1) The site does not provide for adequate landscape surface area to accommodate 2944 the total number of replacement trees; or 2945 (2) That due to unique soil types, topography, or unusual characteristics of the 2946 site, the likelihood of successful tree growth is diminished. 2947 In such cases, the applicant shall mitigate for the loss of the specimen tree in 2948 the form of payment to the city’s tree fund as provided below. 2949 2950 b. Cash in Lieu Payment/Tree Fund Contribution: Applicants who are permitted to 2951 remove a specimen tree but not plant a replacement tree on site shall make a cash 2952 in lieu payment, in the amount of the cost to purchase and plant the required 2953 number of replacement trees, into the city’s tree fund. 2954 E. Specimen Tree Protection During Construction: 2955 2956 1. Owner’s Responsibility: During construction, the owner of the property shall be 2957 responsible for the ongoing health of specimen trees located on the site. This includes 2958 basic tree maintenance and watering throughout the term of construction. The owner 2959 shall also ensure the erection of barriers necessary to protect any specimen tree from 2960 damage during and after construction. 2961 2. Tree Protection Zone Fencing: Tree protection fencing shall be erected to protect all 2962 preserved trees from excavation, fill, compaction, or other impacts that would 2963 threaten tree health. Specimen trees shall be fenced in accordance with this subsection 2964 before any grading, excavating, or other land disturbing activity begins on a 2965 construction site. No construction, grading, equipment or material storage, or any 2966 other activity shall be allowed within the tree protection zone, as delineated by the 2967 required tree protection fencing, except in accordance with the standards in 2968 Subsection F.3, “Encroachments Into Tree Protection Zones and Root Zones”, of this 2969 section. Fencing shall be maintained until the land disturbance activities are complete, 2970 and shall not be removed or altered without first obtaining written consent from the 2971 city forester. 2972 The tree protection fencing shall be clearly shown on the required development 2973 applications such as a site plan, building permit, or grading permit application. 2974 a. Location: Fencing shall extend at least 1 foot in distance from the edge of the drip 2975 line of a specimen tree or group of specimen trees or as directed by the city 2976 forester to best protect a specimen tree’s critical root zone and still allow 2977 construction access. 2978 b. Type of Fencing: The developer shall erect a chainlink fence, a minimum of 4 feet 2979 in height, secured to metal posts driven into the ground. Such fencing shall be 2980 secured to withstand construction activity and weather on the site and shall be 2981 maintained in a functional condition for the duration of work on the property. This 2982 is not considered permanent fencing subject to Section 21A.40.120, “Regulation 2983 of Fences, Walls and Hedges”, of this title. 2984 c. Timing: All required tree protection measures shall be installed, inspected and 2985 approved by the city forester prior to the commencement of any land disturbing 2986 activities. 2987 2988 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 4. Encroachments Into Tree Protection Zones and Root Zones: Encroachments into a 2989 tree protection zone or within the critical root zones of trees protected in accordance 2990 with this subsection shall occur only in rare instances, and only upon obtaining 2991 written authorization from the city forester. If such encroachment is anticipated, tree 2992 preservation measures including, but not limited to, the following may be required: 2993 2994 a. Tree Crown and/or Root Pruning: The pruning, or cutting, of specimen tree 2995 branches or roots shall only be done under the supervision of an ISA certified 2996 arborist, and only upon approval of the city forester. 2997 b. Soil Compaction Impact Mitigation: Where compaction might occur due to 2998 planned, temporary traffic through or materials placed within the protection zone, 2999 the area shall first be mulched with a minimum 4 inch layer of woodchips or a 6 3000 inch layer of pine straw. Plywood sheet or metal plate coverage of the impacted 3001 area may be accepted by the city forester when high moisture conditions warrant. 3002 Equipment or materials storage shall not be allowed within the tree protection 3003 zone. 3004 c. Grade Change Impact Mitigation: In the event proposed site development requires 3005 soil elevation changes tree protection measures designed to mitigate harm to the 3006 tree(s) shall be coordinated with the city forester and the zoning administrator. 3007 d. Construction Debris/Effluent Strictly Prohibited: In no instance shall any debris or 3008 effluent, associated with the construction process, including equipment or vehicle 3009 washing, concrete mixing, pouring, or rinsing processes, be permitted to drain 3010 onto lands within tree protection zones, as delineated by the chainlink tree 3011 protection fencing. 3012 3013 F. Enforcement: These tree preservation provisions shall be subject to the zoning and 3014 development enforcement codes as adopted by the city. 3015 3016 21A.48.100: APPEAL: 3017 Any person adversely affected by a final decision of the zoning administrator on a 3018 landscaping or buffer requirement may appeal to the appeals hearing officer in accordance 3019 with the provisions of Chapter 21A.16 of this title. 3020 3021 SECTION 28. Amending the Text of Section 21A.60.020. That Section 21A.60.020 of 3022 the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: List of Terms: List of Defined Terms), shall be and hereby is 3023 amended to as follows: 3024 a. Section 21A.60.020 shall be and hereby is amended to add the following terms in the list of 3025 defined terms to be inserted into that list in alphabetical order and shall read as follows: 3026 Artificial turf. 3027 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 3028 Impervious surface. 3029 3030 Low impact development (LID). 3031 3032 Shade tree. 3033 3034 Stormwater curb cut. 3035 3036 3037 b. Section 21A.60.020 shall be and hereby is amended to amend the following terms in the list of 3038 defined terms, which shall remain in that list in alphabetical order and shall read as follows: 3039 Caliper. See subsection Chapter 21A.48.135D of this title. 3040 3041 dbh. See subsection Chapter 21A.48.135D of this title. 3042 3043 Diameter at breast height. See subsection Chapter 21A.48.135D of this title. 3044 3045 Specimen tree. See subsection Chapter 21A.48.135D of this title. 3046 3047 Tree protection fencing. See subsection Chapter 21A.48.135D of this title. 3048 3049 Tree protection zone. See subsection Chapter 21A.48.135D of this title. 3050 3051 3052 c. Section 21A.60.020 shall be and hereby is amended to delete the following terms in the list 3053 of defined terms: 3054 BMP 3055 3056 Best Management Practice (BMP) 3057 3058 ET or ETo. 3059 3060 ETAF. 3061 3062 Ecological restoration project 3063 3064 Evapotranspiration (ET) rate. 3065 3066 Evergreen. 3067 3068 Landscape BMPs manual. 3069 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 3070 Maximum extent practicable. See subsection 21A.48.135D of this title. 3071 3072 Overspray. 3073 3074 Perennial. 3075 3076 Tier 2 water target. 3077 3078 Treasured landscape. 3079 3080 Water budget. 3081 3082 3083 SECTION 29. Amending the Text of Section 21A.62.040. That Section 21A.62.040 of 3084 the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Definitions: Definitions of Terms), shall be and hereby is 3085 amended as follows: 3086 a. Amending the definition of “GROUND COVER.” That the definition of “GROUND 3087 COVER” shall be amended to read as follows: 3088 GROUND COVER: Any perennial evergreen plant material species that generally does not 3089 exceed twelve inches (12 inches”) in height, stabilizes soils and protects against erosion, and 3090 covers one hundred percent (100%) of the ground all year. 3091 3092 3093 b. Amending the definition of “LANDSCAPE AREA.” That the definition of “LANDSCAPE 3094 AREA” shall be amended to read as follows: 3095 LANDSCAPE AREA: That portion of a lot devoted exclusively to required landscaping, 3096 except that streets, drives and sidewalks may be located within such an area to provide 3097 reasonable access. 3098 3099 3100 c. Amending the definition of “LANDSCAPING.” That the definition of “LANDSCAPING” 3101 shall be amended to read as follows: 3102 LANDSCAPING: The improvement of a lot, parcel or tract of land with vegetation such as 3103 ornamental grass, shrubs and trees. Landscaping may include pedestrian walks, flowerbeds, 3104 ornamental objects such as fountains, statuary, and other similar natural and artificial objects 3105 designed and arranged to produce an aesthetically pleasing effect. 3106 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 3107 3108 d. Amending the definition of “MULCH.” That the definition of “MULCH” shall be amended 3109 to read as follows: 3110 MULCH: Any material such as rock, bark, compost, wood chips or other materials left loose 3111 and applied to the soil, for the purposes of suppressing weeds, moderating soil temperature, 3112 and preventing soil erosion. 3113 3114 3115 e. Amending the definition of “PARK STRIP LANDSCAPING.” That the definition of “PARK 3116 STRIP LANDSCAPING” shall be amended to read as follows: 3117 PARK STRIP LANDSCAPING: The improvement of property within the street right-of-way 3118 situated between the back of curb and the sidewalk or, if there is no sidewalk, the back of 3119 curb and the right-of-way line, through the addition of plants and other organic and inorganic 3120 materials harmoniously combined to produce an effect appropriate for adjacent uses and 3121 compatible with the neighborhood. Park strip landscaping includes trees and may also 3122 include a combination of lawn, other perennial ground cover, flowering annuals and 3123 perennials, specimen shrubs, and inorganic material. 3124 3125 3126 f. Amending the definition of “PARKING LOT.” That the definition of “PARKING LOT” 3127 shall be amended to read as follows: 3128 PARKING LOT: An area on the surface of the land used for the parking and circulation of 3129 more than four (4) automobiles. Areas designated for the display of new and used 3130 vehicles for sale are not included in this definition. 3131 3132 3133 g. Amending the definition of “TURF.” That the definition of “TURF” shall be amended to 3134 read as follows: 3135 TURF: Grasses planted as a ground cover that may be mowed and maintained to be used as a 3136 lawn area of landscaping. Does not include decorative grasses, grasses that are adaptive or 3137 native to the local environment or grasses that do not generally require supplemental water, 3138 or inorganic substitutes commonly referred to as artificial turf. 3139 3140 3141 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT h. Adding the definition of “ARTIFICIAL TURF.” That the definition of “ARTIFICIAL 3142 TURF” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order to read as 3143 follows: 3144 ARTIFICIAL TURF: A synthetically derived, grass substitute that simulates the appearance 3145 of natural live grass. 3146 3147 3148 i. Adding the definition of “CALIPER.” That the definition of “CALIPER” be added and 3149 inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order to read as follows: 3150 CALIPER: The dimension of the diameter of a tree trunk measured at a distance of 6 inches 3151 from the soil line. 3152 3153 3154 j. Adding the definition of “DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT (dbh).” That the definition of 3155 “DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT (dbh)” be added and inserted into the list of definitions 3156 in alphabetical order to read as follows: 3157 DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT (dbh): The dimension of the diameter of a tree trunk 3158 measured at a distance of 4 feet 6 inches from the ground. 3159 3160 3161 k. Adding the definition of “IMPERVIOUS SURFACE.” That the definition of 3162 “IMPERVIOUS SURFACE” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical 3163 order to read as follows: 3164 IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: Any material that substantially reduces or prevents the 3165 infiltration of stormwater directly into the ground, including: asphalt, concrete, pavers, and 3166 brick. 3167 3168 3169 l. Adding the definition of “LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT (LID).” That the definition of 3170 “LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT (LID)” be added and inserted into the list of definitions 3171 in alphabetical order to read as follows: 3172 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT (LID): Systems or practices that use or mimic natural 3173 processes that result in the infiltration, evapotranspiration, and/or use of stormwater to 3174 protect water quality and aquatic habitat. 3175 3176 3177 m. Adding the definition of “SHADE TREE.” That the definition of “SHADE TREE” be added 3178 and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order to read as follows: 3179 SHADE TREE: Any tree that has a mature minimum tree canopy of 30 feet and a mature 3180 height that is 40 feet or greater. 3181 3182 3183 n. Adding the definition of “SPECIMEN TREE.” That the definition of “SPECIMEN TREE” 3184 be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order to read as follows: 3185 SPECIMEN TREE: A structurally sound and healthy tree or grouping of trees, having an 3186 individual or combined dbh measuring greater than 10 inches; whose future vitality can be 3187 reasonably expected and maintained with proper protection and regularly scheduled care; and 3188 whose absence from the landscape would significantly alter the site’s appearance, 3189 environmental benefit, character or history. 3190 3191 3192 o. Adding the definition of “STORMWATER CURB CUT.” That the definition of 3193 “STORMWATER CURB CUT” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in 3194 alphabetical order to read as follows: 3195 STORMWATER CURB CUT: Openings created in the curb to allow storm water from an 3196 adjacent impervious surface to flow into a depressed planting area. 3197 3198 3199 p. Adding the definition of “TREE PROTECTION FENCING.” That the definition of “TREE 3200 PROTECTION FENCING” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical 3201 order to read as follows: 3202 TREE PROTECTION FENCING: The fencing required to be installed, and maintained 3203 during construction activities, to delineate required tree protection zones. 3204 3205 3206 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT q. Adding the definition of “TREE PROTECTION ZONE.” That the definition of “TREE 3207 PROTECTION ZONE” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order 3208 to read as follows: 3209 TREE PROTECTION ZONE: The area of a development site that includes the area located 3210 within the drip line of specimen trees and also includes the area that supports tree health 3211 requirements and interactions as determined by the city forester. 3212 3213 3214 r. Deleting definitions. That the following definitions are hereby deleted from the definitions 3215 of terms: 3216 BMP 3217 3218 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE (BMP) (Applies Only To Chapter 21A.48 Of This 3219 Title) 3220 3221 ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION PROJECT 3222 3223 ET OR ETo 3224 3225 ETAF 3226 3227 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION (ET) RATE 3228 3229 EVERGREEN 3230 3231 LANDSCAPE BMPs MANUAL 3232 3233 OVERSPRAY 3234 3235 PERENNIAL 3236 3237 TIER 2 WATER TARGET 3238 3239 TREASURED LANDSCAPE 3240 3241 WATER BUDGET 3242 3243 3244 3245 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT SECTION 30. Amending the Text of Section 21A.62.050. That Section 21A.62.050 of 3246 the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Definitions: Illustrations of Selected Definitions), shall be and 3247 hereby is amended to read and appear as follows: 3248 21A.62.050: ILLUSTRATIONS OF SELECTED DEFINITIONS: 3249 The definitions listed below are illustrated on the following pages: 3250 A. Building Height Iin Foothills Districts, R-1 Districts, R-2 District Aand SR Districts. 3251 B. Building Height (Outside Foothills Districts, R-1 Districts, R-2 District Aand SR 3252 Districts). 3253 C. Flag Lot. 3254 D. Landscape Area. (RESERVED). 3255 E. Lattice Tower. 3256 F. Monopole With Antennas Aand Antenna Support Structures Greater Than Two Feet Iin 3257 Width. 3258 G. Monopole With Antennas Aand Antenna Support Structures Less Than Two Feet Iin 3259 Width. 3260 H. Roof Mounted Antennas. 3261 I. Sight Distance Triangle. 3262 J. Wall Mounted Antennas. 3263 K. Dormer. 3264 3265 3266 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT ILLUSTRATION A 3267 BUILDING HEIGHT IN FOOTHILLS DISTRICTS, R-1 3268 DISTRICTS, R-2 DISTRICT AND SR DISTRICTS 3269 Finished Grade: 3270 The final grade of a site after reconfiguring grades according to an approved site plan related 3271 to the most recent building permit activity on a site. 3272 Established Grade: 3273 The grade of a property prior to the most recent proposed development or construction 3274 activity. On developed lots, the zoning administrator shall estimate established grade if not 3275 readily apparent, by referencing elevations at points where the developed area appears to 3276 meet the undeveloped portions of the land. The estimated grade shall tie into the elevation 3277 and slopes of adjoining properties without creating a need for new retaining wall, abrupt 3278 differences in the visual slope and elevation of the land, or redirecting the flow of runoff 3279 water. 3280 3281 3282 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT ILLUSTRATION B 3283 BUILDING HEIGHT (OUTSIDE FOOTHILLS DISTRICTS, R-1 3284 DISTRICTS, R-2 DISTRICT AND SR DISTRICTS) 3285 3286 3287 3288 3289 3290 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT ILLUSTRATION C 3291 FLAG LOT 3292 3293 3294 3295 3296 3297 3298 3299 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT ILLUSTRATION D 3300 LANDSCAPE AREA 3301 (RESERVED) 3302 3303 3304 3305 3306 3307 3308 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT ILLUSTRATION E 3309 LATTICE TOWER 3310 3311 3312 3313 3314 3315 3316 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT ILLUSTRATION F 3317 MONOPOLE WITH ANTENNAS AND ANTENNA SUPPORT 3318 STRUCTURES GREATER THAN TWO FEET IN WIDTH 3319 3320 3321 3322 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT ILLUSTRATION G 3323 MONOPOLE WITH ANTENNAS AND ANTENNA SUPPORT 3324 STRUCTURES LESS THAN TWO FEET IN WIDTH 3325 3326 3327 3328 3329 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT ILLUSTRATION H 3330 ROOF MOUNTED ANTENNAS 3331 3332 3333 3334 3335 3336 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT ILLUSTRATION I 3337 SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLE 3338 3339 3340 3341 3342 3343 3344 3345 3346 3347 3348 3349 3350 3351 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT ILLUSTRATION J 3352 WALL MOUNTED ANTENNAS 3353 3354 3355 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT ILLUSTRATION K 3356 DORMER 3357 3358 3359 SECTION 31. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective four months from 3360 the date of its adoption; however, a land use applicant wishing to have the provisions of this 3361 Ordinance apply to a land use application sooner may elect to have the provisions herein apply 3362 following its first publication. 3363 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 3364 202_. 3365 ______________________________ 3366 CHAIRPERSON 3367 ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: 3368 3369 ______________________________ 3370 CITY RECORDER 3371 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 3372 3373 Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. 3374 3375 Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. 3376 3377 ______________________________ 3378 MAYOR 3379 ______________________________ 3380 CITY RECORDER 3381 (SEAL) 3382 3383 Bill No. ________ of 202_. 3384 Published: ______________. 3385 Ordinance Amending Landscaping Regulations (legislative) 10-30-23 3386 3387 3388 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: Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: Landscaping and Buffers Chapter Text Amendment STAFF CONTACT: Nan Larsen, Senior Planner nannette.larsen@slcgov.com or 801-535-7645 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Landscaping and Buffers Ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This is a text amendment for a complete rewrite and reorganization of the Landscaping and Buffers Chapter of the zoning ordinance to better support the City’s adopted policies related to reducing water use, enhancement of the urban forest, reduction in the urban heat island, improve air quality, and improvements to air quality and green infrastructure city-wide. Reorganization and clarity of the ordinance was of upmost importance for both the public’s understanding and for city administration. On September 6, 2022, the Planning Division and Public Utilities held a work session with the City Council to get initial feedback on priorities related to changes to landscaping regulations to help achieve city policies and goals. The report that was prepared for the City Council briefing is included in the staff report to the Planning Commission as found in Planning Commission records b). The proposed Landscaping and Buffers Chapter changes are based on the feedback received 11/27/2023 -# '*//*җ уѶ20231фѷ3уҘ 12/0у/2023 12/0у/2023 2 from the Council during the briefing, feedback from several departments including Public Utilities, Urban Forestry, and Enforcement, begins to implement strategies in the Urban Forest Action Plan. ZONING REGULATIONS AND LANDSCAPING: Title 21A, SLC zoning code, regulates landscaping in several ways for several purposes. Generally, landscaping is regulated in the zoning code to reduce the heat island effect, reduce stormwater runoff, reduce auditory and visual impacts of certain uses, improve aesthetics, and make use of the health benefits of being in a more natural environment. These goals are accomplished by regulating landscaping in certain locations of a property depending on the use or district. The zoning code regulates landscaping in the following locations: Park strips: The strip of vegetation that is usually between the street and the sidewalk. Park strips vary in size and form, different standards for different park strip sizes are proposed. Yard areas: Front or corner side yards are identified as required landscaped yards. Yard areas are where the building is required to be setback from the property line, where buildings are prohibited, and other structures like fences and sheds are limited. Outside of a required landscaped yard, there are no specific vegetation requirements in a required yard, except for buffer yards (if required) or parking lot landscaping (if applicable). Buffers: The purpose of buffer areas is to mitigate potential impacts between dissimilar zoning districts. Landscaping in buffer areas is utilized to reduce auditory or visual impacts on an adjoining property. Parking lots: Landscaping standards in parking lots are utilized to reduce the auditory, visual, or temperature impacts of a large surface area that is paved. This type of landscaping takes the form of interior and perimeter parking lot landscaping and generally applies to parking lots with 10 or more stalls. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: What’s Staying? Several standards that are currently required in the landscaping chapter will remain:, - Regulated landscaping locations. - 33% vegetation standard. - 20% hard surfacing limitations. - Landscaping and irrigation designed depending on watering needs. - Drip and spray irrigation on separate valves. - Park Strip less than 36” in width are exempt from some landscaping standards. - Landscaping buffer tree and shrub quantities. - Mulching depth and permeability standards. 3 - And encroachment standards in the park strip or public right of way. - Maintaining the City’s resident’s eligibility for “rip your strip” rebate programs through the CUWCD (Central Utah Water Conservancy District) and Utah Department of Natural Resources. What’s New? The significant new additions to the landscaping chapter aim to: - Improve water conservation by: o Requiring a landscaping or irrigation professional letter of compliance with irrigation and landscaping standards. o Requiring a WaterSense automatic irrigation controller. o Prohibiting water waste. o Creating standards for irrigation systems to be designed and maintained to maximize water efficiency. - Simplify and clarify through: o Requiring separate plans for planting, grading, and irrigation. o Addressing artificial turf. o Consolidating buffer sizes. o Updating the Freeway Landscape buffer better comply with goals and intent of chapter. o Creating tables and graphics where possible. o Removing duplicate or wordy standards that were difficult to implement. o Quantifying, where possible, minimum landscaping standards. - Prioritizing trees by: o Allowing tree canopy to count toward vegetation coverage standards and requiring the largest tree appropriate to the landscape location in most zoning districts. o Ensuring tree health by requiring Urban Forestry review of alterations to street trees and root zone protection. o Improving tree survival rates by requiring a permanent irrigation system for street trees when a landscape plan is required (new construction, or a commercial property where the landscaping is being updated by 50% or more, or a commercial addition that increases the floor area by 50% or more). o Requiring trees in the Northwest Quadrant. - Reduce the urban heat island by: o Creating parking lot landscaping standards directed at reducing the urban heat island effect. o Establishing rock mulch limitations. o Allowing tree canopy to count toward landscape coverage and requiring street trees where new construction is proposed. - Reduce stormwater runoff by: 4 o Allow stormwater curb cuts. o Require bioretention for parking lots with 50 or more stalls in the Parking Chapter (21A.44). SUMMARY OF PROPOSED LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERS CHAPTER: The proposed Landscaping and Buffers Chapter is outlined and briefly described below: 21A.48: Landscaping and Buffers Purpose and Intent: Explains the purpose of establishing a landscape chapter and the intent of the standards. - Increase tree canopy, protect and preserve public trees, reduce heat island, reduce stormwater runoff, improve air quality, enhance community appearance from the public realm, mitigate impacts through buffer between uses, and promote water conservation. Applicability: Applies to all properties in SLC, any updates must comply. Existing landscaping that does not comply with the regulations of the chapter do not need to come into compliance unless there is a change made to the landscaping for single- and two- family districts, or if the floor area or the number of parking stalls required increases by 50% or more for all other uses. Authority: What modifications can be applied; Zoning Administrator may make modifications to standards to better comply with the intent of the chapter, or in coordination with the Urban Forestry, Police, or Public Utilities. Responsibility & Maintenance: Establishes the responsibilities of the property owner and ongoing maintenance required in regard to landscaping maintenance in general, landscape yards, park strips, street trees, and irrigation. - Clearance from the public right-of-way. - Maintained in good condition. - Lists specific responsibilities for street trees and irrigation systems. - Height limitations within the sight distance triangle to prevent vision obstructions from approaching traffic. Landscape Plan: Required for new construction of a primary structure and when an addition increases the floor area by 50%, or modifies any required landscaping by 50% . - Landscape plans require a planning plan, a grading plan, and an irrigation plan. Lists specific criteria for each. 5 - Requires Landscape Architect licensed with the State or a US-EPA WaterSense certified professional signature and letter of completion. Landscape Requirements: Describes required landscape locations, landscape location sizes, and specific landscape standards per location. Landscape locations include park strip, landscaped yards, surface parking lot landscaping, and buffer areas. - Establishes minimum ground coverage and tree planting in all landscape areas. - Describes locations where turf is permitted, and the coverage allowed. - Describes impervious surface coverage maximums. - Establishes where landscape buffers are required, the size, location, and coverage, shrub, and tree planting requirements. Parking Lot Landscaping: Applies to surface parking lots with 10 or more stalls. - Interior landscape areas and perimeter parking lot landscaping required. Describes size, location, exceptions, and vegetation requirements in these areas that include trees, shrubs, and ground cover. - Curbs are required where no biodetention is utilized. Standards: Requires specific landscape installation and landscape material standards that apply to all regulated landscaping locations. - Requires drought tolerant, adaptive, or native species. - Establishes limitations and standards on turf, mulch, and berming. Prohibits artificial turf. - Describes specific park strip material standards that includes ground cover regulations, pathways, stormwater detention allowances, and permitted encroachments. Private Lands Tree Preservation: Establishes process and standards for removing a tree on private lands. This section has not been changed, it is expected the Urban Forestry Division will update this section in the coming years as they continue to work on updates to better respond to the Urban Forest Action Plan. Appeal: Right to appeal statement. 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: On April 26, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed text amendment and voted 10 to 1 to recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed Landscaping and Buffers Chapter amendments with two recommended modifications to the draft ordinance: • Define a landscape or irrigation specialist. The draft ordinance language has been updated to address this and now requires review and signature by a Landscape Architect, licensed with the State of Utah, or a US-EPA WaterSense Labeled Certified Professional. The previous draft included a generalized statement about a landscaping or irrigation professional, during the Planning Commission hearing comments questions were raised on the need to define what constitutes a landscaping or irrigation professional. • Remove all language that permits artificial turf. The existing Landscaping and Buffers chapter does not allow artificial turf in required landscaped locations. The chapter draft the Planning Commission reviewed on April 26th, permitted artificial turf in front and corner yard landscaping locations as an impervious surface, which is limited to a maximum of 20% of the required landscaping. In all other required landscaping locations, artificial turf was prohibited. Additionally, artificial turf would have had to meet certain material standards such as individual grass blade length and quantity as well as infill material type. With the Planning Commission’s recommended modification, the artificial material standards and its inclusion in the impervious surface has been removed. Now included in the draft language is a statement that artificial turf is prohibited anywhere landscaping is regulated by the chapter. Where landscaping is not regulated in this chapter, artificial turf would be allowed (such as the rear yard), as it is today in unregulated landscaping areas. The commission’s recommendation was based on a discussion centered around artificial turfs impact on stormwater runoff and possible harmful chemicals contained in the manufacturing process. MODIFICATIONS MADE AFTER PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW: Following the positive recommendation from Planning Commission, planning staff made corrections to the draft chapter for the City Council to consider. The current draft ordinance reflects these changes: Landscaping buffer table - Inconsistencies were found and updated between specific district landscaping buffer references, within the I, RP, EI, and MU districts, and the proposed chapter’s required landscaping buffers. Also updated the table to maintain a required landscaping buffer between multi- family residential and commercial districts, residential and Business Park, residential and Research Park, and required a landscaping buffer in Extractive Industries and Mobile Home Districts when abutting any zoning district. Added a buffer between manufacturing districts and open space. 7 - Included language that a freeway landscape buffer is required on properties abutting a freeway. Parking lot landscaping - Added a provision that parking lot interior landscaping must include no less than 5% of the total parking lot. This provision ensures there is sufficient amount of landscaping to reduce the urban heat island effect regardless of the parking lot design. - Deleted the vehicle sales and lease lot provision that required a 5’ landscaping buffer in the front and corner side yard. The parking lot perimeter landscaping provision already ensures that a greater setback with sufficient landscaping would apply. - Included in the perimeter parking lot landscaping specific section references of 21A.44.060 and 21A.36.020 that address where a parking lot may be allowed in a yard area. - Clarified that the perimeter parking lot landscaping that abuts a building does not need to be included in the tree calculation. Clarified that the vehicle overhang area may be included in the perimeter parking lot landscaping width. - Specified parking lot interior landscaping allowed locations, minimum size, and ratio of trees and shrubs required. - Specified in 21A.44.060 that parking lots with 10 or more stalls or within 20’ of a lot line are subject to the landscaping chapter. Landscaping graphics - Consolidated the residential and nonresidential landscaping locations graphics into a single graphic that addresses both residential and nonresidential zoning districts. Updated the parking lot landscaping graphics to show the approximate number of trees required based on approximated scale and size of the interior and perimeter parking lot landscaping areas. Revision - Revised the purpose and intent section in the landscaping chapter that simplified language and listed purposes and intents based on priority. Multiple Section Deletions - Landscaping related terms and definitions as they are no longer referenced in the ordnance: Evapotranspiration rate, Best Management Practice, Landscape BMPs manual, Evergreen and Perennial, Overspray, Maximum extent practicable, Tier 2 water target, Treasured landscape, Landscaping vegetation, Water budget, and a duplicative Street tree definition. - Language in the applicability section that referenced that the entire chapter 48 may be exempted if permitted in other sections of the zoning code. There are no other sections that allow for an exception from the entire chapter 48, specific sections exception language within the proposed chapter have remained. - Removal of Bond requirement to comply with State Code. Multiple Section Clarifications - In the landscape requirements section of the landscaping chapter clarified that where conflict between specific district standards and this landscaping chapter the specific district standards shall prevail. - In the Foothills and Foothills Protection District removed titles in the landscape plan requirements to be consistent with the rest of the section. 8 - Clarified precedence language in the Design Standards section where conflicting language may occur between the design standards and the district specific standards. Clarified where percent tree canopy coverage is required in the design standards table, the tree canopy cannot be counted toward vegetation coverage in the downtown districts. Removed vegetation coverage and streetscape landscaping to ensure vegetation coverage and streetscape landscaping applies to all properties not just the downtown and CG districts. - Included language that clarified landscaping installation process during winter months through a temporary certificate of occupancy. - In the park strip standards table, specified where the center of a park strip is. - In the authority section, stated simply which departments or divisions may provide input to the zoning administrator when the provisions of the landscaping chapter may be waived. Removed qualifying provisions required when departments or divisions may recommend a landscaping waiver. - Clarified in the landscape plan section, permitted modification if the change is from one plant species to another with similar watering needs. - Specified in the CSHBD district sufficient soil volumes for street trees must be approved by Urban Forestry. PUBLIC PROCESS: Recognized Organizations: All recognized organization chairs city-wide were notified on February 10th, 2023, of the proposed text amendments. The Planning Division presented the proposed code amendments to the Sugar House Community Council on March 20th, 2023 and accepted comments and answered questions. Open House: A virtual open house was hosted on Planning’s website and published via list serve on February 10th, 2023. The open house information included the most recent version of the landscaping and buffers chapter draft. The open house page was continually updated to include the most recent draft amendments and public hearing dates. Public Hearing Notification: Notice of the public hearing was posted on City and State websites and emailed via list serve to subscribers on April 19th, 2023. Planning Commission Public Hearing: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the text amendments on April 26, 2023. The Planning Commission provided a positive recommendation to City Council on the proposed amendments. Planning Commission Staff Report Public Comments Received: We received 14 public comments, as of the date this memo was transmitted. The public comments ranged from concerns of enforceability of some of the standards, landscaping rocks and their contribution to the urban heat island, landscaping materials on the sidewalk and unkempt landscapes, vegetation and vegetation maximum height 9 in the park strip, costs associated with requiring permanent irrigation, water waste, allowing native grass species, and public noticing procedures. Comments included statements encouraging waterwise landscaping and improving water conservation in landscaping areas. There were also statements where there was some misunderstanding on when a street tree is required. Where possible staff clarified when a street tree is required to the public – in a park strip over 36” in width and for new construction for single- and two- family developments. PLANNING COMMISSION (PC) RECORDS: a)PC Agenda of April 26, 2023 (Click to Access) b)PC Staff Report of April 26, 2023 (Click to Access Report) c)PC Minutes for April 26, 2023 (Click to Access) d)PC Video for April 26, 2023 (Click to Access) EXHIBITS: 1) Project Chronology 2) Notice of City Council Public Hearing 3)Petition Initiation 4) Public Comments Received after Planning Commission Staff Report Published 5)Public Utilities Director Statement TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Project Chronology 2.Notice of City Council Public Hearing 3.Petition Initiation 4.Public Comments Received After Planning Commission Staff Report Published 5.Public Utilities Director Statement 1)PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2023-00098 September 6, 2022 City Council briefing to get initial feedback on potential changes to landscaping regulations. February 8, 2023 Text amendment to update the Landscaping and Buffers chapter initiated. February 10, 2023 Notice emailed to recognized organizations City-wide. February 10, 2023 The proposed code changes were posted to the Planning Division’s Online Open House webpage. March 20, 2023 The Planning Division presented proposed code changes to Sugar House Community Council. Public comments and questions were accepted. April 19, 2023 Public hearing notices were posted on City and State websites. April 21, 2023 Staff Report posted online and sent to the Planning Commission. April 26, 2023 Planning Commission forwards a positive recommendation to City Council. May 8, 2023 Draft ordinance forwarded to the Attorney’s Office for review. June 7, 2023 Ordinance corrections forwarded to the Attorney’s Office. June 12, 2023 Ordinance corrections forwarded to the Attorney’s Office. Ordinance returned from the Attorney’s Office. June 15, 2023 Ordinance corrections forwarded to the Attorney’s Office. June 22, 2023 Reviewed ordinance returned from the Attorney’s Office. June 29, 2023 Ordinance forwarded again to the Attorney’s Office, reviewed final received from Attorney’s Office. August 29, 2023 Corrected ordinance returned to Attorney’s Office for final review. September 26, 2023 Final ordinance version received from Attorney’s Office. September 27, 2023 Transmitted to CAN administration. October 26, 2023 Council Office informed of needed modifications to the ordinance. November 6, 2023 Ordinance with needed corrections forwarded to the Attorney’s Office. November 14, 2023 Corrected ordinance returned to Attorney’s Office for final review. November 15, 2023 Transmitted to CAN administration. 2)NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2023-00098 – A petition initiated by Mayor Erin Mendenhall to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Code for the Landscaping and Buffers Chapter Text Amendment. This proposal includes amendments that will be affected City-wide. The proposed code amendments seek to better address landscaping regulations and seek to reduce water consumption, enhance the urban forest, and improve air quality and green infrastructure city-wide. The proposed amendment also seek to clarify, simplify, and reorganize the landscaping and buffer chapter to be more user friendly. 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 Nannette Larsen at 801-535-7645 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail nannette.larsen@slcgov.com People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to participate in this hearing. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com , 801-535- 7600, or relay service 711. 3) PETITION INITIATION SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLC.GOV PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801-535-7757 FAX 801-535-6174 PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS MEMORANDUM To: Mayor Erin Mendenhall Cc: Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer; Blake Thomas, Department of Community and Neighborhoods Director; Michaela Oktay, Deputy Planning Director From: Nick Norris, Planning Director Date: January 27, 2023 Re: Initiate Petition to Amend Text in the Zoning Ordinance to Update the Landscaping Chapter This memo is to request that a petition is initiated directing the Planning Division to update the Landscaping Chapter to better address the needs of the City and the changing climate being experienced along the Wasatch Front. Amendments to the Landscaping Chapter will also better conform to Plan Salt Lake. In Plan Salt Lake direction to reduce water consumption, protect and enhance the urban forest, and improve green infrastructure in the City’s neighborhoods is emphasized. To achieve these goals amending the landscaping chapter is necessary to reduce barriers to water conservation while improving water and air quality. In addition to providing best management practices to reduce barriers and incentive water conservation, is promoting accessible conservation strategies and standards in the Zoning Ordinance. The updates to the Landscaping chapter will accomplish this by quantifying best practices and creating visual elements to the chapter to better achieve accessibility needs of the residents in the City. As part of the process, the Planning Division will follow the City adoption process for zoning text amendments, which includes citizen input and public hearings with the Planning Commission and City Council. The adoption process will include collaboration with other City Departments and the Central Utah Water Conservancy District to ensure best management practices are utilized. This memo includes a signature block to initiate the petition if that is the decided course of action. If the decided course of action is to not initiate the application, the signature block can remain blank. Please notify the Planning Division when the memo is signed or if the decision is made to not initiate the petition. Please contact me at ext. 6173 or nick.norris@slcgov.com if you have any questions. Thank you. Concurrence to initiate the zoning text amendment petition as noted above. _____________________________________ ______________ Erin Mendenhall, Mayor Date 4)PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED AFTER PLANNING COMMISSIONS STAFF REPORT PUBLISHED Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From:Amanda Dillon To:Larsen, Nannette Subject:(EXTERNAL) Comment on new Landscaping Ordinance - Planning Commission Meeting Date:Tuesday, April 25, 2023 10:38:19 PM Hey Nan! I was chatting with Amanda Roman and she let me know that tomorrow is when the new landscaping ordinance goes in front of the planning commission. Congrats on getting these revised policies to this point! I had the chance to skim through it earlier today and wanted to submit two official comments. SLC's website said to reach out to you as the staff listed at the top of the report. Let me know if I should reach out somewhere else to get this comment officially recorded. The first comment is in regards to plant height in the park strip. The proposed ordinance says: Plant height is limited to 22” to preserve clear views from intersection driveways, alleys, and streets, to preserve line of sights for people, and to prevent areas that some people may find unsafe when visibility is blocked. One issue we've found with this limited plant height is that it makes it hard to put planter boxes or similar into the park strip because we are so limited in height. As a developer of infill multifamily housing, we find that many of our residents let their pets relieve themselves in the park strips on any planted vegetation. The high acidity of their urine/feces makes it so that most plants die immediately and don't really grow back, leaving barren and unattractive park strips. One solution we've found that helps keep the park strips vegetated and looking nice is putting plants in planter boxes, which makes it harder for pets to disturb them. However, to create one that is hard for pets to get into, the planter box needs to be at least 12" tall. With the plant height restriction, that means we can only put a plant in that will mature to 10" tall. This really narrows down the selection of plants we can use to beautify the park strips and prevents us from designing attractive landscaped right of way areas for the City. It would be great to have a slight modification in this part of the code that would allow for taller plant heights if those are planted in garden boxes or the like. The second comment is more of a clarification question. On page 6 of the ordinance, in the second paragraph, it says "rocks (over a certain size)" but no where else in the code does it give any specifics about that size. Can more definition/clarity be added on this point? Thanks so much! Let's get together soon. Amanda Amanda Dillon Giv Development From:Bruce A. Hamilton To:Larsen, Nannette Subject:(EXTERNAL) Case PLNPCM2023-00098: oppose vegetation requirements on park strips Date:Monday, April 24, 2023 10:54:24 PM Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Re: Planning Commission, April 26 agenda, case PLNPCM2023-00098: It is insane to require vegetation on park strips in this age of droughts. Please oppose all such existing and new zoning requirements. --Bruce (Bruce A. Hamilton, Salt Lake City, UT) Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From:Margaret Holloway To:Larsen, Nannette Subject:(EXTERNAL) PLNPCM2023-00098 Date:Tuesday, April 25, 2023 10:40:34 AM The goal of the city is to increase the canopy throughout the city. But what I see is a stumbling block is the fact of a permanent irrigation line to a street tree. I was quoted 3000 dollars just to connect a irrigation connection to my water line. If this is required of ALL homeowners who would like a tree or are going to be required to have a tree planted To whom is going to pay this bill? That quote was just to dig down to the water line and connect a meter. That does not include the line to the tree. I understand the need to encourage watering the tree. But if this is not done correctly you can have the water go into reverse and contaminate the water supply. It has happened when people try to do plumbing themselves. Now how is this even reasonable? All you need is a hose . The city gave buckets to the homeowners that had their trees taken out by Rocky Mountain power on 900 west. They were told to haul 5 gallons to the tree each week or 10 days. Which sounds reasonable... But how do you fill the bucket with a hose...... And if they had given them a hose instead maybe they would have watered the trees. But they didn't and they did not get watered They all died except a couple that did..... The city plants trees into parks without water and then they die. The new trees the city planted on 1200 west there were 10 all but 2 died Because the sprinklers were turned off and the new trees need help for the first few years. The city turns off the sprinklers or cuts back and the trees die. But here you are requiring homeowners to spend upward of 3,000 to put a line in maintain it when you just need a hose..... I water my street tree with a soaker hose every other week if it doesn't get enough water like last 2 years.... The canopy changes over the life of the tree.....You MUST water under the canopy..... It only benefits the tree if you water under the growing canopy... This is where a soaker hose is important.. it goes straight to the roots.... But to make the decision that everyone has to pay upto 3,000 dollars to put a permanent line to where it isn't going to do what you want it to do.... seems missguided. The city just planted 30 more trees in Rosewood In Rosepark..... if they have to cut off the water again will they make it? It depends this year they have a chance because of all the water in the soil. But last year they lost 5 from the previous year lack of water. The west side needs the trees but forcing people to put in an expensive hook up when a 30 dollar hose will do ... But last year you just drive around and see the trees they had planted in the parks that died. So why is the city going to require something of homeowners that the city does not do itself? Please reconsider this it won't do the trees any good to water where they can't use it.,..It will not get the city where it wants to go with the canopy. If there are actually any new houses built in the city i can see where this might come into play before everything is installed. But since we don;t have any place to build new houses you are telling existing homeowners what to do. after the fact of 60 or more years. Margaret Holloway 1412 west 1100 north SLC Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From: To:Larsen, Nannette; Planning Public Comments Cc:Wharton, Chris; City Council Liaisons; slcgreen; Subject:(EXTERNAL) Public Comment on Petition PLNPCM2023-00098 - 21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers Updates Date:Tuesday, April 25, 2023 12:51:52 PM Attachments:21A.48 Nextdoor posting 1.4 K Views 5 Days .pdf Public Comment on Petition PLNPCM2023-00098 - 21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers Updates From: Stanley Holmes 4-25-2023 Dear Salt Lake City Planning Commission, I urge you to reject the proposed ordinance rewrite of 21A Zoning that was submitted as Petition PLNPCM2023-00098 - "21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers Updates" as flawed and problematic on several fronts. The set of proposed amendments to Title 21A Zoning should be remanded back to Salt Lake City's Planning Division ("Division") for revision and a new, more appropriately noticed 45-day public comment period to be opened by the Division before a corrected set of proposed Title 21A Zoning amendments is brought before the Planning Commission ("Commission"). The proposed changes to Title 21A Zoning Chapter 48 under consideration now would have significant, wide-ranging, and costly impacts for many Salt Lake City ("City") property owners of various means and for all city taxpayers. That the Division would rely primarily on community council chairs to, at their individual discretion and in a timely manner, notify the general public of statutory/regulatory changes of this scope and magnitude can be most graciously characterized as cavalier. Division records indicate that only four comments were received during the 45-day comment period and that Sugarhouse C.C. was the only community council to actively engage. I learned from city staff that the Division’s notification system had been used, but found that there are no water conservation, landscaping, energy conservation, environment, or other sustainability categories listed. Through which category did the Division send the landscaping code updates notice; and how many city residents actually get notices through that means? Please be advised, and let the public record show, that on April 20, 2023, I posted on the community blog --Nextdoor.com-- information about the proposed Title 21A Zoning changes and ways that interested citizens could submit public comments. Over the next five days, Nextdoor.com reported 1,400 views and there were 48 public comments. Please see evidence of this included with the Addendum at the close of my comment and attached. Those folks on Nextdoor.com were Salt Lake City residents who missed the initial comment period that ended on March 27th and, quite likely, also did not know about your April 26 Planning Commission meeting or their opportunities to submit public comments before the zoning/ordinance changes had become a ‘done deal.’ Outrageous. I am also quite surprised and disappointed that there was no input from the Sustainability Department, and wonder how their input was solicited. SLCGreen is copied on this comment, as are my District 3 Councilman Chris Wharton and the City Council Liaisons. City officials should have known that not every community council would post or distribute the notice. Not every potentially interested and impacted citizen is on a community council distribution list or regularly checks a community council's website. One might wonder to what extent the Division was truly desirous of robust public input, having solicited comments by such a narrow and undependable means. The Commission should insist upon a proper re-do of the public comment period and extend its further consideration of any Title 21A Zoning Chapter 48 amendments until legitimate opportunities for public input have occurred. The proposed Petition PLNPCM2023-00098 - "21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers Updates" are themselves in several ways inadequate and problematic. Their 'as is' endorsement by the Commission and the City Council would, upon attempted implementation and enforcement by the City, certainly result in strong opposition that would include costly litigation. Please recall that the most recent revision of 21A.48 was in the year 2000, prior to over two decades of climate change-exacerbated heat increases and drought that finally prompted state and local officials to take action. The updates now under consideration were supposed to deal more effectively with the climate change-related impacts. Let me begin with the proposed re-write of 21A.48.010, the Purpose and Intent section. While the earlier version calls for promoting "the prudent use of water", the update would remove this and make no mention of water conservation as a priority. The lead "purpose" of a revised chapter 21A.48 would be to "increase Salt Lake City's urban tree canopy"; and the lead "intent" would be to "promote and enhance the community's appearance." While trees are nice, useful, and can be aesthetically pleasing, the City is located in the second driest U.S. state and is experiencing an unprecedented, worsening drought. Water conservation should not only have been mentioned in the proposed re-write of 21A.48.010, but been listed as a priority goal, as has been done by other Utah municipalities. Why was this not done? Under the current zoning ordinance, Section 21A.48.060 refers to Park Strip Landscaping and one of the "intent" items is to "encourage water conservation". But the proposed re-write (update) would change the title of 21A.48.060 to "Landscape Requirements" and remove the water conservation reference. The re-write of 21A.48.060 has a new "Park Strip Standards" section that adds the requirement of at least one "street tree" in the park strip. Additional park strip trees would be required, depending on the park strip length. The current ordinance has no park strip tree requirement. Therefore, residents who've implemented water-wise park strip measures --in compliance with the existing ordinance -- that do not include at least one street tree would be required to add a tree and, according to the 21A.48.040 re-write, see that it is "irrigated with a permanent automatic irrigation system." A hydrozoned irrigation system would be required, so that tree(s) watering can be isolated from any water needed for other vegetation. The park strip abutting property owner would have to pay for the new park strip tree-plus-irrigation requirement. That could be quite costly, especially if the park strip has to be excavated to install the required irrigation system. The Commission should assume that some residents will be unable to afford this and that others who had been compliant would rather fight the compliance rules change in court. Please consider the burden on low-income families, especially if the $25-per-day violation fine is retained. The Commission should also consider that the City's Department of Community and Neighborhood's Civil Enforcement staff would have to be expanded and that additional budgetary provisions would have to be made for the City's legal team. Litigation could delay implementation and enforcement of parts or all of the proposed 21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers Updates for an extended period of time. And aside from pushback from angry residents delaying implementation of the proposed ordinance updates, the sheer magnitude of any effort to achieve widespread compliance should sober city planners and policy-makers. Have Division staff conducted a city-wide, on-street survey of the number of park strips that would require tree-planting and new irrigation plumbing? Have they calculated how many contractors, and how many years, would be required to accomplish full implementation? Then, there's the additional per-tree water requirement times however many park strips would be affected. At this point, I'll add that there are some positive aspects of the proposed ordinance re-write, such as 21A.48.040.E.1., which says that "All irrigation systems shall be maintained in good operating condition to eliminate water waste and run-off into the public right-of-way." Drip irrigation is also mentioned in 21A.48.040.E, though it could have been promoted. Some of the proposed re-write items are not clear. For example, 21A.48.040.C.2. "Exceptions" circles back to itself. And under 21A.62 "Definitions", the Park Strip Landscaping section says that park strip landscaping may include "lawn", which is normally a reference to turf. The re-write, under 21A.48.060 and 21A.48.080, prohibits turf in park strips. There is also a reference to the right-of- way line's relevance if there is no sidewalk, but the dimensions of the right-of-way line are not given. As a final point to this comment, it concerns me that the City Planning Division failed to take a holistic view of the abutting residential property owner's landscape unless a new home is being constructed or the floor area of an existing structure(s) is being expanded by 50% or more. The overall vegetative contribution of individual residential properties that are not undergoing structural change is ignored by the proposed 21A Zoning rewrite's determination of compliance or non- compliance with new park strip requirements. I can imagine situations where the owner of a well- wooded, well-vegetated residential property is forced to install and water a park strip tree while the owner of a minimally vegetated property who happens to have a tree in the park strip is left alone. Where is the environmental justice in that? Salt Lake City needs to do a better job of conserving water. The proposed amendments to Title 21A Zoning are inadequate to the task, as they do not give water conservation the top priority status our current megadrought crisis demands. I urge the Commission to deny Petition PLNPCM2023-00098 - "21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers Updates" and send it back to the Division for revision and a properly noticed, 45-day public review and comment period. I thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration of the points I raised and your directive to have the ordinance revised in a more transparent way that better engages the public and serves the City's best interests. Stanley Holmes 846 N. East Capitol Blvd. Salt Lake City, UT 84103 Addendum: My attempt to use Nextdoor.com to notify the public of proposed 21A.48 changes, first posted on April 20, 2023, is copied below. In five days, 1,400 views and 48 resident comments. The Planning Division got 4 public comments in 45 days. Stan Holmes Author •West Capitol Hills•0 mi SLC Park Strip, Landscape Policy Changes Public comments are being taken by the Salt Lake City Planning Division and Planning Commission as they consider city-wide changes to the Landscaping Chapter of the Zoning Code. This includes proposed revision of the Park Strip ordinance under which many city residents have been penalized for their water conservation efforts. The proposed Park Strip policy revision would require one "street tree" every 30 feet and vegetation covering at least 30% of the area. See all proposed amendments at... www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Online%20Open%20Houses/2023/02 2023/PLNPCM2023- 00098/02102023%20DRAFT%20Landscaping%20Updates_Posted.pdf The Planning Commission will consider landscape/park strip ordinance changes at its April 26 meeting. Public comments can be submitted in-person or via email to and . Reference case number PLNPCM2023-00098 in the subject line. The agenda for next Wednesday's (April 26) Planning Commission meeting is at... www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2023/PC04.26.2023/PC04.26.2023agenda.pdf Whatever the Planning Commission decides will then be presented to the City Council for final approval. Now is the time to shift from opinion to action and file a public comment. Stan Holmes Author •West Capitol Hills•0 mi The email addresses that were stripped are planning.comments and nannette.larsen that are both at slc.gov. They are also listed in the April 26 agenda at... www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2023/PC04.26.2023/PC04.26.2023agenda.pdf also attached: Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From:Chelsea Benjamin To:Larsen, Nannette Subject:(EXTERNAL) Report to include as part of public record for today"s planning commission meeting Date:Wednesday, April 26, 2023 11:00:08 AM Attachments:2022 WRA Artifical Turf Report.pdf Hello Nannette, I would like the following report to be included as part of the public record during the Planning Committee discussion on the new landscaping ordinance today. Here is a link to the report, and I have attached it as a PDF to this email. https://westernresourceadvocates.org/publications/is- artificial-turf-a-beneficial-water-conservation-tool-in-the-west/ Please let me know if there is anything else I need to do to include it in the Planning Commission’s discussion today. Thank you, Chelsea Benjamin photo Chelsea Benjamin Water Policy Fellow | WesternResourceAdvocates.org 2260 Baseline Road, Suite 200 | Boulder, CO 80302 Is Artificial Turf a Beneficial Water Conservation Tool in the West? December 2022 Author: Chelsea Benjamin Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3 Water Management ...................................................................................................................................... 3 Temperature Impacts ................................................................................................................................... 4 Lifecycle Analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 4 Harmful Chemicals ........................................................................................................................................ 5 PFAS Contamination ..................................................................................................................................... 6 Microplastic Contamination.......................................................................................................................... 7 Soil Quality .................................................................................................................................................... 7 Pet Waste Buildup ......................................................................................................................................... 8 Cost ............................................................................................................................................................... 8 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................... 9 Introduction Artificial turf is a landscaping alternative made of plastic that mimics the look, feel, and function of a natural grass lawn or athletic field. Artificial turf has become more popular in Colorado and the West in recent years for its ability to reduce landscape water use in the face of unprecedented drought and water security challenges; the region now accounts for 24% of the artificial turf market share in the United States, with most being used for athletic fields. In recent years, many communities across the West have mounted turf replacement programs to encourage residents to save water used on outdoor landscapes in the face of prolonged drought. Communities are also limiting the amount of high water use, non-functional turf that can be installed in new development and instead requiring landscaping alternatives. As momentum continues to grow around reducing high water use turfgrass in our communities, water conservation practitioners, land use planners, landscape professionals and community members are asking: is artificial turf a worthwhile landscaping alternative, especially for residential properties? While artificial turf may reduce landscape water demand compared to traditional cool season turf, research shows that artificial turf can also have significant environmental and economic drawbacks. This report explores the current state of the research behind the benefits and drawbacks of artificial turf as it relates to: water management, temperature impacts, lifecycle analysis, PFAS contamination, harmful chemicals, microplastic contamination, pet waste buildup, and cost. While much of the data available are from studies of artificial turf athletic fields, most findings are applicable to properties with smaller footprints as well. Water Management Artificial turf has gained popularity in large part for its ability to reduce outdoor water use. One study found that full-sized, 1.32 acre, natural grass sports fields can use up to 1.5 million gallons of water for irrigation per year depending on geographic location. The Synthetic Turf Council estimates that same- sized artificial turf athletic fields can save 500,000 to 1 million gallons of water per year (8.7 to 17.4 gallons/sq-ft), and that a turf lawn of 1,800 square feet can save 99,000 gallons of water per year, or about 70% of a homeowner’s water bill. In the arid Western United States, the need for water conservation has been a driver of artificial turf demand. Artificial turf for residences has proven especially popular in drought-stricken California, where some areas were limited to one day of outdoor watering per week in the summer of 2022 due to water shortages. While artificial turf companies tout water savings as a main benefit of artificial turf, this is not always the case. Studies have found that on a warm, sunny day artificial turf can measure up to 80 degrees hotter than the ambient air temperature. In one study, an artificial turf field measured 160 degrees while the ambient air temperature was 87 degrees. On an athletic playing field, one solution to this heat is to water the artificial turf. A large amount of water needs to be applied to achieve a cooling effect, and it has been found that this cooling effect lasts only minutes before temperatures rebound. Some sports arenas have attempted to solve the problem by installing misters that apply water to the turf field throughout sports events. Others find that irrigation of artificial turf improves traction and athletic performance; one university in North Carolina going so far as to apply for a business exemption to water their artificial turf athletic fields during a drought. An additional concern is the effect of artificial turf on groundwater recharge. Cities in California that once encouraged the replacement of natural grass with artificial turf have since changed their policies upon discovering that artificial turf can increase stormwater runoff and prevent groundwater recharge. Los Angeles offered a rebate for homeowners who replaced irrigated grass with artificial turf until 2016, when they revised their program’s requirements to provide a rebate only for replacement with xeriscape landscaping. Los Angeles realized that artificial turf reduces the amount of rainwater that soaks into the ground after a storm, and that more stormwater flushed out to sea via the stormwater system. Temperature Impacts Artificial turf can reach temperatures up to 80 degrees higher than the ambient air temperature due to its material composition and color, as well as the color and heat retention abilities of infill materials used. This excess heat contributes to urban heat island effect in cities, as heat from the synthetic turf elevates the ambient air temperature and disperses into the local environment. One researcher found that some of the hottest areas in New York City are artificial turf fields, rivaling black colored roofs in their heat retention abilities. Research has shown that excessively hot artificial athletic fields can lead to heat stress, especially in children who are more susceptible than adults, turf burns, and the cancellation of athletic events due to unsafe playing conditions. Artificial turf heat can also be an issue when used in landscaping, as pets and children use the turf for play on warm days. Urban heat island effect can also increase the demand for energy for air conditioning, and can increase pollution as natural grass areas are removed. Natural grass absorbs the sun’s heat during the day, and slowly releases it at night, contributing a cooling effect to the surrounding environment, as well as removing pollutants from the air. The artificial turf industry has responded to temperature issues and has developed products that can repel UV rays, better disperse heat, and even mimic the evaporative cooling effects of natural grass. Some types of artificial grass have been developed specifically for areas like Arizona that have extreme high temperatures during the summer. Manufacturers claim that heat-repellent synthetic turf measures 10-20% cooler than grasses with high heat retention. Another heat reduction measure is the infill material chosen; crumb rubber and sand infill materials can contribute to extreme artificial turf temperatures due to their color and heat-retention abilities. Special infill materials have been developed that when wet with water, will slowly release the water over time, mimicking the evaporative cooling properties of natural grass and reducing the hottest temperatures by 50 degrees. Cooling technologies seem to be distributed across price points, but largely cannot match the cooling properties of natural grass or other plants. Lifecycle Analysis In the early 1990s, the United States had a mounting problem with the disposal of used automobile tires; they were costly to dispose of and created pest and fire hazards in landfills. It was then discovered that discarded tire rubber could easily be recycled into small pellets to be used as “infill” to stabilize artificial turf athletic fields and lawns. The infill is now mainly used for large athletic field installations and industry experts estimate that the artificial turf industry now recycles one-twelfth of all automobile tires disposed of each year. One artificial turf athletic field can use 20,000 to 40,000 used tires as crumb rubber infill. Infill is added during installation, and as needed to replace infill that migrates out of the artificial turf area. Artificial turf has an average lifespan of 8-10 years before an athletic field becomes worn out, or a residential lawn loses its formerly lush appearance. The Synthetic Turf Council, an artificial turf industry group, insists that artificial turf is recyclable, and that its members actively recycle the spent turf it sells. Investigative journalists and concerned citizens have documented otherwise in the Netherlands and in the United States. The Netherlands requires artificial turf to be recycled. A few Dutch companies claim to be artificial turf recyclers; these companies accept payment to recycle spent turf and provide removal services. However, investigative journalists have found that several of these companies have no active facilities for turf recycling. The companies do not recycle the artificial turf they accept, but either hold on to it indefinitely in growing piles in municipalities with lax regulations or sell it to new customers who repurpose the turf, rather than recycle its components into new materials. In the United States, there are no regulations that pertain to the disposal or recycling of artificial turf. Most municipalities will accept artificial turf in local landfills. Fees to dispose of large amounts of turf, such as from athletic fields, can be extremely expensive. As artificial turf owners are not held responsible for the turf at the end of its life, it is often illegally dumped, or a small fee is paid to store the turf on an abandoned lot rather than paying disposal or recycling fees. Piles of discarded turf create fire and chemical hazards, just as discarded automobile tires did in the 1990s. Although a Danish artificial athletic field recycler, Re-Match, has plans to open an artificial turf recycling facility in Pennsylvania, and has recently expanded its European operations to the Netherlands and France, life cycle concerns for end-of-life artificial turf athletic fields and synthetic residential landscaping remain an active problem the world over. Harmful Chemicals Artificial turf eliminates the need for pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers that are traditionally used to maintain a lawn or sports field; the plastic turf and its base layers block the growth of weeds and pests that otherwise might invade natural grass. However, artificial turf contains many chemicals of concern. These chemicals can migrate into the surrounding environment as the plastic material degrades when exposed to heat and light. The majority of research on artificial turf focuses on athletic fields, and many specifically on the chemicals related to crumb rubber infill. Crumb rubber infill is the cheapest infill material on the market and is often used in athletic field installations. It is less likely to be used for artificial lawns, but the following research discussed can at times apply to residential installations. The cheapest infill material on the market is crumb rubber infill made from recycled discarded tires. Crumb rubber infill is most often used for athletic fields, as it provides a durable playing surface. However, crumb rubber infill has been found to release chemicals as it degrades. Crumb rubber infill has been analyzed and found to contain 197 carcinogenic chemicals. Alternative infill materials include EPDM rubber, TPE plastic, and recycled athletic shoe material, as well as natural materials like sand, cork, and zeolite clay. A study comparing infill materials found that almost all contain chemicals of concern, except natural infill materials, which may conversely be susceptible to mold growth, or cause negative respiratory effects. Studies have found that organic contaminants and heavy metals in crumb rubber leach into stormwater runoff, posing hazards to the surrounding environment, aquatic life, and human health. Studies have also found that Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) from crumb rubber infill can aerosolize during play on artificial turf athletic fields. VOCs can cause respiratory irritation and have been linked to the development of cancer. While there are no fully conclusive studies on the human health effects of exposure to artificial turf, studies have been conducted on the effects of crumb rubber infill chemicals on earthworms, an invertebrate, and on chicken embryos, a vertebrate. Two experiments have been conducted on the effects of earthworm exposure to crumb rubber infill. The first experiment tested the effect of exposure to new crumb rubber infill, and found that after one week of incubation in contaminated soil, the exposed earthworms had noticeably lower body weight than those in clean soil. A second, similar, experiment was conducted using recycled tire crumb rubber infill. In this experiment, the exposed earthworms quickly died in a stress test, demonstrating a marked decrease in resilience to stress when exposed to chemicals in recycled tire rubber. Another study that examined the effects of crumb rubber leachate on fertilized chicken embryos during their development process found that approximately half of the fertilized eggs exposed to the leachate developed extreme malformations, while the unexposed group developed into healthy chicken embryos. Although no conclusive studies have been conducted on the direct effects of artificial turf on human health, anecdotal collections of statistics have raised concerns about artificial turf’s potential connection to cancer development in humans. In 2013, one women’s soccer coach compiled a list of 38 US soccer players who had developed cancer, mainly leukemia and cancers of the blood. Many of the players were goalies, who regularly dive into artificial turf. Health experts have been unable to reach consensus on whether artificial turf and the use of crumb rubber infill can be linked to cancer or other human health effects. Despite this lack of consensus, the presence of known carcinogens in artificial turf blades and infill and the results of the animal studies have raised alarm. PFAS Contamination PFAS chemicals are widely found in artificial turf because they are used in the artificial turf production process and are typically added as a coating to the grass blades as they are manufactured. The chemicals can break down and leach into the environment when exposed to heat and light after artificial turf is installed. PFAS chemicals are also known as “forever chemicals” because they do not break down under normal environmental conditions, and can last in the environment for hundreds of years, or longer. PFAS chemicals are also associated with negative health effects in humans and wildlife. Studies on the human health effects of PFAS chemicals have found that the chemicals bioaccumulate in human tissues and can lead to liver effects, immunological effects, developmental effects, endocrine effects, decreased fertility, cardiovascular effects, and can contribute to the development of cancers. PFAS can cause similar problems in animals and can also bioaccumulate in plants. In 2020, one New Hampshire community attempted to purchase PFAS-free artificial turf to minimize exposure risks. The community tested the turf they had been sold, and found that it did contain PFAS chemicals. The company claimed that the levels of PFAS in the turf were below EPA accepted maximum levels of the chemical and could safely be labeled “PFAS-free”. However, the EPA has recently concluded that no amount of PFAS chemicals are safe in drinking water, which is concerning as many components of artificial turf installations regularly make their way into surrounding waterways. Microplastic Contamination In addition to the chemical concerns surrounding artificial turf, there are also significant concerns relating to microplastic pollution. Artificial turf plastic grass blades can break off from the turf surface and migrate into the surrounding environment, creating microplastic pollution as they break down into smaller pieces over time. Artificial turf athletic fields that use crumb rubber infill can be even greater sources of microplastic pollution. One study in Norway found crumb rubber infill pieces in 85% of water samples taken in waterbodies downstream from artificial turf fields, and in 42% of samples taken from locations upstream. Microplastic pollution from artificial turf fields accounts for over one third of total microplastic pollution in Norway. Similarly, researchers have found that artificial turf fields are the second highest source of microplastic pollution in Sweden. Swedish authorities estimate that large artificial athletic fields lose 2-3 tons of infill to the surrounding environment per year. Microplastic pollution is a concern for actively used artificial turf fields, and for discarded fields that await recycling or incineration or are illegally dumped. Discarded fields have the potential to release microplastic pollution into the surrounding environment indefinitely. Artificial turf lawns also can release microplastics via the grass blades’ degradation over time, and depending on the choice of infill will also release infill particles into the environment. Researchers are only beginning to understand what the effects of this pollution might be. Study of the effects of microplastics is relatively new. Studies have found the tiny particles worldwide, including in remote wilderness areas that have no human visitors, and in the umbilical cords of newborn babies. The effects of microplastic pollution on human health and the environment are still relatively unknown, but some early studies suggest that microplastic exposure and ingestion can cause harm to human health and the environment. One study in particular found that microplastics added to soil disturb natural biological processes and change soil structure. Knowledge of the long-term effects of microplastics will continue to develop over time. Soil Quality Artificial turf installation requires the removal of the existing top level of soil and heavy soil compaction to create a smooth surface for the turf. Compaction negatively effects the soil structure, disturbs the soil’s microbial activity, and can damage tree roots. After soil is compacted for athletic field installation, several layers are added between the soil and the artificial turf surface to level the playing field, improve storm water drainage, and provide cushioning. In artificial turf lawn installations, plastic and wire layers may be added beneath the turf for protection from burrowing animals, and weeds. In addition to the effects of soil compaction, artificial turf changes the quality of the soil beneath it by starving the soil of water, air, and light. Artificial turf has also been shown to degrade over time, leaching chemicals from the plastic turf material and the infill materials into stormwater runoff that can soak into surrounding soils, further disturbing soil health. Pet Waste Buildup Pet waste can build up over time on artificial turf, and additional maintenance is required to keep artificial lawns fresh. Artificial turf companies have designed special types of turf to improve pet waste drainage and claim that it can better eliminate waste than natural grass. Pet-friendly infill has also been created with a special coating to prevent odors and the growth of bacteria. Despite these measures, artificial turf needs to be rinsed off after use by pets. To fully sanitize artificial turf when pet waste builds up, infill must be vacuumed out and a special cleaner applied to break down urine and other waste. Natural grass and other plant installations do not need this type of maintenance and special products; the elements naturally break down remnant pet waste. Cost A New York Times investigation compared costs for artificial turf lawns. Bids to install a large artificial turf grass lawn averaged $10,000. The average lifetime of artificial grass is 10 years or less and there are maintenance costs associated with artificial turf, and costs associated with removal and replacement at end of life. Natural grass lawns are likely to have longer lifespans if managed sustainably. Natural lawn costs increase substantially if located in an area that requires supplemental irrigation. One way to lower such costs is to install drought-resistant or low-water species of grass in drought-prone regions, though irrigation systems will likely be needed even if used less frequently. Regarding athletic fields specifically, many schools and universities choose to install artificial turf rather than natural grass fields because artificial turf is a durable play surface that allows for continuous use, while natural grass can require rest between athletic activities. Artificial turf can also save on maintenance costs associated with irrigation and mowing. However, artificial turf has been shown to require heat related closures, maintenance such as brushing and sanitization, regular replacement of infill material, and even irrigation to improve heat conditions and playability. The Toxics Use Reduction Institute (TURI) has conducted several studies comparing costs between artificial fields and natural grass fields that show that organically managed natural grass fields can improve play conditions, reduce wear and tear related closures, and lower maintenance costs. Costs to install a variety of natural grass field installations range from $0.60-$5.00 per square foot, and estimates for artificial turf costs range from $4.50-$10.25 per square foot. TURI’s research concludes that artificial turf athletic fields can cost 2 to 10 times more than organically managed natural grass fields over their life cycles when accounting for installation fees, maintenance fees, and disposal and replacement fees at the end of an artificial turf’s lifecycle. Many sports facilities decide that the investment is worth it because artificial turf can extend playing time, and be used in any season or weather condition, including in snow. Conclusion Artificial turf has gained popularity, particularly in the increasingly arid West, as it conserves water used on outdoor landscapes and sports fields, among other reasons, like extending playing time for athletic activities. While artificial turf eliminates the need for pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers used on natural grass, it can have considerable drawbacks. Artificial turf can have unexpected negative impacts to water supplies including requiring watering for cooling on hot days and hindering groundwater recharge. The heat generated by artificial turf can increase urban heat island effect and cause heat- related injuries. To date, there are few sustainable options for artificial turf recycling, leading to stacks of discarded artificial turf building up the world over. In addition to the above issues, the chemicals and microplastic particles that make up artificial turf can leach into the environment, causing environmental and health impacts not yet entirely known. And, while many artificial turf companies tout the material as more cost-effective, cost comparisons with natural grass show that in some cases artificial turf is significantly more expensive. Better alternatives to artificial turf exist in the form of water wise landscaping, including drought-resistant and native species of grasses, trees, shrubs, and perennials. Water-wise landscaping can reduce irrigation water use significantly, with some native plants and grasses requiring no or very little supplemental irrigation. While water savings vary depending on what is installed, compared to cool season turf, water-wise plantings provide numerous other benefits such as pollinator habitat, reduced fertilizer and pesticide use, and groundwater recharge. As the West faces a hotter and drier future, we must continue to research and assess opportunities for reducing landscape water demand while maximizing benefits and minimizing negative consequences. For residential property owners seeking to be more water efficient or wanting lower maintenance landscaping, artificial turf is likely not the hoped-for solution due to costs and wide-ranging environmental and potential health impacts. From:Christopher C. Nixon To:Planning Public Comments; nannette@slcgov.com Cc:jan Nixon Subject:(EXTERNAL) Comment on Landscaping, Park Strip Changes to Code 21A.48 Date:Wednesday, April 26, 2023 12:25:04 PM Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. To Whom It May Concern, I just learned of this public comment opportunity through our neighborhood social media, not from city officials. Apparently, the first comment opportunity has come and gone with little publicity. Salt Lake City must try harder to not only save water, but also to provide the public with more chances to have a say in what we can do as individuals and neighbors. The water crisis is serious. City officials need to get serious, too. What Salt Lake City needs to do first is to stop all the water waste on park strips and adjoining properties. Every day in the summer, I see broken and badly adjusted sprinklers watering the street and sidewalks. I’ve received two citations from SLC Civil Enforcement wanting to penalize me for getting rid of park strip turf and putting in a water-wise, attractive rock garden. What is Civil Enforcement doing about the gutter rivers from the wastrels that are mismanaging their landscape and park strip water? Do city planners need water-wise residents to submit photos and addresses of these residential, commercial, and industrial wastrels across the city? I know neighbors who would like to have a say in this but also missed the opportunity. The city planning division should re-open the public comment period and have it properly noticed in the Deseret News and Salt Lake Tribune. KSL and KUER would air PSAs to let people know. Please get serious about the drought situation and bring the residents onboard to find solutions. Thank you. Jan Nixon Salt Lake City Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From:Margaret Holloway To:Larsen, Nannette Subject:(EXTERNAL) design presented on landscaping last night Date:Thursday, April 27, 2023 11:25:34 AM I see a design with a tree in the corner with mulch and drought bushes spotted around. The problem with mulch is that leaves that fall from the tree can not be raked or blown without removing the mulch with the leaves. So that is a problem I was going to put bark and mulch like this buyt my trees drop small leaves and large leaves during the year. WHich i saw before i did this new landscaping. So it sounds and looks good until the trees drop leaves. Margaret Holloway 1412 west 1100 north Salt Lake City, Utah Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From:Kyle Deans To:Larsen, Nannette Subject:(EXTERNAL) PC Date:Tuesday, May 16, 2023 12:41:42 PM Nannette, I am sending this in regards to the Landscaping and Buffers Amendments. I am in full support of anything that can help reduce the consumption of water by SLC residents, especially when it comes to non essential ornamental landscapes. Kyle Deans SLC Resident Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From: To:Larsen Nannette Cc:Planning Public Comments; City Council Liaisons; Gliot Tony; Subject:(EXTERNAL) Second Public Comment on 21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers Updates Date:Thursday, July 20, 2023 4:57:24 PM Attachments:West Side Street UHI Despite Park Strip Trees jpg Freshly Black Topped West Side Street UHI.jpg Public Comment Follow-Up to 21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers Updates From: Stanley Holmes 7-20-2023 Dear Salt Lake City Planning Division, As a follow-up to my 4-25-202 public comment [copied further below] urging the S.L.City Planning Commission to reject the proposed 21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers Updates, I submit the following inquiry along with suggestions for improvement of your Urban Forest Action Plan adopted Feb. 2023. First, the inquiry. Some residents have asked me whether the new park strips street tree requirement applies to park strips abutting existing homes as well as to new homes and remodeled homes. My responses have included references to the Salt Lake City Planning Division's ordinance revision proposal report that was submitted to the SLC Planning Commission on April 26, 2023, the day the Commission considered proposed Landscape and Buffers Chapter [21A.48] Amendments. That report included the Planning Commission Draft as Attachment B. My counsel to residents for whom the ordinance revision is unclear is that, as worded, the new park strips street tree requirement applies everyone, with few exceptions. I point to the following document components which, taken together, substantiate this: The 4-26-2023 document states that it is intended to "Specify responsibilities of the property owner." Applicability [21A.48.020] chapter provisions state that the ordinance "[A]pplies to all properties within the city, unless otherwise exempted in another chapter." Responsibility & Maintenance [21A.48.040] chapter provisions state that, with reference to park strips, "The owner of the property abutting the park strip shall be responsible for the correct installation, maintenance, repair, or replacement of all landscaping vegetation..." and include "Providing sufficient irrigation to a street tree located in the abutting park strip." That section proceeds to list multiple requirements for irrigation systems. The Landscape Plan chapter, 21A.48.050, indicates that a landscape plan is only required for "[New] construction of a primary structure" and alterations to an [existing] property that increase the floor area by 50% or more. The next chapter, Landscape Requirements [21A.48.060], however, makes no distinction between properties requiring a landscape plan and those that do not, when it states that "Where there are conflicting standards in this chapter, the more restrictive requirements shall apply." Park Strip Standards include "Minimum of 1 street tree..." and, for overall vegetation, "Minimum 33% coverage." The General Standards chapter, 21A.48.080, states that "All landscape improvements in the required landscape locations, as described in 21A.48.060 and 21A.48.70 shall meet the regulations described in this section." Under the chapter's Specific Park Strip Standards section, the Street Trees:Substitutions rule is that the Urban Forester "may approve a substitute of the required street tree provision for a cash in lieu payment..." In the Key Considerations section, under Consideration 2, the SLC Planning Division's 4-26-2023 document references its Urban Forest Action Plan, then concludes that the proposed landscaping chapter will include the requirement that "[S]treet trees are required in every park strip depending on the length of the park strip." [Attachment A, Water Conservation and Landscaping Regulations Council Briefing Report, includes specific observations and recommendations in its Water Conservation and Landscaping Regulations. It acknowledges that "property owners are not aware" of landscape zoning rules and criticizes the current landscape chapter's "lack of clarity" and consequent problems that include resident violations and subsequent [civil] enforcement actions. My takeaway is that the Division has identified a problem, but not corrected it.] Looking again at the Planning Commission Draft: The first textual content specifying applicability to new construction does not occur until chapter 21A.48.050, Landscape Plan, where it states that such a plan shall be required for new construction and modification of an existing property's floor plan by 50% or more. Up to that point, the revision suggests that requirements apply to all residences...with a few exceptions. Prior to 21A.48.050 we have: ~ 21A.48.020: Applicability... "The provisions of this chapter apply to all properties within the city, unless otherwise exempted..." ~ 21A.48.040: Responsibility and Maintenance ... "The owner of the property abutting the park strip shall be responsible for...all landscaping vegetation." "Providing sufficient irrigation to a street tree located in the abutting park strip." "shall provide water adequately and efficiently to each street tree..." Then, in 21A.48.060 under Park Strip Standards, the document sets a minimum of one street tree per park strip and a minimum 33% vegetation. No distinction is made between existing properties and those requiring a landscape plan. If the Commission intended to exempt existing properties, it should have stated that. I therefore conclude that the SLC Planning Division document fails to convince me that the revised ordinance requirements would only apply to new projects or non-residential landscape sites. While there are separate chapters in the Division and Commission portions of document that apply to new projects and changes to existing residential property floor plans, and there are later chapters citing variations for certain areas, such as the Northwest Quadrant, there are no residential park strip requirement waivers or exemptions specified in prior chapters. Nor is it stated in introductory sections, such as Project Description or later in Purpose & Intent, that the ordinance update does not apply to most existing residential properties. General applicability of the park strip street tree requirement should have been clearly stated up front, but was not. Since the proposed ordinance update is not clear about all who would be subjected to the new park strip street tree requirement, my counsel is that SLC residents whose park strips have no trees should assume they will be required to make changes if the Commission-approved ordinance update is adopted by the Salt Lake City Council. What would you say to SLC residents who feel threatened by the proposed ordinance update? Finally: Some comments on the Urban Forest Action Plan (UFAP)… Inasmuch as the City is concerned about the urban heat island (UHI) effects of <33% vegetation covered park strips, and is focusing on irrigated park strip street trees as a solution, I am surprised that the UFAP lacks details about the UHI of super-wide residential streets, especially on the West Side. For example, 1100 West and 400 North are 77 feet wide. That's the width of seven or eight car lanes…all imposing intense UHI effects and trying-to- stay-cool cost burdens on economically vulnerable families. The only [passing] reference to the option of street trees median strips is a sketch on page 76. There's no discussion of the functionality of street trees median strips, which could be quite useful in reducing UHI on wide residential streets. I have attached to this comment the photo of a West Side street block whose park strips are full of trees. Notice the huge area of exposed street pavement still drawing and radiating heat. Another attached photo shows a recently black-topped street. Why is the City still coating streets with black when lighter alternatives are available? There are other cost-burden, mitigation responsibility, and water conservation topics that should inform improvements to the Urban Forest Action Plan and the revision of city ordinance 21A.48 prior to the City Council's scheduling of public hearings and its final vote. Thank you for your attention to questions and suggestions raised in this, my second, public comment to the City regarding plans, policies, and programs to address climate change impacts that threaten our quality of life. And please let me know when any potential revisions are available to the public prior to City Council hearings. Thanks. Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Stanley Holmes 846 N. East Capitol Blvd. Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Quoting "Larsen, Nannette" <Nannette.Larsen@slcgov.com>: Stanley, Thank you for your comments. I will forward them to the Planning Commission for commission members to view before the public hearing tomorrow. Best, NANNETTE LARSEN | (She/Her) Senior Planner PLANNING DIVISION | SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION Mobile: (801) 535-7645 Email: Nannette.Larsen@slcgov.com WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING WWW.SLC.GOV From: Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 12:52 PM To: Larsen, Nannette <Nannette.Larsen@slcgov.com>; Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com> Cc: Wharton, Chris <Chris.Wharton@slcgov.com>; City Council Liaisons <City.Council.Liaisons@slcgov.com>; slcgreen <slcgreen@slcgov.com> Subject: (EXTERNAL) Public Comment on Petition PLNPCM2023-00098 - 21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers Updates Public Comment on Petition PLNPCM2023-00098 - 21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers Updates From: Stanley Holmes 4-25-2023 Dear Salt Lake City Planning Commission, I urge you to reject the proposed ordinance rewrite of 21A Zoning that was submitted as Petition PLNPCM2023-00098 - "21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers Updates" as flawed and problematic on several fronts. The set of proposed amendments to Title 21A Zoning should be remanded back to Salt Lake City's Planning Division ("Division") for revision and a new, more appropriately noticed 45- day public comment period to be opened by the Division before a corrected set of proposed Title 21A Zoning amendments is brought before the Planning Commission ("Commission"). The proposed changes to Title 21A Zoning Chapter 48 under consideration now would have significant, wide-ranging, and costly impacts for many Salt Lake City ("City") property owners of various means and for all city taxpayers. That the Division would rely primarily on community council chairs to, at their individual discretion and in a timely manner, notify the general public of statutory/regulatory changes of this scope and magnitude can be most graciously characterized as cavalier. Division records indicate that only four comments were received during the 45-day comment period and that Sugarhouse C.C. was the only community council to actively engage. I learned from city staff that the Division’s notification system had been used, but found that there are no water conservation, landscaping, energy conservation, environment, or other sustainability categories listed. Through which category did the Division send the landscaping code updates notice; and how many city residents actually get notices through that means? Please be advised, and let the public record show, that on April 20, 2023, I posted on the community blog --Nextdoor.com-- information about the proposed Title 21A Zoning changes and ways that interested citizens could submit public comments. Over the next five days, Nextdoor.com reported 1,400 views and there were 48 public comments. Please see evidence of this included with the Addendum at the close of my comment and attached. Those folks on Nextdoor.com were Salt Lake City residents who missed the initial comment period that ended on March 27th and, quite likely, also did not know about your April 26 Planning Commission meeting or their opportunities to submit public comments before the zoning/ordinance changes had become a ‘done deal.’ Outrageous. I am also quite surprised and disappointed that there was no input from the Sustainability Department, and wonder how their input was solicited. SLCGreen is copied on this comment, as are my District 3 Councilman Chris Wharton and the City Council Liaisons. City officials should have known that not every community council would post or distribute the notice. Not every potentially interested and impacted citizen is on a community council distribution list or regularly checks a community council's website. One might wonder to what extent the Division was truly desirous of robust public input, having solicited comments by such a narrow and undependable means. The Commission should insist upon a proper re-do of the public comment period and extend its further consideration of any Title 21A Zoning Chapter 48 amendments until legitimate opportunities for public input have occurred. The proposed Petition PLNPCM2023-00098 - "21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers Updates" are themselves in several ways inadequate and problematic. Their 'as is' endorsement by the Commission and the City Council would, upon attempted implementation and enforcement by the City, certainly result in strong opposition that would include costly litigation. Please recall that the most recent revision of 21A.48 was in the year 2000, prior to over two decades of climate change-exacerbated heat increases and drought that finally prompted state and local officials to take action. The updates now under consideration were supposed to deal more effectively with the climate change-related impacts. Let me begin with the proposed re-write of 21A.48.010, the Purpose and Intent section. While the earlier version calls for promoting "the prudent use of water", the update would remove this and make no mention of water conservation as a priority. The lead "purpose" of a revised chapter 21A.48 would be to "increase Salt Lake City's urban tree canopy"; and the lead "intent" would be to "promote and enhance the community's appearance." While trees are nice, useful, and can be aesthetically pleasing, the City is located in the second driest U.S. state and is experiencing an unprecedented, worsening drought. Water conservation should not only have been mentioned in the proposed re-write of 21A.48.010, but been listed as a priority goal, as has been done by other Utah municipalities. Why was this not done? Under the current zoning ordinance, Section 21A.48.060 refers to Park Strip Landscaping and one of the "intent" items is to "encourage water conservation". But the proposed re-write (update) would change the title of 21A.48.060 to "Landscape Requirements" and remove the water conservation reference. The re-write of 21A.48.060 has a new "Park Strip Standards" section that adds the requirement of at least one "street tree" in the park strip. Additional park strip trees would be required, depending on the park strip length. The current ordinance has no park strip tree requirement. Therefore, residents who've implemented water-wise park strip measures --in compliance with the existing ordinance -- that do not include at least one street tree would be required to add a tree and, according to the 21A.48.040 re-write, see that it is "irrigated with a permanent automatic irrigation system." A hydrozoned irrigation system would be required, so that tree(s) watering can be isolated from any water needed for other vegetation. The park strip abutting property owner would have to pay for the new park strip tree-plus-irrigation requirement. That could be quite costly, especially if the park strip has to be excavated to install the required irrigation system. The Commission should assume that some residents will be unable to afford this and that others who had been compliant would rather fight the compliance rules change in court. Please consider the burden on low-income families, especially if the $25-per-day violation fine is retained. The Commission should also consider that the City's Department of Community and Neighborhood's Civil Enforcement staff would have to be expanded and that additional budgetary provisions would have to be made for the City's legal team. Litigation could delay implementation and enforcement of parts or all of the proposed 21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers Updates for an extended period of time. And aside from pushback from angry residents delaying implementation of the proposed ordinance updates, the sheer magnitude of any effort to achieve widespread compliance should sober city planners and policy-makers. Have Division staff conducted a city-wide, on-street survey of the number of park strips that would require tree-planting and new irrigation plumbing? Have they calculated how many contractors, and how many years, would be required to accomplish full implementation? Then, there's the additional per-tree water requirement times however many park strips would be affected. At this point, I'll add that there are some positive aspects of the proposed ordinance re-write, such as 21A.48.040.E.1., which says that "All irrigation systems shall be maintained in good operating condition to eliminate water waste and run-off into the public right-of-way." Drip irrigation is also mentioned in 21A.48.040.E, though it could have been promoted. Some of the proposed re-write items are not clear. For example, 21A.48.040.C.2. "Exceptions" circles back to itself. And under 21A.62 "Definitions", the Park Strip Landscaping section says that park strip landscaping may include "lawn", which is normally a reference to turf. The re-write, under 21A.48.060 and 21A.48.080, prohibits turf in park strips. There is also a reference to the right-of-way line's relevance if there is no sidewalk, but the dimensions of the right-of-way line are not given. As a final point to this comment, it concerns me that the City Planning Division failed to take a holistic view of the abutting residential property owner's landscape unless a new home is being constructed or the floor area of an existing structure(s) is being expanded by 50% or more. The overall vegetative contribution of individual residential properties that are not undergoing structural change is ignored by the proposed 21A Zoning rewrite's determination of compliance or non- compliance with new park strip requirements. I can imagine situations where the owner of a well- wooded, well-vegetated residential property is forced to install and water a park strip tree while the owner of a minimally vegetated property who happens to have a tree in the park strip is left alone. Where is the environmental justice in that? Salt Lake City needs to do a better job of conserving water. The proposed amendments to Title 21A Zoning are inadequate to the task, as they do not give water conservation the top priority status our current megadrought crisis demands. I urge the Commission to deny Petition PLNPCM2023-00098 - "21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers Updates" and send it back to the Division for revision and a properly noticed, 45-day public review and comment period. I thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration of the points I raised and your directive to have the ordinance revised in a more transparent way that better engages the public and serves the City's best interests. Stanley Holmes 846 N. East Capitol Blvd. Salt Lake City, UT 84103 Addendum: My attempt to use Nextdoor.com to notify the public of proposed 21A.48 changes, first posted on April 20, 2023, is copied below. In five days, 1,400 views and 48 resident comments. The Planning Division got 4 public comments in 45 days. Stan Holmes Author •West Capitol Hills•0 mi SLC Park Strip, Landscape Policy Changes Public comments are being taken by the Salt Lake City Planning Division and Planning Commission as they consider city-wide changes to the Landscaping Chapter of the Zoning Code. This includes proposed revision of the Park Strip ordinance under which many city residents have been penalized for their water conservation efforts. The proposed Park Strip policy revision would require one "street tree" every 30 feet and vegetation covering at least 30% of the area. See all proposed amendments at... www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Online%20Open%20Houses/2023/02_2023/PLNPCM2023- 00098/02102023%20DRAFT%20Landscaping%20Updates_Posted.pdf The Planning Commission will consider landscape/park strip ordinance changes at its April 26 meeting. Public comments can be submitted in-person or via email to and . Reference case number PLNPCM2023-00098 in the subject line. The agenda for next Wednesday's (April 26) Planning Commission meeting is at... www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2023/PC04.26.2023/PC04.26.2023agenda.pdf Whatever the Planning Commission decides will then be presented to the City Council for final approval. Now is the time to shift from opinion to action and file a public comment. Stan Holmes Author •West Capitol Hills•0 mi The email addresses that were stripped are planning.comments and nannette.larsen that are both at slc.gov. They are also listed in the April 26 agenda at... www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2023/PC04.26.2023/PC04.26.2023agenda.pdf also attached: 5)PUBLIC UTILITIES DIRECTOR STATEMENT From:Briefer, Laura To:Larsen, Nannette Cc:Thompson, Amy; Bench, Nikole; Rice, Marian; Duer, Stephanie; Draper, Jason Subject:RE: Landscaping Chapter Planning Commission Public Hearing Tonight Date:Wednesday, April 26, 2023 1:02:05 PM Attachments:image002.png image003.png Good afternoon, Nannette – please let me know if this will be useful tonight for the questions concerning artificial turf– see below: Artificial turf has the potential to impact water quality and stormwater runoff in the following ways: 1.The combination of soil compaction in the installation of artificial turf and the material that is used does not allow water to be retained onsite. As such, this is considered an impermeable surface. This contributes to additional stormwater runoff from a site, which can have negative downstream impacts, such as flashier and increased stormwater flows. 2.As stormwater flows across impermeable surfaces it picks up and carries pollutants that get deposited in receiving water bodies, such as the Jordan River and streams that flow through our city. All stormwater that flows through Salt Lake City ultimately heads toward Great Salt Lake. 3.Pollutants of concern that can emanate directly from artificial turf include micro-plastics and PFAS compounds (https://www.epa.gov/pfas/pfas-explained). PFAS compounds are “forever chemicals” that pose health risks to people and animals. It is unclear whether all artificial turf contains PFAS compounds, but there is evidence that at least some of it does. To our knowledge, it is not currently tested and certified regarding the presence or absence of PFAS. Microplastics also pose health risks to people and animals. Both PFAS and microplastics are ubiquitous in the environment, and there is much concern nationally and globally about this pollution. 4.Artificial turf also needs to be washed periodically, which could contribute runoff that contains cleaning chemicals. Pet feces needs to be removed from artificial turf, and pathogens from pet feces could be introduced into stormwater during cleaning. Regulatory and health considerations with respect to PFAS compounds: Salt Lake City Public Utilities is obligated to comply with drinking water and clean water regulations promulgated by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and enforced by both the Utah Department of Environmental Quality and the EPA. The EPA is prioritizing the regulation of PFAS in drinking water and in cradle to grave hazardous materials regulations (https://www.epa.gov/pfas/key-epa-actions- address- pfas#:~:text=On%20August%2026%2C%202022%2C%20EPA,for%20cleaning%20up%20their%20c ontamination). In March 2023, EPA proposed new very stringent regulations for six PFAS compounds with a proposed maximum contaminant level of four (4) parts per trillion, showcasing that EPA is extremely concerned about the health risks associated with PFAS in drinking water. The EPA is also considering new regulations under the Clean Water Act which would affect stormwater and wastewater discharges. Finally, EPA is considering new PFAS regulations under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, also known as Superfund). This primarily impacts environmental remediation for PFAS-contaminated soil and water, and there is some concern about the potential long thread of liability associated with PFAS contamination. Please let me know if you have any further questions. I have added Jason and Stephanie to this email thread too. LAURA BRIEFER, MPA | (She/Her/Hers) DIRECTOR Department of Public Utilities | Salt Lake City Corporation Office: (801) 483-6741 Cell: (385) 252-9379 Email: Laura.Briefer@slcgov.com www.slc.gov/utilities www.slc.gov Signature: Email: Alejandro Sanchez (Dec 4, 2023 13:15 MST) alejandro.sanchez@slcgov.com 11152023 Transmittal FINAL Final Audit Report 2023-12-04 Created:2023-11-27 By:Aubrey Clark (aubrey.clark@slcgov.com) Status:Signed Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAA0PzvbpGjNz77WUcjaXmTX2mPGTprNRHF "11152023 Transmittal FINAL" History Document created by Aubrey Clark (aubrey.clark@slcgov.com) 2023-11-27 - 6:43:40 PM GMT Document emailed to Blake Thomas (blake.thomas@slcgov.com) for signature 2023-11-27 - 6:46:21 PM GMT Email viewed by Blake Thomas (blake.thomas@slcgov.com) 2023-11-27 - 6:54:35 PM GMT Document e-signed by Blake Thomas (blake.thomas@slcgov.com) Signature Date: 2023-11-27 - 8:29:54 PM GMT - Time Source: server Document emailed to Alejandro Sanchez (alejandro.sanchez@slcgov.com) for signature 2023-11-27 - 8:29:57 PM GMT Email viewed by Alejandro Sanchez (alejandro.sanchez@slcgov.com) 2023-11-27 - 8:31:28 PM GMT New document URL requested by Blake Thomas (blake.thomas@slcgov.com) 2023-12-04 - 8:11:11 PM GMT Document e-signed by Alejandro Sanchez (alejandro.sanchez@slcgov.com) Signature Date: 2023-12-04 - 8:15:44 PM GMT - Time Source: server Document emailed to rachel otto (rachel.otto@slcgov.com) for signature 2023-12-04 - 8:15:48 PM GMT Email viewed by rachel otto (rachel.otto@slcgov.com) 2023-12-04 - 10:33:18 PM GMT Document e-signed by rachel otto (rachel.otto@slcgov.com) Signature Date: 2023-12-04 - 10:34:11 PM GMT - Time Source: server Agreement completed. 2023-12-04 - 10:34:11 PM GMT 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: Jennifer Bruno & Allison Rowland Budget & Policy Analysts DATE:February 6, 2024 RE: RESOLUTION: UNIVERSITY OF UTAH BASEBALL STADIUM PUBLIC BENEFITS ANALYSIS ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will be briefed on a public benefit analysis conducted by Salt Lake City that would allow the University of Utah to lease approximately 1.175 acres of City-owned land at a below-market rate and term for 99 years. The land is located at approximately 1735 Sunnyside Avenue and is currently used for a softball field and a multipurpose field at Sunnyside Park. The University requested this lease to facilitate expansion of its baseball playing field to meet National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) requirements. The University has stated that this lease would enable sufficient expansion of the baseball playing field to avoid the need to construct undesirable elements, such as a 35-foot wall between the western boundary of Sunnyside Park and the ballfield. The Administration believes the benefits from an expanded ballpark, which would be available to the public when not in use by the University teams (pending negotiations), combined with a $4.2 million contribution from the University for new amenities at Sunnyside Park, would be sufficient to ensure that the proposed agreement represents an overall benefit for the public. The Administration is recommending that the Council approve the public benefits analysis, as it believes the agreement is in the long-term interest of the City. A public hearing on this item will be scheduled for February 20, 2024. Goal of the briefing: Review the public benefit analysis and, after a public hearing, consider adopting a resolution which would authorize the below-market ground lease rate and term to the University of Utah. Item Schedule: Briefing: February 6, 2024 Public Hearing: February 20 Potential Action: TBD Page | 2 Proposed Leased Area and New University Ballfield Design Page | 3 Note: The above image is a concept rendering used to explore options and make cost estimates. Results from the City’s forthcoming community engagement process may change this design substantially. Page | 4 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND BACKGROUND A.Lease Term. The proposed lease term is $1 per year for a 99-year term. The 2023 fair market value of the property was assessed at $0.68 per square foot, for a total of $434,279. B.The Public Benefits Analysis. 1.Legal Framework. Under Utah Code 10-8-2 (1)(a)(v), after first holding a public hearing, a municipality may “authorize municipal services or other nonmonetary assistance to be provided to a nonprofit entity, whether or not the municipality receives consideration in return.” The University of Utah qualifies as a nonprofit entity. The Council will consider scheduling a public hearing on this potential agreement for February 20, 2024. 2.Public Benefits Identified. The University has already decided to build this new stadium. The only question for the City is whether the benefits of the proposed below-market ground lease of adjacent property outweigh the alternatives, which would include the installation of a 35-foot high wall on University property. The Administration’s Public Benefits Analysis found that such a wall would obstruct existing sight lines in Sunnyside Park that provide natural surveillance and improve park safety. The specific public benefits from allowing the University to build a ballpark with an outfield that would extend onto City-owned property in Sunnyside Park are summarized below. a. A $4.2 million contribution from the University for new amenities at Sunnyside Park (and potentially relocating softball fields). b. Potentially, when not in use by University teams (subject to negotiation): i. allowing the City to program a multi-use field within the future ballpark; ii. allowing City and public access to a portion of the leased acreage, including a proposed berm and other landscape features; and, iii. allowing City and public access to amenities like bathrooms and concessions maintained by the University and located inside the future ballpark. c. Promoting the City’s reasonable goals and objectives as set forth in the SLC Public Lands Master Plan, Reimagine Nature. These include: i. Expanding the amenities in Sunnyside Park to allow it to support more users and uses, including, potentially, additional active programming that brings people out for art, events, programs, recreation, and community. ii. Leveraging resources to make the public space more usable for both the public and the University while preserving the open space and use of Sunnyside Park. iii. Expanding the usable area in Sunnyside Park, provided that the University agrees to allow public access onto portions of the University property for recreational purposes. 3.City Code Relating to Open Space Inventory. Leasing this part of the park property for use as a baseball facility would comply with City Ordinance 2.90.070 (C), since it would continue to be “in accordance with [its] intended use.” For this reason, the lease does not trigger the legal process that includes extended public notice for this proposed disposition of open space. POLICY QUESTIONS Page | 5 1. The Council may wish to discuss options to provide replacement softball fields with lighting, given that the existing fields at Sunnyside are heavily used by recreation-level leagues. a. The Council could discuss potential funding sources with the Administration. The Administration has estimated that if a lighted softball field is constructed on City land, it could cost approximately $1.5 million. There is a cost efficiency in building two ($2.5 million), and additional parking would cost approximately $750,000. b. Vacant City land exists that could host additional softball fields. The Council could also ask Public Lands if there are any other softball fields in its inventory where lights could be added, to ensure users of Sunnyside Park softball fields have access to fields on the same basis as they do currently. The Administration has indicated that they have a submitted a CIP application for additional soccer fields at the RAC, and softball could be added to that project or funded separately. c. Staff note: The original proposal for the Regional Athletic Complex (RAC) included several lighted softball and baseball fields, but these were ultimately not constructed due to cost constraints. d. The Council could ask the Administration if impact fees are eligible to use for enhanced amenities at Sunnyside park, which could free up funds from the University to use towards replacing the softball fields. 2. The Chair of the Yalecrest Community Council submitted a communication to the Council expressing opposition to the proposal (attached). See item B3 above as it relates to the assertion that this action violates 2.90.070 Removal Of Lands From The Open Space Lands Inventory of the City code. 3. The Council may wish to ask the Administration about the timeline for the University’s stadium construction. 4. The Council may wish to ask the Administration how programming and activities are proposed to be managed at the ballpark to minimize impacts on neighboring residential areas and wildlife that use the area. 5. The Council has authorized significant expansion to the Public Lands Department in recent years, both to provide the basic staffing needed by e new department, and to help ensure timely and efficient use of the $85 million bond which was approved by voters in late 2022. Would the Council like to request additional information on how Public Lands could accommodate another large project into its existing queue? From: Jan Hemming <hemmingjan@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2024 9:05 AM To: Mayor <mayor@slcgov.com> Cc: Mano, Darin <darin.mano@slcgov.com>; Dugan, Dan <Daniel.Dugan@slcgov.com>; Petro, Victoria <Victoria.Petro@slcgov.com>; Puy, Alejandro <alejandro.puy@slcgov.com>; Lopez Chavez, Eva <eva.lopez@slcgov.com>; Wharton, Chris <chris.wharton@slcgov.com>; Young, Sarah <sarah.young@slcgov.com>; Ballpark <amy.j.hawkins@gmail.com>; Anthony Wright <anthonywright13@gmail.com>; David Leta HRC <david.leta@gmail.com>; East Central <eastcentralcommunity@gmail.com>; Bonneville Hills <ellenred@comcast.net>; Kimball Young <kimball.young@gmail.com>; Shelby Herrod <shelbyherrod@yahoo.com>; Mary O’Connell <fishgal58@gmail.com>; Robin Carbaugh <robin@carbaughassociates.com>; KEEPYalecrest <lkpershing@gmail.com>; James Webster <jwalandscape@gmail.com>; Stuart Bevan <stuart.bevan@gmail.com>; Eric Povilus <eric_povilus@msn.com>; Jennifer Evans <jenniferevans1522@gmail.com>; Marguerite Henderson <margueriteh100@hotmail.com>; Timothy Ermish <timothyermish@gmail.com>; Eric Dyer <eric.miles.dyer@gmail.com> Subject: (EXTERNAL) Re: Meeting with Yalecrest Neighborhood Council re: U baseball stadium Mayor Mendenhall: One correction to my previous email. The city owns Smith’s Ballpark and the LHM Company has a lease agreement. This certainly affects the dynamics of the situation but it may give the city more leverage to explore creative ways to address these baseball-related impacts on two neighborhood communities. Jan On Jan 24, 2024, at 5:34 PM, Jan Hemming <hemmingjan@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Mayor Mendenhall: The Yalecrest Neighborhood Council is appreciative of your emphasis on public parks and their place and necessity in the fabric of a healthy city. We commend you for your vision to promote and win approval for the $85 million GO bond that will fund new parks and rehabilitate older ones. We are especially appreciative of your firm stance — on at least three previous occasions — to decline requests from the University of Utah to lease, sell, gift or transfer land in Sunnyside Park to the U for their use as part of a new, proposed collegiate baseball stadium. However, it has come to our attention that the University of Utah will pay the city $4.2 million to lease a sizable portion of Sunnyside Park property for a new baseball stadium. We understand the land deal is imminent. If approved, the public will lose precious open space in the park — a major existing baseball field, a lacrosse field, mature trees and portions of an existing soccer field. When not in use by athletic teams, these spaces are popular places for dog walkers, runners, casual park visitors, informal sporting organizations, and all who cherish our diminishing green spaces on the East Side. We vehemently oppose this land transaction. Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. •It contradicts the intent and spirit of the East Bench Master Plan. •It ignores community and public opinion. •It breaks a promise the U gave the Yalecrest Neighborhood Council in 2018 that it would never build a baseball stadium on the baseball practice field property. •It dismisses the reality of thousands of students who will occupy new housing units along Sunnyside Avenue (some built; some under construction) with pent-up needs to use Open Space in Sunnyside Park. •It dismisses the fact that the proposed collegiate baseball stadium doesn’t fit the small practice field and should never be located there. The alternative to this land transaction is a monster 35- 40 foot wall in left field which we’ve heard that even Layton Construction company thinks is ill- advised from an engineering standpoint. •It violates Salt Lake City Code 21A that relates to Open Spaces, specifically, 2.90.070 (Removal of lands from Open Space inventory) which requires the mayor to “explain why the proposed sale or transfer is in the best interests of the city” in writing; “hold a public hearing before the mayor and the City Council;” "provide adequate public notice of the proposed sale or transfer;” provide a myriad of public notifications through mailers to nearby property owners, published declarations, and public signs;” and prevents the sale or transfer of public lands prior to the six month period following a public hearing. We respectively ask the city to adhere to its own laws governing open space transactions. We also respectfully ask the city to postpone any deal with the university until: 1. Immediate disclosure of the proposed land deal — in the spirit of government transparency. 2. A meeting with the city, impacted neighborhood councils and interested community residents. 3. A transparent public engagement process. 4. Compliance with all city codes pertaining to the sale or transfer of public Open Space land, which includes a public hearing and a six month waiting period. With recent news that the Oakland As is interested in using the new professional baseball stadium in Daybreak under construction by the Larry H. Miller Company — which owns Smith's Ballpark where the U has played baseball for years — it seems prudent to pump the brakes on any imminent transaction. This could lead to the Salt Lake Bees and University of Utah having use of Smith’s Ballpark for three more years — and give the U additional time to find a more suitable location. In other words, a win-win. This is a time sensitive and urgent matter. Please let us know when you would be able to meet with us along with several concerned community councils and affected residents. Respectfully, Janet (Jan) Hemming Chair Yalecrest Neighborhood Council cc: Amy Hawkins, Chair, Ballpark Community Council Anthony Wright and David Leta, Chair and Vice Chair, East Bench Community Council Esther Hunter, Chair, East Central Community Council Ian Arnold, Chair, Wasatch Hollow Community Council Ellen Reddick, Chair, Bonneville Hills Community Council Kimball Young, Chair, Foothill-Sunnyside Community Council Shelby Herrod, Chair, Sunnyside East Association Mary O’Connell, Friends of Sunnyside Park Robin Carbaugh, Lynn Pershing and Jim Webster, former YNC chairs MARY BETH THOMPSON Finance Director ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE POLICY AND BUDGET DIVISION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 238 PO BOX 145467, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5455 TEL 801-535-6394 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received: ___________ Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: ___________ ____________________________________________ ____________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: January 23, 2024 Victoria Petro FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer Katherine Lewis, City Attorney SUBJECT: Authorizing a below-market ground lease for the University of Utah for approximately 1.175 acres of Salt Lake City owned property that would allow the University to expand its baseball playing field to meet the NCAA requirements for a competition field. The ground lease will be structured to require a $1.00 per year payment over a 99-year lease term: Public Benefit Analysis under Utah Code Section 10-8-2. SPONSOR: NA STAFF CONTACT: Kimberly Chytraus, City Attorney (801) 535-7685 Kristin Riker, Director of Parks and Public Lands Department Randy Hillier, Policy and Budget Analyst (801) 535-6606, DOCUMENT TYPE: Public Benefits Analysis and Recommendation RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Salt Lake City Council approve a below- market ground lease of 1.175 acres of Salt Lake City owned property at approximately 1735 Sunnyside Avenue to the University of Utah to facilitate the expansion of the University’s baseball playing field to meet NCAA requirements for a competition field. Expanding the property on which the field is built will allow the design to avoid undesirable elements such as the need for a 35-foot wall between the ballfield and the western boundary of Sunnyside Park. Under the proposed ground lease between the City and the University, the City will maintain ownership of the Leased Area. The ground lease will be structured to require a $1.00 per year payment over the 99-year lease term. The ground lease will require that the Leased Area be used solely for recreational and baseball field purposes, with defined access to the public. The 2023 lease value of the City Property is approximately $0.68/square foot, based on the assessed value. Katherine Lewis (Jan 23, 2024 17:25 MST) April Patterson (Jan 23, 2024 18:06 MST) April Patterson rachel otto (Jan 23, 2024 18:22 MST) 01/23/2024 01/23/2024 The lease would impact an existing city-owned softball field and multi-purpose field located at Sunnyside Park; however, the expanded ballfield could provide certain benefits to the public and users of Sunnyside Park, including field use and access to additional amenities. BUDGET IMPACT: NA BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing RESOLUTION NO. _____ OF 2024 (Authorizing Ground Lease Rate and Term to The University of Utah) WHEREAS, the University of Utah (“University”) owns real property adjacent to Sunnyside Park where its practice baseball field is located. The University is designing a new ballpark to serve the University’s baseball program and meet the practice and competition needs of the program (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the University desires to ground lease from the City a portion consisting of 1.175 acres of the City’s property on 1735 Sunnyside Avenue, Salt Lake City, and designated as Sunnyside Park (the “Leased Area”) to allow the University to expand the outfield of the baseball field to meet National Collegiate Athletics Association requirements; and WHEREAS, the City is willing to grant to the University a ground lease rate for the Leased Area in the amount of $1.00 per year for a term of 99 years, so long as the conditions of the ground lease are met (the “Lease Fee Waiver”); and WHEREAS, Utah Code Section 10-8-2(1)(a)(i) allows public entities to provide nonmonetary assistance and waive fees to and for nonprofit entities after a public hearing; and WHEREAS, though Utah Code Section 10-8-2 does not require a study for such waiver or assistance, in this case the Administration voluntarily performed an analysis of the nonmonetary assistance to the nonprofit corporation (the “Analysis”); and WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted a public hearing relating to the foregoing, in satisfaction of the requirements of Utah Code Section 10-8-2; and WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed the Analysis, and has fully considered the conclusions set forth therein, and all comments made during the public hearing. 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: 1. The City Council hereby adopts the conclusions set forth in the Analysis, and hereby finds and determines that, for all the reasons set forth in the Analysis, the Lease Fee Waiver is appropriate under these circumstances. 2. The City Council hereby authorizes the City administration to negotiate the ground lease on the conditions set forth in the Analysis, or on more terms beneficial to the City, and execute the ground lease and any other relevant documents consistent with this Resolution and incorporating such other terms and agreements as recommended by the City Attorney’s office. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, on _________, 2024. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By: ______________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ____________________________ CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM: Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office By: ___________________________ Kimberly Chytraus, Senior City Attorney 1 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council Members SUBJECT: Informal Analysis of Public Benefits Provided by The University of Utah Baseball Field Expansion in Exchange for a Below-market Ground Lease of Property DATE: January 23, 2024 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Salt Lake City (the “City”) owns real property located at approximately 1735 Sunnyside Avenue, Salt Lake City, consisting of approximately 27.5 acres and designated as Sunnyside Park (the “City Property”). The University of Utah (the “University”)owns the property adjacent to the City Property to the northwest on Guardsman Way where its practice baseball field is located. The University is designing a new ballpark to serve the University’s baseball program and meet the practice and competition needs of the program by expanding the ballpark outfield (the “Project”). The redesign is necessitated by the loss of access to Smith’s Ballpark, which has been the historic home for University of Utah Baseball. The new ballpark must also meet the National Collegiate Athletics Association requirements for a competition field, which would result in the design incorporating several less desirable elements due to the existing site constraints, including a 35-foot wall between the ballfield and the western boundary of Sunnyside Park and no setback from Guardsman Way. To mitigate the less desirable design elements on the site, the University has requested, and the City administration desires, to ground lease a portion of the City Property to the University to expand the outfield of the baseball field, in the approximate amount of 1.175 acres (the “Leased Area”), depicted on Exhibit A attached hereto. Attached as Exhibit B are (1) a depiction of the current Sunnyside Park layout, and (2) the University’s conceptual plan for the rebuild baseball field and Sunnyside Park amenities (the “University Concept Plan”). The lease would impact an existing softball field and a multi-purpose field at Sunnyside Park. However, the expanded ballfield could provide certain benefits to the public and users of Sunnyside Park, including field use and access to additional amenities. In addition, granting a ground lease would allow the ballpark to have a reasonable non-buildable setback from Guardsman Way and would eliminate the need for the 35-foot wall between the ballfield and the western boundary of Sunnyside Park. LEGAL FRAMEWORK Under Utah law, after first holding a public hearing, a municipality may “authorize municipal services or other nonmonetary assistance to be provided to a nonprofit entity, whether or not the municipality receives consideration in return.” Utah Code §10-8-2(1)(a)(v). Because the University is a nonprofit entity, the City may waive the fair-market rental rates it would ordinarily be required to receive for use of the City Property so long as the municipal legislative body first holds a public hearing regarding the waiver and authorizes the Administration to enter into the ground lease at the below-market lease rate. 2 Utah Code §10-8-2(3) outlines the purposes for which a municipal body may appropriate funds as “for any purpose that, in the judgment of the municipal legislative body, provides for the safety, health, prosperity, moral well-being, peace, order, comfort, or convenience of the inhabitants of the municipality.” The factors that must be considered in determining the propriety of such an appropriation or waiver if made to any type of entity or individual other than a nonprofit entity are set forth under Utah Code §10-8-2(3)(e). Here, it may be helpful to consider the same factors: (1) The specific benefits (including intangible benefits) to be received by the City in return for the arrangement; (2) The City’s purpose in making the appropriation, including an analysis of how the safety, health, prosperity, moral well-being, peace, order, comfort, or convenience of the residents of Salt Lake City will be enhanced; and (3) Whether the appropriation is “necessary and appropriate” to accomplish the reasonable goals and objectives of the City in the area of economic development, job creation, affordable housing, blight elimination, resource center development, job preservation, the preservation of historic structures and property, and any other public purpose (emphasis added). TERMS OF THE GROUND LEASE AND PUBLIC BENEFITS PROVIDED I. Terms of Ground Lease; Costs to the City Under the proposed ground lease between the City and the University, the City will maintain ownership of the Leased Area. The ground lease will be structured to require a $1.00 per year payment over the 99-year lease term. The ground lease will require that the Leased Area be used solely for recreational and baseball field purposes, with defined access to the public. The 2023 lease value of the City Property is approximately $0.68/square foot, based on the assessed value. The assessed fair market value of the Leased Area is $434,279. Impacts to the City include the loss of 1.175 acres of Sunnyside Park. Granting the lease will result in the removal of one existing softball field and one existing multi-use/lacrosse field. However, the net result could be the loss of two softball fields at Sunnyside Park which could be replaced by different park amenities such a multiple multi-use fields and other amenities, depending on the reconfiguration of the fields and amenities selected through a community engagement process. One potential reconfiguration and additional amenities is shown on the University Concept Plan. II. Public Benefits Provided by the Project. The Project will provide certain benefits to the City and promotes the City’s reasonable goals and objectives set forth in the SLC Public Lands Master Plan, “Reimagine Nature,” adopted June 7, 2022 (the “Master Plan”). In exchange for the ground lease of the Leased Area, the University has offered to commit $4.2 million to be used by the City for replacement of impacted park land and amenities and 3 enhanced improvements at Sunnyside Park. In addition to the $4.2 million, park impact fees may be available for additional amenities. The final type of amenities would be determined through a community engagement process. The University Concept Plan illustrates some possible amenities that could be constructed: 1. Increasing the number of multi-use sports fields. The City could increase the number of multi-use sports fields from four fields to five fields (two would be new) and an option to program the outfield of the collegiate field as a possible sixth multi-use field. 2. Providing two new multi-use fields. The two newly constructed multi-use fields could be programmed for 130 days per year with an average of 500 participants/per week playing 28 weeks equates to 13,000 user visits/per year. 3. Three Pickleball Courts. Pickleball use has continued to rapidly increase throughout Salt Lake City. For the past two years there has been a constituent Capital Improvement Project (“CIP”) request to add pickleball courts at Sunnyside Park. 4. Walking path that would increase the perimeter path up to 1.7 miles from 0.8 miles. 5. Additional parking areas. Public Lands also recommends that the ground lease be contingent on securing an agreement with the University that provides for the following benefits to the City’s reasonable satisfaction: 1. Allowing the City to program the multi-use field within the stadium during non-collegiate use. 2. City/public access to a portion of the 1.175 acres for public use during non-collegiate activities. This area would include the proposed berm behind the baseball field and other landscape features. 3. City/public access to amenities such as bathrooms and concessions maintained by the University and located inside of the ballpark for community use. Upon approval of the lease terms, the Administration will negotiate a ground lease with the University that will require these benefits and conditions as well as those required by Council. If the Leased Area ever ceases to be used for the permitted purpose or the University does not provide the required benefits or meet the required conditions, the City will be able to terminate the ground lease. III. Salt Lake City’s Purposes and Enhancing the Quality of Life for Residents. The National Recreation and Park Association has studied the impact of parks and recreational areas on the economy, health, and wellness. It found that physical activity, access to green spaces, and services and programming that promote better health outcomes lead to less reliance on medication, fewer trips to the hospital, and lower healthcare costs. There is significant research that connects parks with positive mental health, resulting from both increased physical 4 activity and being near green space. This may include reductions in stress levels and antisocial behaviors. Parks can promote social cohesion, which is associated with reduced levels of depression, stress, and cardiovascular issues. Parks can also improve air quality, help communities adapt to changes in the climate (including providing shade in areas seeing increased heating), and provide support to disaster planning and social resilience. The Project may effectively expand the size of Sunnyside Park if the University allows public access onto portions of the University property for recreational purposes. Allowing the installation of a 35-foot wall would negatively impact the City Property by obstructing lines of sight that provide natural surveillance, impacting park safety. In addition, the University’s commitment to enhance the amenities at Sunnyside Park increases its usefulness to the public and provides additional recreation facilities. The additional open space and amenities have a positive effect on the community’s physical and mental health. IV. Accomplishing Salt Lake City’s Goals. The Master Plan has five main goals of what the Public Lands Department is aiming to achieve over the next 10-20 years: (1) Sustain: Environmental Health and Sustainability; (2) Connect: Accessible and Connected Green Spaces; (3) Welcome: Active, Authentic and Inclusive Places; (4) Protect: A Commitment to Stewardship; and (5) Grow: Expand our Public Lands System. Support of the Project with the ground lease accomplishes several of the City’s goals and priorities. (3) Welcome: Active, Authentic and Inclusive Places. Ideal parks are actively used by the community, inclusive for all ages, abilities and cultures and strive to be authentic, or reflective of the neighborhood and community’s culture. The Public Lands Department, in alignment with the Mayor’s 2021 citywide vision, is committed to looking at top-down and bottom-up community driven solutions to welcoming more people. Expanding the fields and amenities in Sunnyside Park will allow the City to welcome more people and supports active programming that brings people out to their parks for art, events, programs, recreation, and community. (4) Protect: A Commitment to Stewardship. The Public Lands Department leads the stewardship and care of urban green spaces and seeks out opportunities to partner with advocacy groups and schools to educate on how the public can be stewards of the land. Partnering with the University achieves this goal by leveraging resources to make the public space more usable for both the public and the University while preserving the open space and use of Sunnyside Park. (5) Grow: Expand our Public Lands System. Sunnyside Park could effectively be expanded to meet the goal of increasing the size and access of the City park space. In a fully developed area, it is challenging to increase recreational opportunities as the population grows. The use of the ballpark property will help grow the City’s park system and will provide additional recreational use to the community. Partnering with the University will improve the quality of the amenities offered at Sunnyside Park. In addition, with funds to build new softball fields and a parking lot at the RAC, the Public Lands system will be expanded by up to 7 acres. 5 CONCLUSION The development of the Project by the University incorporating the Leased Area will be a benefit to residents of the City as outlined and conditioned in this memo. Providing a below-market ground lease for the Parcel is an appropriate use of City resources to achieve the City’s goals and enhancing the safety, health, prosperity, moral well-being, peace, order, comfort, or convenience of the residents of Salt Lake City. 6 EX H I B I T A De p i c t i o n o f L e a s e d A r e a ( R e d H a t c h M a r k s ) 7 EX H I B I T B De p i c t i o n o f E x i s t i n g S u n n y s i d e P a r k C o n f i g u r a t i o n 8 Un i v e r s i t y C o n c e p t P l a n 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:February 6, 2024 RE: Zoning Text Amendment for Daycare Facilities PLNPCM2019-00225 The Council will be briefed about a proposal requested by Mayor Mendenhall to amend requirements in Salt Lake City Code related to daycare facilities. The request is to reduce barriers to new and expanding daycare facilities in the zoning ordinance and help ease the effects of the daycare shortage. Planning staff referenced 2020 data from the Utah Department of Workforce Services that identified the most severe shortage of daycare centers in Utah was in Salt Lake County. In response to some conflicts with State Code and other updates needed in the City’s code, Planning staff proposed the following changes to the Planning Commission: Proposed changes to Home Daycares (as a Home Occupation): •Eliminate the definition and regulations for “Non-registered Home Daycares.” Non-registered daycares allow for the care of up to two children and are not regulated by City or State code. Including these regulations in the zoning code created confusion with the definitions and regulations of other childcare facilities. •Increase the maximum number of children allowed at home daycares from eight to sixteen to align with State code. •Moving standards for home daycares into the Home Occupation chapter, 21A.36.030 of Salt Lake City Code. •Allow the location of a second licensed home daycare without primary residential use. Item Schedule: Briefing: February 6, 2024 Set Date: February 20, 2024 Public Hearing: March 5, 2024 Potential Action: March 19, 2024 Page | 2 Proposed changes to Child Daycare Centers: •Change the land use from Conditional Use to Permitted in the following zones: R-1/5,000, R- 1/7,000, R-1/12,000, SR-1, SR-3, R-2, RMF-30, RMF-35, and RMF-45. •Add as a Permitted Use to the following zones: FR-1/43,560, F-2/21, 780, FR-3/12,000, SNB, FP, and FB-UN1. •Eliminate existing Conditional Use Standards for childcare centers outlined in 21A.36.130. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed text amendment at its August 9 and October 11, 2023 meetings and held a public hearing at which two people spoke. One was opposed, stating that the need for daycare facilities is significantly less than what was presented at the meeting. The other expressed a desire for clarity on what is allowed and not allowed as it relates to daycare facilities. She also encouraged the use of churches and closed school buildings for childcare. The Commission voted 7-1 to forward a positive recommendation to the Council with a condition that Planning staff includes language clarifying the first location of a licensed home daycare must be an ancillary use to the primary residential use. That language is included in the draft ordinance. The Commissioner who voted against the proposed text amendment did not share the reason for her opposition. Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed text amendment and determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTION 1. The Council may wish to discuss potential impacts of allowing commercial childcare centers in residential neighborhoods. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION These proposed changes would also better align City daycare-related zoning regulations with Utah State Code and administrative rules set by the Utah Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), which oversees daycares in the state. Under the proposed changes, daycare facilities operating within the city with a State-issued license would not face additional requirements beyond what the State requires. According to the Administration Transmittal, the following provides some context of the need for the proposed amendments: •Most daycare facilities are either home daycares or commercial daycare centers. Home daycares are permitted as a home occupation within any legal conforming residential use and provide care for children in a house. Home daycare use is typically an accessory to the primary residential use, with a requirement that the business owner lives in the home. Utah State Code allows up to 16 children to be cared for in a home daycare, provided the required ratio of caregivers to children is met. In comparison, Salt Lake City Code allows up to eight children. Some providers reportedly have been surprised to learn the City’s requirements are more restrictive than the State’s. As an example of City and State code conflicts, under the proposal the home daycare limit of eight children in City code would be changed to 16 children to align with State code. •In conversations with DHHS: Planning staff discovered that a recent change to DHHS regulations allows a licensed home daycare facility to open a second facility without requiring the business use to be secondary to residential use in the second location. Planning staff noted that while there is potential for home daycare facilities’ second locations to take housing stock, it is anticipated that Page | 3 the loss would be minimal. Additional locations would also expand business and childcare options within neighborhoods. •Commercial daycare centers typically serve more children than home daycare facilities. Therefore, commercial daycares must meet zoning and State building code requirements such as parking, commercial kitchens, fire prevention systems, and emergency exits. The proposed City Code include updates to align with additional State licensing requirements as well. •Planning staff noted that commercial daycare centers are currently a permitted use in most zoning districts but are listed as a conditional use in the following residential zones: R-1/5,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/12,000, SR-1, SR-3, R-2, RMF-30, RMF-35, and RMF-45. Existing City Code has the following requirements for a proposed commercial daycare center in these districts: o Have an area of at least 20,000 square feet, o Face an arterial (high traffic) street, o Be located no closer than 600 feet from another daycare center, and o No residential units would need to be demolished. These requirements disqualify many potential sites from providing daycare in residential neighborhoods. The proposed conditional use process adds another step for potential childcare providers who want to open their businesses. Planning staff provided maps showing current areas where daycare centers are allowed and not allowed; where they would be allowed under the proposed text amendment; and current provider locations. These are included at the end of this report. It is worth noting that some daycare facilities, such as those serving fewer than six children, and some religious institutions are exempt from licensing. The proposed amendments would not affect these types of daycares. KEY CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff identified four key considerations related to the proposal, found on pages 5-6 of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the Planning staff report. Consideration 1-How the proposed amendment helps to implement City goals and policies identified within adopted plans: Planning staff found that the proposed amendment aligns with the following guiding principles found in Plan Salt Lake: •Neighborhoods that provide a safe environment, opportunity for social interaction, and services needed for the well-being of the community therein. •Ensure access to all City amenities for all citizens while treating everyone equitably with fairness, justice, and respect. •A balanced economy that produces quality jobs and fosters an environment for commerce, local business, and industry to survive. Consideration 2-Compliance with text amendment standards: Planning staff found the proposed text amendment aligns with the stated purpose of the zoning ordinance and is up to date with the most recent urban planning philosophies. The Text Amendment Standards table below includes factors to be considered when reviewing text amendments. Page | 4 Consideration 3-Alignment with State Code: Planning staff notes the proposed amendments align City zoning regulations with the State and would reduce additional burdens on new and smaller childcare businesses. They stated the following: Complying with requirements from multiple levels of government can be confusing and burdensome for small business owners when trying to receive a license, especially if English is not their first language. The proposed alignment with state code reduces the need for multiple layers of rules without increasing the burdens on State regulators or local communities. Consideration 4-Option for Second Home Daycare Location: As discussed above, Planning staff learned of a recent change to DHHS regulations allowing a licensed home daycare facility to open a second facility without requiring the business to be an accessory use to residential use in the second location. Planning staff believes the potential for home daycare facilities’ second locations to take housing stock would be minimal. Additional locations would also expand business and childcare options within neighborhoods. ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS Attachment D (pages 28-29) 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. Complies Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. 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 inconsistent with any zoning overlays The extent to which a proposed text amendment implements best current, professional practices of urban planning and design. Complies PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • 2019-2023 – Previous research conducted by former employee. • April 3, 2023 – Petition assigned to Cassie Younger and Aaron Barlow. • June 13, 2023 – o 45-day early engagement sent to all daycare providers within Salt Lake City and all City recognized community organizations. o Proposed changes routed to all citywide departments for comment. • July 12, 2023 – Planning staff presented at Salt Lake City Business Advisory Board. • July 17, 2023 – Planning staff presented at Sugar House Community Council. Page | 5 • August 1, 2023 – Planning staff made changes to text amendment based on discussions with licensing managers from the Utah Department of Health and Human Services. • August 9, 2023 – Planning Commission work session briefing. • August 31, 2023 – 45-day public comment period for recognized community organizations ended. • September 6, 2023 – Second notice sent to recognized community organizations with information about changes to original petition, including changes related to second home daycare locations. • September 14, 2023 – Planning staff presented changes to East Liberty Park Community Organization Land Use Committee. • September 18, 2023 – Planning staff presented changes to Sugar House Community Council. • September 28, 2023 – o Planning Commission public hearing notice mailed to all daycare providers, Agenda posted to the Planning Commission website and the State of Utah Public Notice webpage. o Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing physically posted at several daycares and public libraries throughout the city. • October 11, 2023 – Planning Commission public hearing. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed text amendment with conditions. • November 9, 2023 – Ordinance requested from Attorney’s Office, which included requested changes from the Planning Commission. • November 21, 2023 – Ordinance from the Attorney’s Office received by Planning Division. • December 6, 2023 – Transmittal received in City Council Office. Page | 6 Page | 7 Page | 8 Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning City Council -February 6, 2024 PLNPCM2019-00225 ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT- DAYCARE USES Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning •Mayor Mendenhall’s 2023 Goals include: “Eliminate barriers in City Code to siting childcare centers” •Reduce any zoning barriers •Align with State Code and the Department of Health and Human Services GOALS & INTENTION OF TEXT AMENDMENT Salt Lake City //Planning Division CHILD CARE CRISIS IN UTAH •Salt Lake County has a capacity shortage of 23,259 children (2020) •Covid-era funding expired in September 2023, putting many centers at risk or in need to raise rates •633 child care programs forecasted to close in Utah when federal funding ends* Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning EXISTING PROVIDER LOCATIONS Existing: •35 Home Daycares •47 Daycare Centers Additional Needs: •454 Licensed Home Daycares •99 Daycare Centers Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning EXISTING CONDITIONS: DAYCARE CENTERS Current Conditional Use Standards: •Minimum Lot Size: 20,000 SF •Shall be addressed on and oriented to an arterial street •All outside playground equipment shall be located only in the rear yard. •A Landscape Buffer of 10’ around the outdoor play area, surrounded by a 6’ fence Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning Change from Conditional to Permitted Use in: R-1/5,000, R- 1/7,000, R-1/12,000, SR-1, SR-3, R-2, RMF-30, RMF-35, and RMF-45 Add as a Permitted Use in: FR-1/43,560, FR-2/21,780, and FR- 3/12,000, SNB, FP, and FB-UN1 Eliminate existing Conditional Use Standards SUMMARY OF CHANGES: DAYCARE CENTERS Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning PROPOSED CHANGES: DAYCARE CENTERS Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning Eliminate “Nonregistered Home Daycares” Increase max number of children from 8 to 16, to align with State code Move Home Daycares to Home Occupation chapter of zoning regulations Allow second Licensed Home Daycare without primary residential use SUMMARY OF CHANGES: HOME DAYCARES Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning “Second” Home Daycares State allows a Home Daycare to be licensed with a provider living there 50% of the time that child care is offered. Under Home Occupation code, the provider would have to live there full-time. By omitting this rule, we allow a provider to rent or use a second home for business that does not require full-time residential occupancy SUMMARY OF CHANGES: HOME DAYCARES Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning SUMMARY OF ALL PROPOSED CHANGES Daycare Centers Eliminate Conditional Use Standards Add or Change to Permitted in all zones Home Daycares Increase max children from 8 to 16 Eliminate term “unregistered home daycare” Allow second home daycare to not require residential occupancy Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning Cassie Younger Aaron Barlow Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning RATIOS FOR HOME DAYCARE Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning OTHER RULES CENTERS •Total square footage of the outdoor area accommodates at least 1/3 of the approved capacity at one time or is at least 1600 square feet. •The provider shall ensure that the outdoor area has at least 40 square feet of space for each child using the area at one time. •The provider shall ensure that a fence encloses the outdoor area, wall, or solid natural barrier that is at least four feet high. HOME DAYCARES •The Provider shall ensure that the outdoor area has at least 40 square feet of space for each child using the area at one time. •The provider shall ensure that the outdoor area is enclosed within a fence, wall, or solid natural barrier that is at least four feet high •The provider shall ensure that there is at least 35 square feet of indoor space for each child in care. ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director 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 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received: _________________ Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: December 5, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: Zoning Text Amendment for Daycare facilities PLNPCM2019-00225 STAFF CONTACT: Cassie Younger, Senior Planner Cassie.younger@slcgov.com, 801-535-6211 Aaron Barlow, Principal Planner, 801-535-6182 Aaron.barlow@slcgov.com, DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve the proposed zoning text amendments. BUDGET IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The national daycare shortage is a crisis for Utah’s parents and children. One of Mayor Erin Mendenhall’s policy priorities is to reduce any zoning barriers that may be limiting an effective response to this crisis. At the mayor’s request, Planning Staff has analyzed Salt Lake City’s existing daycare-related zoning regulations and developed new regulations intended to make it easier for new and existing providers to develop and start new child care facilities. These proposed changes also bring the City’s daycare-related zoning regulations closer in line with Utah State Code and administrative rules set by the Utah Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), the department that oversees daycares within the State. While there are many types of state licenses a daycare can receive, most of them fall within two categories: Home Daycares and Daycare Centers—which are all issued and regulated by the DHHS. Licensed child care providers must meet all relevant rules and requirements established by State Code and the DHHS. Licensed facilities are also inspected by State officials at least once per year (and more often if there are complaints or prior offenses). It should be noted that there are many types of daycares that are “exempt” from licensing, including daycares serving fewer than rachel otto (Dec 6, 2023 09:48 MST)12/06/2023 12/06/2023 six children, and some religious institutions. If they fall under this category, they are allowed to exist without regulation or licensing by the state. These proposed amendments do not affect these types of daycares. The intent of these amendments is to better align local regulations with State code so that any facility receiving a State-issued license would not face additional requirements or barriers at the local (zoning) level. Currently, Salt Lake City’s zoning regulations separate daycare facilities into Home Daycares and Daycare Centers. Home Daycares are permitted as a Home Occupation within any legal conforming residential use. Current zoning regulations limit the number of children cared for at one time in a Home Daycare to eight—which is fewer than the State’s permitted limit of 16. This discrepancy has been a surprise to many providers when they applied for a business license from the City and has likely been ignored by many existing Home Daycares. Additionally, staff’s conversations with the DHHS brought to light another barrier to increasing the number of Home Daycare providers: The DHHS recently allowed a Licensed Home Daycare (“Licensed family” facility) to open a second facility with a Director only living in the second facility 50% of the time. Because Home Daycares are a Home Occupation under the city’s zoning code, this would not be allowed, as the business owner of the Home Occupation has to live in the household where the business occurs, and the business must be accessory to the residential use. The possibility of a home daycare opening a second location without a primary residential use would take up housing stock, but expand the business and child care opportunities in the neighborhood. After discussions with the Planning Commission at the August 9 work session, the Commission agreed that the opening of a second facility without a primary residential use should be allowed. Regarding Daycare Centers, Daycare Centers are currently permitted uses in most zoning districts but are listed as a Conditional Use in the R-1/5,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/12,000, SR-1, SR-3, R-2, RMF- 30, RMF-35, and RMF-45 zoning districts. In order to qualify for conditional use approval, a proposed site for a Daycare Center in those districts must meet the following criteria: • Have an area of at least 20,000 square feet, • Face an arterial (high traffic) street, • Sit no closer than 600 feet from another Daycare Center, and • No residential units would need to be demolished. These limitations disqualify many potential sites from use as a Daycare Center that would otherwise benefit from their proximity to residential neighborhoods. Additionally, the Conditional Use process creates an additional step that potential child care providers must take in order to establish their new business. In an effort to meet the outcomes mentioned earlier in this report, Planning Staff proposed the following changes to the Planning Commission: Proposed changes to Home Daycares (as a Home Occupation): • Eliminate the definition and regulations for “Nonregistered Home Daycares”. “Nonregistered Home Daycares” allow for the care of up to two children and are not regulated by City or State code. Including these regulations in the zoning code creates confusion with the definitions and regulations of other childcare facilities. • Increase the maximum number of children allowed at Home Daycares from eight (8) to sixteen (16), to align with State code. • Moving standards for Home Daycares into the Home Occupation chapter, 21A.36.030. • Allow the location of a second Licensed Home Daycare without a primary residential use. Proposed changes to Child Daycare Centers: • Change the Land Use from Conditional Use to Permitted in the following zones: R-1/5,000, R- 1/7,000, R-1/12,000, SR-1, SR-3, R-2, RMF-30, RMF-35, and RMF-45 • Add as a Permitted Use to the following zones: FR-1/43,560, F-2/21,780, and FR-3/12,000, SNB, FP, and FB-UN1 • Eliminate existing Conditional Use Standards for childcare centers outlined in 21A.36.130 For additional information regarding Planning staff’s recommendation, the child daycare shortage, current zoning regulations, and the proposed amendments, please refer to the following reports: • Planning Commission Work Session Memo • Planning Commission Staff Report Planning Commission Review and Recommendation: On August 9, the Planning Commission held a Work Session with staff to review proposed changes and discuss aligning those changes with a recent change to State licensing rules by the DHHS that would allow a “second” home daycare location under the same provider. Staff proposed three options and the Commission recommended that staff remove Home daycares from Home Occupation in order to easier permit a second home daycare that would not be required to be used as a primary residence. The full discussion can be viewed using this link at minute 2:13:30, and the minutes can be found here. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at their October 11, 2023, meeting and further discussed the proposed amendments with Planning staff. The Commission voted (7:1) to recommend approval of the zoning text amendment to the City Council. The Planning Commission later reopened the discussion during that same meeting and made a motion that asked Planning staff to add language to the proposed amendment that would clarify that the first home daycare must be accessory to a primary residential use. That motion also passed 7:1. The full public meeting can be viewed using this link at minute 27:11, and the minutes can be found here. PUBLIC PROCESS: • The Planning Division provided a 45-day comment period notice to all recognized Community Organizations on June 13, 2023. Staff presented the petition at the Sugar House, East Liberty Park Community Councils, and the Business Advisory Board. • Staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all daycare providers in the city—daycare centers and home daycare providers with an active business license. This notice was sent on June 13, 2023. • An online open house has been on the Planning Division’s website since June 12, 2023. • Public noticing of the Planning Commission hearing was completed on September 30, 2023 Planning Commission (PC) Records (Click to Access): Work Session on August 9, 2023 • PC Agenda for August 9, 2023 • PC Minutes of August 9, 2023 • Recording of August 9, 2023, PC Meeting • PC Staff Memo for August 9, 2023 Public Hearing on October 11, 2023 • PC Agenda for October 11, 2023 • PC Minutes of October 11, 2023 • Recording of October 11, 2023, PC Meeting • PC Staff Report for October 11, 2023 EXHIBITS 1. Chronology 2. Notice of City Council Hearing 3. Mailing List SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2024 (Amending the zoning text of various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to childcare facilities) An ordinance amending the text of various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to childcare facilities pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00225. WHEREAS, on October 11, 2023, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on a petition submitted by Salt Lake City Mayor, Erin Mendenhall to amend Salt Lake City’s land use regulations pertaining to childcare facilities (Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00225); and WHEREAS, at its October 11, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said petition; and WHEREAS, after 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 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 as follows: a. That the use category “Daycare center, child” is amended to read and appear as follows: Use Permitted and Conditional Uses by District FR-1/ 43,560 FR-2/ 21,780 FR-3/ 12,000 R-1/ 12,000 R-1/ 7,000 R-1/ 5,000 SR-1 SR-2 SR-3 R-2 RMF - 30 RMF - 35 RMF - 45 RMF - 75 RB R- MU- 35 R-MU- 45 R-MU RO Daycare center, child P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P b. That the use categories “Daycare, nonregistered home daycare” and “Daycare, registered home daycare or preschool” are hereby deleted. c. That the qualifying provisions for the table in Section 21A.33.020 are amended to read as follows: Qualifying provisions: 1. A single apartment unit may be located above first floor retail/office. 2. Provided that no more than 2 two-family buildings are located adjacent to one another and no more than 3 such dwellings are located along the same block face (within subdivisions approved after April 12, 1995). 3. Must contain retail component for on-site food sales. 4. Reserved. 5. See Subsection 21A.02.050.B of this title for utility regulations. 6. Building additions on lots less than 20,000 square feet for office uses may not exceed 50 percent of the building’s footprint. Building additions greater than 50 percent of the building’s footprint or new office building construction are subject to a design review. 7. Subject to conformance to the provisions in Section 21A.02.050 of this title. 8. Subject to conformance with the provisions of Subsection 21A.24.010.S of this title. 9. Subject to conformance with the provisions in Section 21A.36.300, “Alcohol Related Establishments”, of this title. 10. In the RB Zoning District, the total square footage, including patio space, shall not exceed 2,200 square feet in total. Total square footage will include a maximum 1,750 square feet of floor space within a business and a maximum of 450 square feet in an outdoor patio area. 11. Accessory guest or servant’s quarters must be located within the buildable area on the lot. 12. Subject to conformance with the provisions of Section 21A.36.150 of this title. 13. Prohibited within 1,000 feet of a Single- or Two-Family Zoning District. 14. Large group homes established in the RB and RO Districts shall be located above the ground floor. 15. Small group homes established in the RB and RO Districts shall be located above the ground floor. 16. Large residential support established in RO Districts shall be located above the ground floor. 17. Small residential support established in RO Districts shall be located above the ground floor. 18. Reserved. 19. Subject to Section 21A.36.170 of this title. 20. Subject to Section 21A.36.030 of this title. 21. Consult the water use and/or consumption limitations of Subsection 21A.33.010.D.1. SECTION 2. Amending the Text of 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 as follows: a. That the use category “Daycare center, child” is amended to read and appear as follows: Use Permitted and Conditional Uses by District CN CB CS1 CC CSHBD1 CG SNB Daycare center, child P P P P P P P b. That the use categories “Daycare, nonregistered home daycare” and “Daycare, registered home daycare or preschool” are hereby deleted. c. That the qualifying provisions for the table in Section 21A.33.030 are amended to read as follows: Qualifying provisions: 1. Development in the CS District shall be subject to planned development approval pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 21A.55 of this title. Certain developments in the CSHBD Zone shall be subject to the design review process pursuant to the provisions of Subsection 21A.26.060.D and Chapter 21A.59 of this title. 2. Subject to conformance to the provisions in Subsection 21A.02.050.B of this title for utility regulations. 3. When located in a building listed on the Salt Lake City register of cultural resources (see Subsections 21A.26.010.S and 21A.26.010.K of this title). 4. Subject to Salt Lake Valley Health Department approval. 5. Pursuant to the requirements set forth in Section 21A.36.140 of this title. 6. Greater than 3 ambulances at location require a conditional use. 7. A community correctional facility is considered an institutional use and any such facility located within the AFPP Airport Flight Path Protection Overlay District is subject to the land use and sound attenuation standards for institutional uses of the applicable Airport Influence Zone within Section 21A.34.040 of this title. 8. No check cashing/payday loan business shall be located closer than 1/2 mile of other check cashing/payday loan businesses. 9. Subject to conformance to the provisions in Section 21A.40.060 of this title for drive- through use regulations. 10. Subject to conformance with the provisions in Section 21A.36.300, “Alcohol Related Establishments”, of this title. 11. In CN and CB Zoning Districts, the total square footage, including patio space, shall not exceed 2,200 square feet in total. Total square footage will include a maximum 1,750 square feet of floor space within a business and a maximum of 450 square feet in an outdoor patio area. 12. Prohibited within 1,000 feet of a Single- or Two-Family Zoning District. 13. Residential units may be located above or below first floor retail/office. 14. In the SNB Zoning District, bed and breakfast use is only allowed in a landmark site. 15. Medical and dental offices are not allowed in the SNB Zoning District, except for single practitioner medical, dental and health offices. 16. Permitted in the CG Zoning District only when associated with an on site food service establishment. 17. Prohibited within 1/2 mile of any Residential Zoning District boundary and subject to Section 21A.36.110 of this title. 18. Reserved. 19. Allowed only within legal conforming single-family, duplex, and multi-family dwellings and subject to Section 21A.36.030 of this title. 20. Must contain retail component for on-site food sales. 21. Reserved. 22. Prohibited within 1/2 mile of a residential use if the facility produces hazardous or radioactive waste as defined by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality administrative rules. 23. Consult the water use and/or consumption limitations of Subsection 21A.33.010.D.1. SECTION 3. Amending the Text of 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 as follows: a. That the use categories “Daycare, nonregistered home daycare” and “Daycare, registered home daycare or preschool” are hereby deleted. b. That the qualifying provisions for the table in Section 21A.33.035 are amended to read as follows: Qualifying provisions for specific land uses: 1. Subject to Salt Lake Valley Health Department approval. 2. A community correctional facility is considered an institutional use and any such facility located within the AFPP Airport Flight Path Protection Overlay District is subject to the land use and sound attenuation standards for institutional uses of the applicable Airport Influence Zone within Section 21A.34.040 of this title. 3. Surface parking lots as a principal use located on a lot that has frontage on a public street are prohibited. 4. Prohibited within 1,000 feet of a Single- or Two-Family Zoning District. 5. Subject to conformance to the provisions in Subsection 21A.02.050.B of this title for utility regulations. 6. Reserved. 7. Allowed only within legal conforming single-family, duplex, and multi-family dwellings and subject to Section 21A.36.030 of this title. 8. Subject to Section 21A.36.110 of this title. 9. Drive-through windows are prohibited on any public street facing facade and automobile stacking is prohibited between public street facing facades and the adjacent public right-of-way. 10. Subject to conformance with the provisions in Section 21A.40.060 for drive-through use regulations. 11. Prohibited within 1/2 mile of a residential use if the facility produces hazardous or radioactive waste as defined by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality administrative rules. 12. Consult the water use and/or consumption limitations of Subsection 21A.33.010.D.1. SECTION 4. Amending the Text of 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 as follows: a. That the use categories “Daycare, nonregistered home daycare” and “Daycare, registered home daycare or preschool” are hereby deleted. b. That the qualifying provisions for the table in Section 21A.33.050 are amended to read as follows: Qualifying provisions: 1. Subject to conformance to the provisions in Subsection 21A.02.050.B of this title. 2. Uses allowed only within the boundaries and subject to the provisions of the Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District (Section 21A.34.110 of this title). 3. A car wash located within 165 feet (including streets) of a residential use shall not be allowed. 4. Building additions on lots less than 20,000 square feet for office uses may not exceed 50 percent of the building’s footprint. Building additions greater than 50 percent of the building’s footprint or new office building construction are subject to a design review (Chapter 21A.59 of this title). 5. No check cashing/payday loan business shall be located closer than 1/2 mile of other check cashing/payday loan businesses. 6. Subject to conformance with the provisions in Section 21A.36.300, “Alcohol Related Establishments”, of this title. 7. Subject to conformance with the provisions of Chapter 21A.59, “Design Review”, of this title. 8. Subject to conformance to the provisions in Section 21A.40.060 of this title for drive- through use regulations. 9. Prohibited within 1,000 feet of a Single- or Two-Family Zoning District. 10. Must be located in a fully enclosed building and entirely indoors. 11. If a place of worship is proposed to be located within 600 feet of a tavern, bar establishment, or brewpub, the place of worship must submit a written waiver of spacing requirement as a condition of approval. 12. Reserved. 13. Allowed only within legal conforming single-family, duplex, and multi-family dwellings and subject to Section 21A.36.030 of this title. 14. Must contain retail component for on-site food sales. 15. Subject to conformance with the provisions of Section 21A.36.350 of this title. 16. Limited to basement/below ground levels only. Not allowed on the ground or upper levels of the building, with the exception of associated public leasing/office space. 17. Prohibited within 1/2 mile of a residential use if the facility produces hazardous or radioactive waste as defined by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality administrative rules. 18. Consult the water use and/or consumption limitations of Subsection 21A.33.010.D.1. 19. Parking lots, garages or parking structures, proposed as the only principal use on a property that has frontage on a public street that would result in a building demolition are prohibited subject to the provisions of Subsection 21A.30.010.F.3. SECTION 5. Amending the Text of 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 as follows: a. That the use categories “Daycare, nonregistered home daycare” and “Daycare, registered home daycare or preschool” are hereby deleted. b. That the qualifying provisions for the table in Section 21A.33.060 are amended to read as follows: Qualifying provisions: 1. Subject to conformance to the provisions in Subsection 21A.02.050.B of this title. 2. Subject to conformance with the provisions of Section 21A.36.300, ”Alcohol Related Establishments”, of this title. 3. Subject to conformance with the provisions of Chapter 21A.59, “Design Review”, of this title. 4. Prohibited within 1,000 feet of a Single- or Two-Family Zoning District. 5. Subject to the requirements set forth in Section 21A.40.065, “Outdoor Dining”, of this title. 6. Reserved. 7. Allowed only within legal conforming single-family, duplex, and multi-family dwellings and subject to Section 21A.36.030 of this title. 8. Prohibited within 1/2 mile of a residential use if the facility produces hazardous or radioactive waste as defined by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality administrative rules. 9. Consult the water use and/or consumption limitations of Subsection 21A.33.010.D.1. No conditional use permit shall be granted for any property which abuts a Residential Zoning District, except for places of worship, public/private utilities and related facilities, residential facilities for persons with a disability and educational facilities. SECTION 6. Amending the Text of 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 as follows: a. That the use category “Daycare center, child” is amended to read and appear as follows: Use Permitted and Conditional Uses by District RP BP FP AG AG-2 AG-5 AG-20 OS NOS A PL PL-2 I UI MH EI MU Daycare center, child P P P P P P P P P P b. That the use categories “Daycare, nonregistered home daycare” and “Daycare, registered home daycare or preschool” are hereby deleted. c. That the qualifying provisions for the table in Section 21A.33.070 are amended to read as follows: Qualifying provisions: 1. Subject to conformance to the provisions in Subsection 21A.02.050.B of this title. 2. When located in a building listed on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources. 3. When located on an arterial street. 4. Subject to Salt Lake Valley Health Department approval. 5. In conjunction with, and within the boundaries of, a cemetery for human remains. 6. Radio station equipment and antennas shall be required to go through the site plan review process to ensure that the color, design and location of all proposed equipment and antennas are screened or integrated into the architecture of the project and are compatible with surrounding uses. 7. When approved as part of a business park planned development pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 21A.55 of this title. 8. Kennels, whether within penned enclosures or within enclosed buildings, shall not be permitted within 200 feet of an existing single-family dwelling on an adjacent lot. 9. Trails and trailheads with signage are subject to Section 21A.46.120, “Sign Regulations for Special Purpose Districts”, of this title. 10. Greater than three ambulances at location require a conditional use. 11. Maximum of one monopole per property and only when it is government owned and operated for public safety purposes. 12. Subject to conformance with the provisions in Section 21A.36.300, “Alcohol Related Establishments”, of this title. 13. If located on a collector or arterial street according to the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan - major street plan: roadway functional classification map. 14. Subject to conformance to the provisions in Section 21A.40.060 of this title for drive- through use regulations. 15. Prohibited within 1,000 feet of a Single- or Two-Family Zoning District. 16. Reserved. 17. Allowed only within legal conforming single-family, duplex, and multi-family dwellings and subject to Section 21A.36.030 of this title. 18. Must contain retail component for on-site food sales. 19. Prior to issuance of a building permit in the Development Area and the Eco-Industrial Buffer Area of the Northwest Quadrant Overlay, consultation with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources is required to obtain recommendations on siting and equipment types for all solar arrays on a particular property to mitigate impacts to wildlife. 20. When customarily provided with the principal use and is accessory to the principal use. 21. New antennae and communication towers are allowed outside the telecommunication corridor in the OS Open Space District for public safety, public security or Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department purposes only. 22. Reception centers may be allowed in parks of 100 acres or more where the reception center is a subordinate use to the principal use of the property as a park. Reception centers are allowed in existing buildings, are limited to 1 reception center per park, and hours of operation are limited to park hours. Removal of existing recreation areas to accommodate the stand alone reception center use, including areas to accommodate parking for the reception center use, is not permitted. 23. Prohibited within 1/2 mile of a residential use if the facility produces hazardous or radioactive waste as defined by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality administrative rules. 24. Consult the water use and/or consumption limitations of Subsection 21A.33.010.D.1. SECTION 7. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.33.080. That Section 21A.33.080 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses in Form Based Districts), shall be and hereby is amended as follows: a. That the use category “Daycare center, child” is amended to read and appear as follows: Use Permitted and Conditional Uses by District FB-UN1 FB-UN2 FB-SC FB-SE Daycare center, child P P P P b. That the use categories “Daycare, nonregistered home daycare” and “Daycare, registered home daycare or preschool” are hereby deleted. c. That the qualifying provisions for the table in Section 21A.33.080 are amended to read as follows: Qualifying provisions: 1. Reserved. 2. Subject to Section 21A.36.030 of this title. 3. Must contain retail component for on-site food sales. 4. Prohibited within 1/2 mile of a residential use if the facility produces hazardous or radioactive waste as defined by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality administrative rules. 5. Consult the water use and/or consumption limitations of Subsection 21A.33.010.D.1. SECTION 8. Amending the Text of Section 21A.36.030. That Section 21A.36.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: General Provisions: Home Occupations), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.36.030: HOME OCCUPATIONS: A. Purpose: This section establishes regulations for home occupations within all dwellings to ensure they are compatible with any surrounding residential land uses and do not negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood. Home occupations are intended to promote local and sustainable economic growth and development. B. Permitted Home Occupations: All home occupations not specifically listed as prohibited may be permitted subject to their compliance with the standards specified in Subsections G and H of this section. C. Home Occupations Prohibited: The following businesses, regardless of their conformance with the standards in Subsection G of this section, are prohibited as home occupations: 1. Auto repairs; 2. Kennels; 3. Welding shops or machine shops; 4. Large appliance/electronics or equipment repair or service (washers, dryers, refrigerators and other appliances or equipment that are too large to be carried in 1 individual’s arms); 5. Truck hauling; 6. Deliveries; 7. Stables; 8. Bottling plant; 9. Commercial bakery; 10. Industrial assembly; 11. Laboratory, medical, dental, optical; 12. Laboratory, testing; and 13. Any use that causes the emission of odor, smoke, gas, dust, vibration, magnetic or electrical interference, offensive noise, or other similar impacts extending beyond the property line of the lot where the occupation is located is prohibited. D. Application: Applications for home occupations shall be filed with the Salt Lake City Business Licensing Division. Business license applications shall include the following information: 1. A complete description of the type of business proposed including the location of the storage and operations area for the home occupation; 2. The expected hours of operation of the business; 3. The expected number of clients per hour and total expected number of clients visiting the home per day; and 4. For home daycares, the applicant must submit the expected number and ages of children, the number of employees, both total for the day and the expected maximum number to be on the premises at any given time, along with proof of appropriate licensing from the State of Utah. First and second home daycares each require a separate business license. E. License Required: It is unlawful for any person, firm, corporation, or association to engage in a “home occupation” as defined in Chapter 21A.62 of this title without first obtaining a license pursuant to the provisions of Title 5, Chapter 5.02 of this code. Prior to issuance of said license, the standards set forth in this section must be satisfied and all applicable fees shall be paid. All home occupation business licenses shall be valid for one year, and may be renewed annually. F. Determination of Completeness: Upon receipt of an application for a home occupation, the zoning administrator shall make a determination of completeness pursuant to Section 21A.10.010 of this title. G. General Standards: Home daycares are exempt from the following standards and shall be subject to the standards in Subsection 21A.36.030.H. All other home occupations shall comply with the following standards: 1. The home occupation must be clearly incidental and secondary to the primary use of the dwelling for residential purposes; 2. The dwelling unit must be the principal place of residence for the person(s) conducting the home occupation; 3. The area of the residence, used for home occupations shall remain in character with the rest of the home except for such minor alterations necessary to conduct an approved home occupation; 4. The home occupation shall not be conducted in, nor in any way use, carport, or any portion of the yard. A home occupation may use a garage or other fully enclosed accessory structure provided all other standards in this section are met. As per Section 21A.36.200 of this chapter, a home occupation license to distribute produce grown on the premises for off premises sales may be conducted in the rear yard and include the use of accessory buildings but may not occupy required parking areas; 5. The home occupation work conducted at the residence shall not involve more than one employee from outside of the home, persons lawfully living in the residence may be employed; 6. Except for those vehicles identified by this chapter (urban farms), and the applicant’s personal transportation, there shall be no vehicles or equipment stored outdoors, which would not normally be found at a residence. Service vehicles defined as an “automobile” in Chapter 21A.62 of this title which double as a personal vehicle such as taxicabs, limousine, or other vehicles used for mobile businesses and used for off site services may only be parked on site in a legal parking area; 7. Delivery of merchandise, goods, or equipment, to the site of the home occupation, shall be made by a vehicle typically employed in residential deliveries. No deliveries to the site of the home occupation by semitractor/trailer truck shall be permitted. Loading and deliveries to the site of the home occupation shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M.; 8. No mechanical or electrical apparatus, equipment or tools shall be permitted in the home occupation except those which are commonly associated with a residential use or as are customary to home crafts, and which do not exceed 220 volts; 9. Tools, items, and equipment which are offensive or noxious by reason of the emission of odor, smoke, gas, dust, vibration, magnetic or electrical interference, noise, or other similar impacts extending beyond the property line of the lot where the occupation is located, are prohibited. Tools, items, and equipment used for the operation and maintenance of an urban farm must comply with those storage requirements itemized by Section 21A.36.200 of this chapter; 10. Stock in trade, inventory or other merchandise shall be allowed to be kept only in the interior space of the dwelling; 11. No outdoor storage is permitted in conjunction with the occupation other than produce for off premises sales, outlined in Subsection G.4 of this section; 12. Home occupations involving visitations from pedestrian or vehicular traffic shall only be conducted between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M.; 13. Any home occupation requiring client(s) visitation shall not occur at a frequency of greater than two clients per hour, and no more than one client may be served at one time and not more than one place of vehicular parking shall be occupied by a client at any time. Client(s) shall include one or more person(s) with a unified interest in visiting the home occupation at one specific time; 14. Only one nonilluminated nameplate, with a maximum sign face as specified in Chapter 21A.46 of this title, stating the name of the business or occupant and mounted flat against the building, shall be allowed. Except for the permitted nameplate, the home occupation shall not make or require any internal alterations, other than those necessary for an approved home occupation, nor any external alterations to the residence that creates the appearance of a commercial operation, nor shall the home occupation provide any visible evidence from the exterior that the building is being used for any other purpose than that of a residence; and 15. Direct retail sales are prohibited. Incidental or secondary sales ensuing from the services provided in conjunction with the home occupation are permitted. Limited sales or distribution of produce grown from an urban farm shall be permitted as specified by Section 21A.36.200 of this chapter. H. Home Daycare Standards: A home daycare as defined in Chapter 21A.62 of this title, may be allowed as a home occupation within a legally established residential dwelling. Home daycares shall comply with the following standards: 1. Group size shall not exceed 16 children at any one time, supervised by the number of caregivers required according to state licensing requirements; 2. Outdoor play areas provided for the home daycare shall be located only in the rear or side yards of the dwelling; 3. The home daycare must be accessory to the primary residential use of the dwelling (a second home daycare is exempt from this standard as permitted by state regulations); 4. The dwelling must be the home daycare provider’s primary residence (a second home daycare is exempt from this standard as permitted by state regulations); 5. The dwelling used for the home daycare shall remain in character with the residence except for minor alterations necessary to conduct the home daycare; and, 6. A provider operating a home daycare within their primary residence may obtain an additional business license for a second home daycare within a separate residential dwelling that is not their primary residence as allowed by state regulations, provided: a. The first home daycare is operating under an active business license, and the home occupation is in good standing with the city; and b. The structure is not altered in any way that would prevent future use as a residential dwelling. I. Decision by the Zoning Administrator: The zoning administrator shall issue a permit for the home occupation if they find that the standards of this title are met. J. Loss of Home Occupation Use: The zoning administrator may terminate any home occupation use upon making findings that support either or both of the following conclusions: 1. Any of the required licenses or permits necessary for the operation of the business have been revoked or suspended; or 2. Any of the provisions of this section have been violated. K. Termination of Home Occupation: The licensee shall be responsible for the operation of the licensed premises in conformance with this code. Any business license issued by the city may be suspended or revoked per the provisions of Title 5, Chapter 5.02 and this section. L. Appeals: 1. Any termination of a home occupation may be appealed pursuant to the provisions of Title 5, Chapter 5.02 of this code if the termination were a business license revocation. 2. Any person adversely affected by the denial or issuance of a permit for a home occupation may appeal that decision to the appeals hearing officer pursuant to Chapter 21A.16 of this title. M. Existing Home Occupation Licenses: Existing licenses for home occupations which were legal under the prior zoning ordinance regulating home occupations but which are not permitted under this title are subject to the provisions of Chapter 21A.38 of this title. N. Nontransferability: Permits for home occupations are personal to the applicant, nontransferable and do not run with the land. SECTION 9. Amending the Text of Section 21A.36.130. That Section 21A.36.130 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: General Provisions: Child Daycare), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.36.130: RESERVED. [The codifier is instructed to make the appropriate change to the Chapter 21A.36 index.] SECTION 10. Amending the Text of Section 21A.36.130. That Section 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: General Provisions: Child Daycare), shall be and hereby is amended as follows: a. Amending the definition of “DAYCARE.” That the definition of “DAYCARE” shall be amended to read as follows: DAYCARE, CHILD: Persons, associations, corporations, institutions or agencies providing on a regular basis care and supervision (regardless of educational emphasis) to children separated from their parents or guardians, as allowed by state regulations. b. Amending the definition of “DAYCARE CENTER, CHILD.” That the definition of “DAYCARE CENTER, CHILD” shall be amended to read as follows: DAYCARE CENTER, CHILD: An establishment providing care to any number of children at any one time, as allowed by state regulations, separated from their parents or guardians. This includes hourly centers, commercial centers, and preschools. “Child Daycare Center” does not include:(i) home daycares; or (ii) care provided in a facility or program exempt under Utah State Code. c. Amending the definition of “HOME OCCUPATION.” That the definition of “HOME OCCUPATION” shall be amended to read as follows: HOME OCCUPATION: A business, profession, occupation, or trade conducted for gain or support and located and conducted within a dwelling unit subject to the regulations set forth in Section 21A.36.030 of this title. d. Amending the definition of “SCHOOLS, PUBLIC OR PRIVATE.” That the definition of “SCHOOLS, PUBLIC OR PRIVATE” shall be amended to read as follows: SCHOOLS, PUBLIC OR PRIVATE: “Public or private schools” means an institution of learning or instruction primarily catering to minors, whether public or private, which is licensed at such facility by either the city or the state of Utah. The definition includes kindergarten, elementary schools, junior high schools, middle high schools, senior high schools or any special institution of learning under the jurisdiction of the state department of education. This does not include professional and vocational schools, charm schools, dancing schools, music schools or similar limited schools nor public or private universities or colleges. e. Adding the definition of “DAYCARE, HOME.” That the definition of “DAYCARE, HOME” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order to read as follows: DAYCARE, HOME: A use providing educational and/or daycare opportunities for children located within a building intended for residential use that is licensed or registered by the State of Utah. f. Deleting definitions. That the following definitions are hereby deleted from the definitions of terms: DAYCARE, NONREGISTERED HOME DAYCARE, REGISTERED HOME DAYCARE OR PRESCHOOL SECTION 11. 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 ______________, 2024. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2024. Published: ______________. Ordinance amending childcare facilities regulations (final) APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:___________________________ By: ____________________________ Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney November 21, 2023 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Project Chronology 2. Notice of City Council Public Hearing 3. Mailing List 1) CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2019-00225 2019-2023 Previous research was done by former employee April 3, 2023 Petition PLNPCM2019-00225 was assigned to Cassie Younger and Aaron Barlow June 13, 2023 Planning Staff sent 45-day Early Engagement to all Daycare providers within Salt Lake City and all City Recognized Community Organizations. Proposed changes were routed to all Citywide Departments for comment July 12, 2023 Planning staff presented at Salt Lake City Business Advisory Board July 17, 2023 Planning Staff presented at Sugar House Community Council August 1, 2023 Staff made changes to text amendments based on discussions with Licensing Managers from the Utah Department of Health and Human Services August 9, 2023 Work Session with Planning Commission to address issue of “second home daycares” August 31, 2023 The 45-day public comment period for Recognized Organizations ended. September 6, 2023 Staff sent out second notice to RCOs about changes to original petition, including proposed changes on second home daycares September 14, 2023 Staff presented changes at East Liberty Park Community Council Land Use Committee September 18, 2023 Staff presented changes at Sugar House Community Council September 28, 2023 Planning Commission public hearing notices mailed to all daycare providers. 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 at several daycares and public libraries throughout the city. October 9, 2023 Planning Commission Staff Report was posted. October 11, 2023 Planning Commission held a public hearing and made a recommendation to the City Council to approve the proposed text amendment with conditions. November 9, 2023 Staff requested ordinance from Attorney’s Office, which included requested changes from the Planning Commission. November 21, 2023 Ordinance received from Attorney’s Office 2) NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2019-00225 Zoning Text on child daycare facilities. This is a petition initiated by the Mayor to amend sections of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance relating to daycare use facilities, including Daycare Centers, Home Daycares, and Home Occupations. Specifically, amendments to sections 21A.33 Land Use Tables, 21A.36.030 Home Occupations, 21A.36.130 Daycares, 21A.60.020 List of Defined terms, and 21A.62.040 Definitions of Terms. The proposed amendments' intent is to reduce zoning barriers to childcare facilities in the city. The proposed amendments are citywide. 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 relating to 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 PLNPCM2019-00225. 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) MAILING LIST Name of Facility Address City State Zip BioKids 290 S 1500 E #115 Salt Lake City UT 84112 Boys and Girls Club of GSL Sugarhouse 968 E Sugarmont Drive Salt Lake City UT 84106 Bright Horizons @ U of U Research Park 419 Wakara Way, Suite 100 Salt Lake City UT 84108 Bright Horizons at Recursion 25 S Rio Grande Street Salt Lake City UT 84101 C Street Child Development 12 C Street Salt Lake City UT 84103 Caring for Kids Inc 500 Chipeta Way Salt Lake City UT 84108 Center Finance-OCC Charges 288 N 1460 W Salt Lake City UT 84120 Central City Recreation Center 615 S 300 E Salt Lake City UT 84111 Child Time Inc DBA The Avenues Preschool 50 S 900 E Salt Lake City UT 84102 Community Cooperative Nursery School 569 S 1300 E Salt Lake City UT 84102 Creative Learning Academy (DA Location)35 E 500 S Salt Lake City UT 84111 Creative Learning Academy of Utah (SL County)2001 S State Street Salt Lake City UT 84190 First Baptist Child Development Center 777 S 1300 E Salt Lake City UT 84102 First Friends 500 S Foothill Blvd Salt Lake City UT 84148 First Steps Inc.288 N 1460 W Salt Lake City UT 84116 Forever Children, LLC 494 E 2700 S Salt Lake City UT 84115 Fun Time Child Care LLC 1248 South 300 East Salt Lake City UT 84111 I.J. and Jeanne' Wagner Jewish Community Center 2 North Medical Drive Salt Lake City UT 84113 Intermountain Child Development Center 259 S 500 E Salt Lake City UT 84102 Jewish Community Center 2 North Medical Drive Salt Lake City UT 84113 Jewish Community Center Out of School Time Center 2 N Medical Center Drive Salt Lake City UT 84113 Jewish Preschool of the Arts 1760 S 1100 E Salt Lake City UT 84105 Kid Care Company II 475 S Redwood Road Salt Lake City UT 84104 Let Me Shine Christian Playschool/Preschool 1070 S Foothill Drive Salt Lake City UT 84108 Lit'l Scholars Learning Center Sugarhouse 653 E Simpson Avenue Salt Lake City UT 84106 Little Geniuses Learning Center LLC. LG4 1283 Zenith Ave Salt Lake City UT 84106 Mariama Binti Imran Child Care 1802 S Main St Salt Lake City UT 84115 Miss Billies Kids Kampus 232 W 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84101 Montessori Children's House 1303 S 1100 E Salt Lake City UT 84105 Neighborhood House Association 1050 W 500 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 New Prime Inc 3720 W 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 Northwest Childcare 1300 W 300 N Salt Lake City UT 84116 Panda Child Care 581 N Redwood Rd Salt Lake City UT 84116 Playful Learning Preschool at Kol Ami 2425 Heritage Way Salt Lake City UT 84109 Puddle Jumpers Child Development Center 802 N 2200 W Salt Lake City UT 84116 Rahman daycare 1735 South Redwood Rd Salt Lake City UT 84104 Salt Lake City Children's Center, The 405 S Main Street Salt Lake City UT 84111 Second Avenues Preschool, The 91 N R Street Salt Lake City UT 84103 St. John's CCDC- Sugarhouse 1432 S 1100 E Salt Lake City UT 84105 St. John's Community Child Development Center 475 E Herbert Ave Salt Lake City UT 84111 St. Paul's Preschool & Childcare, Inc.261 S 900 E Salt Lake City UT 84102 Tender Loving Care Teaching Learning Ctr.1035 W Indiana Avenue Salt Lake City UT 84104 The Playhouse Childcare 1740 S 1100 E Salt Lake City UT 84105 The Tim & Brenda Huval Child Care Center 1535 Edison Street Salt Lake City UT 84115 UKIDS- East Village 1601 University Village East Salt Lake City UT 84108 UKIDS- President's Circle 225 S 1400 E Room 120 Salt Lake City UT 84112 UKids-Guardsman Way 545 S Guardsman Way Salt Lake City UT 84108 Wasatch Presbyterian Preschool 1626 S 1700 E Salt Lake City UT 84108 YWCA - Lolie Eccles Early Education Center 344 E 300 S Salt Lake City UT 84111 BIG GENIUS 248 E HOLLYWOOD Salt Lake City UT 84115-2179 LYDIA PRATT 1896 W SERGEANT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 HUGHES DAYCARE 2393 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 YOU GOAT THIS 410 E 7TH SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 CAROLYN PEARCE 511 E HAWTHORNE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 DORATHY'S DAYCARE L.L.C.451 E WILSON SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 BETSY ANDREWS 453 E WILSON SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 MARYCARMEN'S DAYCARE 1050 W 500 N Salt Lake UT 84116-2672 LESLYS FRIENDS CHILD CARE 1144 W LAFAYETTE Salt Lake UT 84116-2216 ANNA M REYES 1258 S GLENDALE Salt Lake UT 84104-2027 MARTHA E SARINANA 1204 S ONTARIO Salt Lake UT 84104- DEBORAH PETTET 1311 W ARAPAHOE Salt Lake City UT 84104-2640 DOODLEBUG CONNECTION 854 E 1700 S Salt Lake City UT 84105-3251 SARAH K. KINGSTON 453 E WILSON Salt Lake City UT 84115-1770 KEFAH ALSARRIEH 1719 W DALE RIDGE Salt Lake City UT 84116- NADIA ISSA 1737 W IRIE Salt Lake City UT 84116-0000 CARLA VERHAAREN 1950 E ATKIN Salt Lake City UT 84106-4054 HODO DAYCARE 394 N 1400 W Salt Lake City UT 84116-2534 Rachel E. West Child Care 463 E WILSON Salt Lake City UT 84115-1746 Jessica McKay's Daycare 451 E WILSON Salt Lake City UT 84115-1771 Carol Andrews 445 E WILSON Salt Lake City UT 84115-1746 Fatumo Hussein 1859 W 700 N Salt Lake City UT 84116-1844 DIANE DAYCARE 1157 S EMERY Salt Lake UT 84104-2023 MIKEL R CANNON 1497 W GLENROSE Salt Lake City UT 84104-3223 LILI'S DAY CARE 336 W 500 N Salt Lake City UT 84103-1238 MONICA PORTOCARRERO 1447 N GENERAL Salt Lake City UT 84116-4307 ERNEST MANYUAT 514 N MORTON Salt Lake City UT 84116-2416 CAROL JONES DAYCARE 644 S 600 E Salt Lake City UT 84102-3320 DAHIRA ALI NOOR 1175 S PROSPECT Salt Lake City UT 84104-0000 CLAUDIA LAMAS 1164 E 400 S Salt Lake City UT 84102-3142 CASA DE NANA MONTESSORI CORNER 527 N 200 W Salt Lake City UT 84103-1302 Annie's Nanny Services 530 N 900 W Salt Lake City UT 84116-2718 VERONICA ESTRADA/DAY CARE 526 N IRIE Salt Lake City UT 84116-0000 LAURA FULLER 453 E WILSON Salt Lake City UT 84115-1770 ROSY'S DAYCARE 961 W FREMONT Salt Lake City UT 84104-2006 Cassie Younger 1168 Colorado St Salt Lake City UT 84116 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION SWORN STATEMENT SUPPORTING CLOSURE OF MEETING I, ____________________,acted as the presiding member of the Salt Lake Councilwhich met on ___________________ in personand online. Appropriate notice was given of WKH Council's meeting as required by §52-4-202. A quorum of the Council was present at the meeting and voted byat least a two-thirds vote,as detailed in the minutes of theopen meeting,to close a portion of the meeting to di scuss the following: §52-4-205(l)(a) discussion of the character,professional competence,or physica l or mental health of an individual; §52 -4-205(1)(b) strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining; §52-4-205(l)(c)strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation; §52-4-205(l)(d) strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange,or lease of real property,including any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the transaction would: (i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration;or (ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; §52-4-205(l)(e) strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares if: (i) public discussion of the transaction would: (A) di sclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (B) pre vent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms;(ii) if the public body previously gave public n otice that the property would be offered for sale;and (iii) the terms of the sa le are publicly disclosed before the public body approves the sal e; §52-4-205(1)(f) discussion regarding deployment of security personnel,devices, or systems;and §52-4-205(1)(g) investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct. A Closed Meeting may also be held for Attorney-Client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah Code §78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act. Other, described as follows: _____________________________________________________________ The content of the closed portion of the Council meeting was restricted to a discussion of the matter(s) for which the meeting was closed. With regard to the closed meeting, the following was publicly announced and recorded,and entered on the minutes of the open meeting at which the closed meeting was approved: (a)the reason or reasons for holding the closed meeting; (b)the l ocation where the closed meeting will be held;and (c)the vote of each member of the public body eithe r foror against the motion to hold the closed meeting. The recording and any minutes of the closed meeting will include: (a) the date,time, and place of the meeting; (b) the names of members Present and Absent;and (c) the names of all others present except wheresuch disclosure would infringe on the confidentiality necessary to fulfill the original purpose of closing the meeting. Pursuant to §52-4-206(6),a sworn statement i s required to close a meeting under §52-4-205(1)(a) or (f), but a record by electronic rec ording or detailed minutes is not re quired; and Pursua nt to §52-4-206(1), a record by electronic recording and/or detailed written minutes i s required for a meeting closed under §52-4-205(1)(b),(c),(d),(e),and (g): A record was not made. A record was made by: : Electronic recording Detailed written minutes I hereby swear or affirm under penalty of perjury thatthe above information is trueandcorrect to the best of my knowledge. Council Presiding Member Date of Signature Februrary 6, 2024Victoria Petro Victoria Petro (Apr 9, 2024 15:55 EDT) 04/09/2024 Work Session Sworn Statement 2-6-24 Final Audit Report 2024-04-09 Created:2024-02-07 By:STEPHANIE ELLIOTT (stephanie.elliott@slcgov.com) Status:Signed Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAAB56hPkPYZulbaaIEPg1HPi7Z4FQrTgny "Work Session Sworn Statement 2-6-24" History Document created by STEPHANIE ELLIOTT (stephanie.elliott@slcgov.com) 2024-02-07 - 5:57:22 PM GMT Document emailed to victoria.petro@slcgov.com for signature 2024-02-07 - 6:00:17 PM GMT Email viewed by victoria.petro@slcgov.com 2024-02-08 - 5:11:24 AM GMT STEPHANIE ELLIOTT (stephanie.elliott@slcgov.com) added alternate signer Chris Wharton (chris.wharton@slcgov.com). The original signer victoria.petro@slcgov.com can still sign. 2024-03-20 - 4:30:38 PM GMT Document emailed to Chris Wharton (chris.wharton@slcgov.com) for signature 2024-03-20 - 4:30:39 PM GMT Email viewed by Chris Wharton (chris.wharton@slcgov.com) 2024-03-20 - 4:37:42 PM GMT Signer victoria.petro@slcgov.com entered name at signing as Victoria Petro 2024-04-09 - 7:55:53 PM GMT Document e-signed by Victoria Petro (victoria.petro@slcgov.com) Signature Date: 2024-04-09 - 7:55:55 PM GMT - Time Source: server Agreement completed. 2024-04-09 - 7:55:55 PM GMT