HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/27/2024 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
WORK SESSION
August 27, 2024 Tuesday 1:30 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 agendas)
Welcome and public meeting rules
In accordance with State Statute and City Ordinance, the meeting may be held electronically. After 5:00 p.m., please enter the
City & County Building through the main east entrance.
The Work Session is a discussion among Council Members and select presenters. The public is welcome to listen. Items
scheduled on the Work Session or Formal Meeting may be moved and / or discussed during a different portion of the Meeting
based on circumstance or availability of speakers.
The Website addresses listed on the agenda may not be available after the Council votes on the item. Not all agenda items will
have a webpage for additional information read associated agenda paperwork.
Generated: 09:41:09
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 ~ 1:30 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.Fiscal Year 2024-25 Budget: Capital Improvement Program
Follow-up ~ 1:45 p.m.
15 min.
The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about the City's Capital Improvement
Program (CIP), which involves the construction, purchase or renovation of buildings,
parks, streets or other city-owned physical structures. Generally, projects have a useful
life of at least five years and cost $50,000 or more. The Council approves debt service
and overall CIP funding in June with the annual budget process, while project-specific
funding is approved by September 1 of the same calendar year.
For more information visit tinyurl.com/SLCFY25CIP.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Thursday, June 6, 2024; Tuesday, July 2, 2024; Tuesday, July 9, 2024;
Tuesday, August 13, 2024; and Tuesday, August 27, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, June 11, 2024
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, July 9, 2024 at 7 p.m. and Tuesday,
August 13, 2024 at 6 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, August 27, 2024
3.Ordinance: Sports, Entertainment, Culture, and Convention
District Text Amendment ~ 2:00 p.m.
15 min.
The Council will receive a briefing on a proposed ordinance that would amend the D4
Secondary Central Business District zoning district to support the creation of a Sports,
Entertainment, Culture, and Convention (SECC). The proposed text amendments would
make the following changes to the D4 zoning district:
1. Modify the maximum height allowed through design review from 125 feet to
600 feet.
2. Modifying the required front and corner yard setback requirements are
changing to clarify that buildings with plazas and other similar public spaces are
allowed to exceed the maximum setback.
3. Change the table of allowed uses for the D4 zoning district would change as
follows:
o Stadiums change from a conditional use to a permitted use.
o Commercial parking would be changed from a conditional use to a
permitted use. (A current requirement prohibiting the demolition of a building for
principal use parking on the property would remain.)
4. Expand the existing sign overlay that applies to the Delta Center to extend to
the blocks that contain the Salt Palace. This allows more flexibility for signs related
to the entertainment venues within the overlay and allows modifications to signs
through the design review process for buildings that are subject to design review.
For more information visit tinyurl.com/SLCRevitalizationZone.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, July 2, 2024; Tuesday, August 13, 2024; and Tuesday, August 27,
2024
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, July 2, 2024
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, August 13, 2024 at 6 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, August 27, 2024
4.Informational: R-1 Zoning Districts Study ~ 2:15 p.m.
45 min.
The Council will receive a briefing on a report that the Planning Division produced in
response to a Council-initiated Legislative Intent requesting a study of the R-1 zoning
districts. The report provides a history of single-family zoning in the city, a short analysis
and options for each of the items requested, a summary of similar actions taken by other
communities, a discussion of how each action aligns with adopted City policies, and a list
of resources reviewed during the research of the report.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, August 27, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
5.Informational: Consolidating Existing Commercial and
Mixed-Use Zoning Districts ~ 3:00 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive an introductory briefing about a proposal that would consolidate
the existing mixed-use and commercial zoning districts into as few as six new zoning
districts. The purpose of the proposal would simplify the zoning code by removing
redundant zoning regulations, improve the consistency of zoning regulations, and make
the zoning code easier to understand and use. This proposal impacts three different Titles
of the Salt Lake City Code. No action is being taken at this time. The proposal will
eventually come back to the Council for consideration after going through the standard
zoning amendment process, including a Planning Commission recommendation.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, August 27, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
6.Ordinance: Text Amendment to Prohibit Demolition of
Dwelling Units for Parking Uses ~ 3:20 p.m.
20 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 the development of parking facilities.
The proposal would prohibit the demolition of dwelling units for stand-alone parking
uses and the expansion or modification of parking for existing uses unless it includes
additional housing units. Other sections of Title 21A may also be amended as part of this
petition.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, August 27, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, August 27, 2024
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, September 17, 2024 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 1, 2024
7.Tentative Break ~ 3:40 p.m.
20 min.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -
Set Public Hearing Date -
Hold hearing to accept public comment -
TENTATIVE Council Action -
8.Ordinance: Zoning Map Amendment at Approximately 754
South State Street Follow-up ~ 4:00 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about a proposal that would amend the
zoning of property at approximately 754 South State Street (former Sears site) from D-2
(Downtown Support District) to D-1 (Central Business District). The purpose of the
proposed amendment is to allow for the redevelopment of the property with an urban
hospital. The Council will also consider an ordinance that would amend the text of
Section 21A.33.050 of the Salt Lake City Code to add Hospitals (including accessory
lodging facility), and Ambulance Services (indoor & outdoor) as Conditional Uses in the
D-1 Central Business District. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to
another zoning district with similar characteristics. Petitioner: Kirton McConkie.(This
item is related to the proposed zoning text amendment for the D1 zone).
For more information on this item visit https://tinyurl.com/754StateStreetRezone.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, July 11, 2023; Tuesday, June 11, 2024; and Tuesday, August 27, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, June 13, 2023 and Tuesday, July 9, 2024
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, July 11, 2023 and Tuesday, August 27,
2024 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 3, 2024
9.Informational: Foothill Trails Plan Evaluation and
Recommendations ~ 4:30 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive a briefing from Public Lands about the 2020 Foothills Plan
evaluation and recommendations report. The Council will also consider the department’s
request to remove the existing hold on trail construction funding, which has been in place
since 2021.
For more information visit tinyurl.com/FoothillsMP.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, August 27, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
10.Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.1 for Fiscal Year 2024-
25 ~ 5:00 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about Budget Amendment No.1 for the Fiscal Year
2024-25 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 three new full-time employee
positions in the Attorney's Office related to restructuring and moving the City
Prosecutor's team, Fleet Block pre-development work and demolition, a new line of
credit for the Airport Redevelopment Project, additional funding to several parks capital
improvement projects and new ongoing funding for maintenance of Public Lands
properties, among other items.
For more information visit tinyurl.com/SLCFY25.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, August 27, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, August 13, 2024
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, September 3, 2024 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 17, 2024
11.Board Appointment: Sister Cities Advisory Board – Jane Kim ~ 5:20 p.m.
5 min
The Council will interview Jane Kim prior to considering appointment to the Sister
Cities Board for a term ending July 3, 2028.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, August 27, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, August 27, 2024
12.Board Appointment: City and County Building Conservation
and Use Committee – Steven Burt ~ 5:25 p.m.
5 min
The Council will interview Steven Burt prior to considering appointment to the City and
County Building Conservation and Use Committee for a term ending July 17, 2028.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, August 27, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, August 27, 2024
13.Council Discussion on Compensation ~ 5:30 p.m.
45 min.
The Council will hold an initial discussion on compensation for City Council Members.
For more information visit tinyurl.com/CouncilCompensation.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, August 27, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
Standing Items
14.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair -
-
Report of Chair and Vice Chair.
15.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:
•Legislative Action; and
•Scheduling Items.
16.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, August 22, 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
August 27, 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.comThriving in PlacePlanning Division
Central Community Plan
•Online Public Input: Ended
•Final Draft AVAILABLE
Formal recommendation to
be made in September
Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canBallpark NEXT / RDA Ballparknext.comThriving in PlacePlanning Division
Commercial & Mixed-Use Zoning District Consolidation
Join the Upcoming Public Events
Open House: September 4 at the Sorenson Unity Center
Walking Tour: September 9 in Sugarhouse
Walking Tour: September 12 in N. Temple / Euclid Area
Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canBallpark NEXT / RDA Ballparknext.com
Planning slc.gov/planning
Thriving in PlacePublic Lands
•Construction Begins: September
•Canvassing: Next week on Tuesday,
Aug. 27 from 8:30am to 10:30am
•Website for Updates via Feedback
Page
Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canBallpark NEXT / RDA Ballparknext.com
Planning slc.gov/planning
Thriving in PlacePublic Lands
Richmond Park's
Taufer Park's
Sites of Community Engagement: September 7
1.Downtown Farmers Market
2.Open House @ Central City Recreation Center
Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canBallpark NEXT / RDA Ballparknext.comThriving in PlacePublic Lands / Allen Park
Public Input via feedback
page
Following a 2-week comment period, Public Lands will
review and incorporate additional feedback before
finalizing the document.
Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canBallpark NEXT / RDA Ballparknext.comThriving in PlaceEvents
Events are collected from ACE funded events, City sponsored events, and publicly permitted events. This is not
meant to be an all-inclusive list of all events going on in the City. Please verify information before attending.
Event Start Date Event Location Hosting Organization(s)ACE Funded
Downtown Farmers Market 08/31/24 Pioneer Park Urban Food Connections of
Utah
Yes
Downtown Farmers Market 09/07/24 Pioneer Park Urban Food Connections of
Utah
Yes
KRCL's Day in the Park 09/07/24 International Peace
Gardens
90.9fm KRCL Yes
Latinx/Hispanic Health &
Heritage Fair
09/07/24 The Gateway Utah Health Policy Project / U
of U/ Utah Jazz
Yes
Pacific Health 5K 09/07/24 Liberty Park Utah Pacific Islander Health
Coalition
Yes
Homeless Resource Center Utilization:
•All locations "At Capacity" - 99.2%
https://endutahhomelessness.org/daily-bed-availability/
Encampment Impact Mitigation/ Rapid
Intervention:
•EIM- 200 S I-215 - 700 W
•RIT-JRT 600 S – Modesto
Park,9Line, Peace Labyrinth & Liberty Park
Resource Fair:Sept 13th @ Library Square
MicroShelter Community move:
Buildings have been moved to 700 W.
Estimated opening: By October
Winter Shelter Plans:
900 24/7 beds + 100 Code Blue
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
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/SLCFY25CIP
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke, Senior Analyst
DATE:August 27, 2024
RE:Capital Improvement Program Project Allocations for Fiscal Year 2025
MOTION 1 – ADOPT
I move that the Council approve a resolution adopting the Capital Improvement Program project-specific
allocations for Fiscal Year 2025 as shown on the attached Exhibit A Funding Log.
MOTION 2 – NOT ADOPT
I move that the Council proceed to the next agenda item.
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY25CIP
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke, Senior Analyst
DATE:August 27, 2024
RE:FY2025 Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
CIP BUDGET BOOK PAGES:
-5-13 shows a summary table of proposed projects
and funding sources
-14-15 lists projects not recommended for funding
-19-23 identifies existing bonds paid from CIP (does not include General Obligation bonds) and
other ongoing obligations
-27-61 has project specific pages for the recommended General Fund CIP projects
-65-124 has project specific pages for enterprise fund capital projects (Airport, Golf, Public Utilities, and RDA)
NEW INFORMATION
At the August 13 briefing, the Council reviewed Council Member Puy’s priority projects, continued reviewing the
Attachment 2 Funding Log, and revisited several projects previously discussed. The Council decided to consider
adding funding to Budget Amendment #1 to address the emergent situation on North Temple after herbicide
was accidentally applied on approximately 200 trees. The Council also discussed the potential funding scenario
from the staff report, and what projects might receive the remaining $595,153 of General Fund dollars. The
Council held and closed the second public hearing with approximately a dozen speakers giving public comment.
The Attachment 2 Funding Log has been updated to reflect the potential funding scenario, new information, and
based on the Council’s deliberations. Project-specific updates are covered individually below.
Options for the $595,153 Remaining in Potential Funding Scenario
The four projects below were discussed at the August 13 briefing for the $595,153 remaining after the six Council
priority projects identified in the potential funding scenario (see the summary and table starting on page three of
this staff report).
- #4 Complete Streets Reconstruction
o This citywide program requested and is recommended to be fully funded at $4.5 million. The
Complete Streets Reconstruction Program is easily scalable so additional funding could be
readily used.
- #11 Safer Crossings Citywide
o This citywide program requested $600,000 and is recommended to be partially funded at
$300,000. Council Member Dugan suggested adding $100,000 to ensure enough funding was
available for more expensive types of traffic calming like HAWK signals. The program is easily
scalable so additional funding could be readily used. The funding is intentionally flexible to
address small to large traffic calming improvements for pedestrian and cyclist safety needs
depending on the infrastructure at different locations.
Project Timeline:
Budget Hearings: May 21 & June 4, 2024
1st Briefing: June 6, 2024
2nd Briefing: July 2, 2024
3rd Briefing & Public Hearing: July 9, 2024
4th Briefing & Public Hearing: August 13, 2024
5th Briefing & Adoption Vote: August 27, 2024
Note: The Council approves debt service and overall
CIP funding in June with the annual budget. Project
specific funding is approved later by September 1.
Page | 2
- #48 Fayette Avenue Improvements between Washington Street & 200 West
o The potential funding scenario includes $80,000 to fund designs as a Phase 1 and then the
project would return in a future CIP cycle to request Phase 2 construction funding. Council
Member Mano suggested fully funding the project which would use $480,000 of the remaining
funding and leave $115,153 available for other projects.
- #53 International Peace Gardens
o Council Member Puy advocated for funding this project. It is not recommended for funding by
the resident advisory board or the Mayor. Fully funding the project would require $512,696. Of
that total cost $289,397 is eligible for parks impact fees and $223,299 could come from the
General Fund.
o Some or all of this project could be funded from project #22 Amplifying Our Jordan River
Revitalization and/or the $9 million for the Jordan River Corridor from the Parks, Trails, &
Open Space Bond.
o If the Council only funded the security fencing part of the project (not the education signs /
kiosks), then the total would be $449,064. The security fencing is 50% eligible for parks impact
fees which would be $224,532 from parks impact fees and another $224,532 from the General
Fund.
o If the Council fully funded the project using $512,696 of the remaining funding, then $82,457
would be available for other projects. Alternatively, the Council could split the cost between the
$595,153 of remaining funds and project #22. Another option would be to fund the General
Fund portion from the remaining $595,153 and then in Budget Amendment #1 use parks impact
fees for the eligible costs of the project.
#20 Memory Grove Park Urgent Repairs + Preservation & Maintenance Plan
Council Member Puy flagged the 10th subproject within this application requesting $160,000 for a preservation
and maintenance plan to potentially be shifted to another project. Council Member Wharton stated fully funding
the project is his top priority for this CIP cycle and the only District Three specific project currently
recommended to receive funding. He also stated the park is highly used because of the size and proximity to
downtown, is prominently featured on Visit Salt Lake and other tourism sites, and a long-term plan is needed for
the City’s stewardship of the statewide war memorials and related uses at the park.
#22 Amplifying Our Jordan River Revitalization Scope Adjustment
Council Member Puy suggested an adjustment to the project scope on the funding log identifying the Fife
Wetlands and the International Peace Gardens as the top priority areas for the $1.5 million from CIP. These
funds would be combined with the $9 million for improvements along the Jordan River Corridor in the City. The
$9 million is anticipated from the voter-approved Parks, Trails, & Open Space Bond. The funding log is updated
to reflect this scope adjustment.
#35 Faultline Park Playground Replacement
Council Member Lopez Chavez shared an update that this project had secured funding outside of CIP and did
not need to be included as a Council priority project for potential funding.
#41 California Avenue Pedestrian Safety Improvements Construction
Council Member Puy advocated for recapturing the $875,000 from the cancelled Sorenson Centers Connecting
Corridor Project from five years ago and instead use $807,000 of that total for project #41. It would fully fund
recommendations of the safety study that the Council funded in FY2023 CIP. The remaining $68,0000 would go
to other projects. This project would benefit the same community and many of the same students and families
that use the Sorenson Centers a few blocks away. The intersections of California Avenue and Concord Street and
Glendale Drive are frequently used by students and families going to and from the adjacent Glendale Middle
School, Mountain View Elementary School, and Glendale Branch Library.
#47 Fairmont Park Basketball Court Scope Adjustment
Council Member Young suggested an adjustment to the scope to preserve the opportunity for more residents to
weigh in on the project. She suggested that the size, location, and amenities will be determined through public
engagement and coordination with other capital projects in Fairmont Park. This approach removes the specific
from the project scope to allow flexibility for public feedback to adjust the project details. The funding log is
updated to reflect this scope adjustment.
Page | 3
#48 Fayette Ave Improvements between Washington Street and 200 West
Council Members asked for additional information about the local matching funds for a UDOT project /
property nearby as mentioned in the project application. The Administration reviewed the application,
supporting documents, and UDOT Transportation Investment Fund (TIF) projects and plans. They concluded
that “there is currently no identified UDOT TIF project that this CIP funding could be applied to as a ‘local
match’.” The City’s Transportation Division is the lead office for TIF project nominations submitted by the City
and confirmed there are no current applications that would relate to this CIP application.
There is no formal commitment from UDOT for this specific project. The funding log has been updated to
remove that statement. The community is working with UDOT on broader and more complex projects in the
area that are separate from this CIP request, such as activating and programming space underneath the
Interstate 15 and West Temple on and off ramps.
#53 International Peace Gardens
Council Member Puy advocated for funding this project which is mostly adding security fencing around the
perimeter of the gardens. A smaller portion of the project is adding educational signs and kiosks. The Council
discussed making the International Peace Gardens a top priority for the $1.5 million proposed in project #22
(covered above). Alternatively, the Council could consider funding project #22 and project #53 to add more
improvements.
#75 Planning and Design for Future CIP Applications
Council Members discussed potentially adding policy goals for the $350,000 proposed in this CIP cycle. Some
Council Members expressed a preference of taking additional time to consider this new funding tool which could
be well paired with a Capital Asset Plan once it’s available. Other Council Members expressed an interest in
policy goals of implementing the Citywide Transportation Plan, traffic calming, and water conservation.
Alternatively, the Administration proposed several uses for the funds as listed below. The total cost of these uses
is more than four times the recommended funding level of $350,000.
The Administration stated the funds would likely be used by the Public Services' Department's Architectural
Services Group such as for building reconfigurations and renovations, and the Transportation Division which
provided the below list of potential projects.
1) Operationalize the newly adopted Citywide Transportation Plan (Connect SLC), which entails hiring a
research fellow or consulting firm to review all city code, standards, policies, and processes for
consistency, then recommend changes, updates, and new elements. Est $180-500K. If funded, we've
identified opportunities to pursue grant funds.
2) Concept Reports: develop preliminary designs and cost estimates for projects on the 10-year Capital
Improvement Plan. Est annual need is $300K, can use as little as $50K.
3) Multimodal Traffic Control: supplement the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)
with more nuanced/detailed standards that better address active transportation and transit. Est. $30-
50K.
4) Vision Zero: "near-miss" software to detect and analyze collision close calls. Also scalable. Pilot for as
little as est. $250K.
5) Neighborhood Byways Implementation Plan: similar to Livable Streets, a guiding document with a
methodology for prioritizing neighborhood byways and coordinating them with other City plans and
projects. Est. $30-50K through on-call.
6) Update Ped & Bike Master Plan: Est. $50-100K.
Budget Amendment #1: Recapture $1,887,153 from Completed Projects and a Cancelled Project
A placeholder for a Council-added item is in Budget Amendment #1 to preserve the opportunity for the Council
to quickly act on the budgetary steps necessary to recapture these funds. The Council is scheduled to hold
separate briefings on Budget Amendment on August 27 and September 3.
Information below was provided to the Council at earlier briefings
At the July 9 briefing, the Council continued reviewing projects on the Attachment 2 Funding Log and identified
several projects for potential partial or additional funding. The Council also raised project-specific questions to
Page | 4
help inform potential uses of $1,887,153 available to recapture from projects that were completed under budget
and a cancelled project. If the Council recaptures these funds, then the rescopes would appear in a budget
amendment later this year. The Council also added $250,000 from the General Fund to CIP during the annual
budget. Combined this results in a total of $2,137,153 of General Fund dollars above the Mayor’s Recommended
Budget and available to allocate to any project.
The Council may wish to continue reviewing the remaining funding log projects 61 through 80. Some Council
Members mentioned wanting to revisit project #47 Fairmont Park Basketball Court ($678,600 parks impact fees
and $75,400 capital maintenance holding account) when Council Member Young will be in attendance in
context of the other public investments in that park. Some Council Members also mentioned project #75
planning and design for future CIP applications to either shift the $350,000 to other projects, add policy
parameters such as certain types of projects that could access the funds, and/or ask the Administration to bring
back this application with a Capital Asset Plan that would determine which projects receive the funding.
The Administration’s responses to the Council’s questions are shown below in order of appearance on the
funding log. A potential funding scenario is shown in the table below. The Council is scheduled to hold a second
public hearing on August 13. A fifth briefing could be held on August 27 if needed, which is also the last
scheduled meeting for the Council to adopt the CIP budget before the September 1 deadline under state law. The
Attachment 2 Funding Log has been updated with new information.
Potential Funding Scenario (not comprehensive of options; intended for discussion purposes)
The table below assumes recapturing the $1,012,153 from projects that were completed under budget and the
$875,000 from the cancelled Sorenson Center connecting corridor project. There is also $250,000 the Council
added to CIP during the annual budget. Combined these three sources provide $2,137,153 of General Fund
dollars. The table below lists 17 projects that Council Members raised for potential funding. $15,343,696 would
be needed to fully fund all 17 projects. Of that total, $3,063,397 is eligible for parks impact fees.
The scenario would use $1.542 million across six projects that multiple Council Members expressed support for
during July briefings. The $595,153 of remaining funding could go to any project. The six projects receiving
additional funding in this scenario are:
-#12 Sugar House Park Pavilion Replacement(s): the additional $480,000 would fund a second
pavilion replacement to match the $960,000 the County approved for the projects (50/50 cost share).
-#19 Traffic Signal Replacements and Upgrades: the additional $40,000 would provide a total of
$900,000 to fully fund two traffic signal replacements ($450,000 each).
-#29 Jordan River Trail Food Forest + Og Woi Partner Garden: the $20,000 would fund soil
testing to confirm the extent of environmental contamination and needed remediation. If testing
confirms the project’s viability, then the Council requests the Administration return in a budget
amendment to fully fund with parks impact fees.
-#38 500 East Raised Crosswalk between 400 South and 500 South: the $115,000 would fully
fund the project between First Step House’s facilities and the Smiths grocery store across the street.
-#41 California Avenue Pedestrian Safety Improvements Construction: the $807,000 would
fully fund recommendations of the safety study that the Council funded in FY2023 CIP. The funds would
come from recapturing the $875,000 of the cancelled Sorenson Centers connecting corridor project. The
remaining $68,0000 would go to other projects. This project would benefit the same community and
many of the same students and families that use the Sorenson Centers a few blocks away.
-#48 Fayette Avenue Improvements between Washington Street & 200 West: the $80,000
would fund designs as Phase 1 and then the project would return in a future CIP cycle for Phase 2
construction funding.
-$595,153 remaining funding could go to any project
Project Request Mayor
Recommended
Potential
Additional
Potential
Council
Total
Notes
#4 Complete Streets
Reconstruction $ 4,500,000 $ 4,500,000 $ - $ 4,500,000
Easily scalable to
increase or decrease
funding amount
#6 Complete Streets
Overlay $ 3,500,000 $ 3,500,000 $ - $ 3,500,000
Easily scalable to
increase or decrease
funding amount
Page | 5
Project Request Mayor
Recommended
Potential
Additional
Potential
Council
Total
Notes
#11 Safer Crossings
Citywide $ 600,000 $ 300,000 $ - $ 300,000
A HAWK signal
would be at least
$365k
#12 Sugar House Park
Pavilion
Replacement(s) $ 960,000 $ 480,000 $ 480,000 $ 960,000
$480k per pavilion;
County is matching
City funding level
#13 Transition to
Regionally
Appropriate
Landscapes, Adapting
Irrigation Systems,
and Reducing Water
Use
$ 3,250,000 $ 500,000 $ - $ 500,000
Capital maintenance
is ineligible for
parks impact fees
#19 Traffic Signal
Replacements and
Upgrades $ 2,700,000 $ 860,000 $ 40,000 $ 900,000
$450k per traffic
signal replacement
#27 Pedestrian Safety
/ HAWK Signal at
Richmond St. and
Zenith Ave.
$ 500,000 $ - $ - $ -
Intersection already
has rectangular
rapid flashing
beacons
#29 Jordan River
Trail Food Forest +
Og Woi Partner
Garden $ 385,000 $ - $ 20,000 $ 20,000
$20k for soil
testing; return in
budget amendment
to fully fund with
parks impact fees if
testing allows
#35 Faultline Park
Playground $ 337,000 $ - $ - $ - Ineligible for parks
impact fees
#38 500 East Raised
Crosswalk between
400 South and 500
South
$ 115,000 $ - $ 115,000 $ 115,000
Located between
First Step House
facilities and the
Smiths Grocery
Store
#40 Poplar Grove
Park Lighting
$ 657,000 $ - $ - $ -
$219,000 is eligible
for parks impact
fees for interior
lighting; $438,000
from the General
Fund for perimeter
/ street lighting
#41 California Avenue
Pedestrian Safety
Improvements
Construction $ 807,000 $ - $ 807,000 $ 807,000
From the cancelled
Sorenson Centers
Connecting Corridor
project; benefits
same community
#48 Fayette Avenue
Improvements
between Washington
Street & 200 West
$ 560,000 $ - $ 80,000 $ 80,000
$80k for Phase 1
design, would
return for Phase 2
construction
funding
Page | 6
Project Request Mayor
Recommended
Potential
Additional
Potential
Council
Total
Notes
#49 Regional Athletic
Complex Adding
Fields, Rose Park
Lane Trail, and
Planning $ 5,450,000 $ - $ - $ -
Three separate
projects; $2.555
Million is eligible
for parks impact
fees; would need
$2.895 Million from
the General Fund
#53 International
Peace Gardens
$ 512,696 $ - $ - $ -
$289,397 is eligible
for parks impact
fees; would need
$223,299 from the
General Fund
#57 First
Encampment Park $ 145,000 $ - $ - $ - Ineligible for parks
impact fees
Trees on North
Temple where
Herbicide accidentally
Applied
$ 505,000 N/A $ - $ -
Not a CIP
application;
emergent situation
and Council
Member request
TOTAL COUNCIL ADDITIONAL $1,542,000
OVER / UNDER AVAILABLE $ 595,153
Project #4 Complete Streets Reconstruction: Council Members requested a list of all street segments
rated serious and failed in the overall condition index (OCI). It’s a measure of the street pavement and surface.
An OCI of 100 is a new street and an OCI of zero is a failed deteriorated street. The Administration provided a
dashboard (www.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/bf4b99fa087a4475bd0f76169cf645c4) with a map of the street
segment locations and summary information. Highlights include:
- 199.1 total lane miles are in serious condition which is an OCI between 11 – 25
- 31.7 total lane miles are in failed condition which is an OCI between 0-10
- $243.6 million is the total estimated cost to fully reconstruct all the street segments in serious and failed
condition (assuming a $150 per square yard average cost)
- 84% of serious and failed segments are local streets, 11% are major / arterial roads, and 5% are collector
streets (medium / in between local and arterial)
- The geographic distribution of serious and failed street segments is mostly in residential areas of the
City and spread across all seven Council Districts
➢Policy Question: The Council may wish to ask the Administration would CIP funding for street
reconstructions go entirely to street segments in the failed and serious condition categories? The City’s
approach to streets has been to increase maintenance of streets in good and fair condition to prolong the
useful life of the pavement and reconstruct streets in worst-condition first.
Project #11 Safer Crossings Citywide: Council Members asked are there specific locations where these
funds are anticipated to be used? No specific locations were identified in the application. The Administration
stated that locations are “typically selected based on safety data, opportunities to construct in conjunction with
other projects/appropriations, community feedback, and nearby land uses/land use changes, such as schools or
new development.” At the $300,000 funding level two to four crosswalk enhancements could be funded or one
medium project. Larger projects such as a HAWK signal would cost at least $365,000.
Project #24 Art Barn Failing Infrastructure and Accessibility Improvements: The Council asked
would any ADA issues remain at the facility after this project? An ADA ramp outside from the ground level to the
basement has significant deterioration and a steep grade that are not addressed by this project. Funding to
address the outdoor ramp could return to the Council in a future CIP cycle. The Administration provided the
Page | 7
below cost breakout. Note that there are five items with an estimated cost of $255,000 and six items with
unknown costs that could be completed depending on remaining funding after the other five items.
Failing Infrastructure
-$45,000 - Replace failing wood floors throughout the building, and should budget permit, address
deteriorating carpet and repairs to basement floors due to previous leakage.
-$100,000 - Lower-Level Artist Studio and Community Workspace Renovation.
-Unknown cost - Should budget permit upon completion of application priorities; we would like to
complete an evaluation of the Art Barn to address any additional failing infrastructure issues such as dry
rot, foundation failures, and other concerns our team has yet to identify.
Accessibility
-$45,000 - Bring up to code: Accessibility ramp at entrance to Finch Lane Gallery.
-Unknown cost - Bring up to code: Accessibility ramp to basement board room.
-Unknown cost - Remodel basement bathroom to make accessible, should funds permit and ADA audit
deems a priority.
-Unknown cost - Update Art Barn interior and exterior signage to make it more accessible and
community oriented.
Environmental & Sustainability
-$35,000 - Upgrade gallery lighting and electrical to be more sustainable and efficient.
-Unknown cost - Add active transportation and an EV hub for increased options in this region of the City.
-Unknown cost - Implement water-wise landscaping around building to decrease maintenance.
Other
-$30,000 - Reconfiguration of administrative suite to maximize space, should budget permit.
Metrics: The Council requested metrics for the Art Barn and Finch Lane Gallery. The below summary tables
were provided by the Administration in response with metrics for Fiscal Years 2023 and 2024 (July 1, 2022
through June 30, 2024). The Arts Council also states that “The Finch Lane Gallery in the Art Barn is
activated year-round M-F 9am-5pm and Tues until 8:30pm. The Art Barn also serves as the administrative
offices of the Arts Council for 11 staff, as well as 20-30 seasonal and part-time employees in the summer.”
Visitors Exhibitions Rentals Total Annual
Visitors
FY23 2039 692 2731
FY24 2804 1172 3976
Events Gallery Strolls/Receptions
(individual events)
Facility Rentals/
Community Utilization
Performances/
Workshops
Partnership
Events
Total Annual
Events
FY23 14 18 5 16 53
FY24 15 31 5 21 72
Sales Total Annual Art Works
Sold
FY23 19
FY24 47
Project #27 Pedestrian Safety / HAWK Signal at Richmond St. and Zenith Ave.: Council Members
asked whether any alternative pedestrian safety improvements could be made to this location that are less
expensive than a HAWK signal for this CIP cycle, and a future application could address a HAWK signal if it is
still needed? The Administration confirmed that this location has rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB)
currently and the next recommended incremental step is a HAWK signal with a total project request of
$500,000. The Administration added that the “1300 East / Richmond Reconstruction project will rebuild this
intersection in 2025 with upgraded pedestrian ramps while keeping existing geometry and RRFBs.”
Artists Total Individual
Artists Served
FY23 78
FY24 66
Page | 8
Project #29 Jordan River Food Forest and Community Garden: Council Members asked, what, if any,
liability does the City have for food grown from community gardens, orchards, and food forests on city-owned
land? The Administration responded that “Gardens managed by Wasatch Community Gardens (WCG), the
constituent applicant for this application, are done so under the recently renewed Green City Growers contract.
This contract requires the contractor to indemnify and hold the City harmless for claims associated with the
operations of these gardens.”
Project #31 Route 209 Bus Shelters and Amenities: Council Members asked is it correct that the City
owns and pays for the concrete pads at bus stops and UTA owns and pays for capital and ongoing maintenance
of shelters and other amenities (benches, lighting, signs, trash and recycling bins) at bus stops? The
Administration responded that, “yes, UTA purchases, installs, and maintains stop amenities (shelters, trash
cans, seating, bike racks) anywhere that we pour a concrete pad, install sidewalks to the curbside where the bus
stops, and other elements needed to make a stop ADA accessible. This assumes we only want standard
furnishings in accordance with ridership thresholds; custom or upgraded furnishings would be the City’s
responsibility to maintain. UTA has their own bus stop program with slightly higher ridership thresholds for
amenities and has numerous stops along the Route 209 that are in various stages of design and construction and
will be completed at the end of August. UTA is paying for the full design, construction, and ongoing maintenance
of these stops (no City funds involved).”
Council Members also asked for a status update on delays from supply chain issues for new bus shelters and
funding options for more bus shelters. The Administration stated that UTA has now installed the delayed bus
shelters. More bus shelters are anticipated to be installed in nine-12 months. The time from order to delivery of a
bus shelter is approximately seven months and UTA has limits on how many can be ordered at once such as
production capacity from the manufacturer and contract terms. In recent years, the Council has annually
approved $1.1 million for transit capital which the Transportation Division reports funds approximately 60 bus
stops and a couple first / list mile connections. The City often leverages the transit capital CIP funding with
external funding such as state and federal grants, UTA funding, and CDBG. The resident advisory board and the
Mayor recommended $750,000 for transit capital in FY2025 CIP.
➢Policy Question: The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration whether Council review of
current bus stop guidelines and policies would be helpful. For example, under what criteria does the City
want bus stop amenities at a higher level of service than UTA’s standards? This could require new ongoing
funding for enhanced maintenance.
Project #33 Green Loop Designs for 500 West: The Council asked several questions about the overall
concept of a Green Loop downtown and the $3.14 million request in FY2025 CIP for designs along 500 West.
The questions and Administration’s responses are shown in Attachment 10. Note that the Council has a separate
briefing scheduled on August 13 specifically about the Green Loop. There is a separate transmittal and
presentation from the Administration for the Green Loop briefing with additional information.
Project #35 Faultline Park Playground: Council Members asked, does the project include any
enhancements to the park that would be eligible for parks impact fees? The Administration confirmed that this
project is ineligible for parks impact fees because the playground replacement is in the same footprint as the
existing playground and is a straightforward like-for-like replacement.
Project #40 Poplar Grove Park Lighting: Council Members asked how much of this project is eligible for
parks impact fees, and how does it fit into the City’s Streetlighting Master Plan? In reviewing the project
application, Council staff identified a total cost discrepancy where the application budget section is $657,000
requested but a lower amount of $620,000 is listed on the funding log. The Administration has confirmed the
higher amount of $657,000 is correct. The funding log has been updated to correct the error. One third of the
project cost, $219,000, is eligible for parks impact fees for the eight new interior lights that expand capacity for
the park to be used for recreation at night. The Administration stated that “the new streetlights at 1200 West
and 700 South will be designed in accordance with the City’s Streetlighting Master Plan and in collaboration
with the Public Utilities Department. The poles, fixtures, shielding, spacing, etc., within and near the park will all
be compliant with that plan and best practices and standards.”
Project #49 Regional Athletic Complex Adding Fields, Rose Park Lane Trail, and Planning: The
Council requested a more detailed budget breakout for the individual projects and how much of each is eligible
for parks impact fees? The Administration provided the below table and explanation for reducing the total cost
and the individual project cost estimates.
Page | 9
“Public Lands’ original request was for $6,250,000. After further assessing impact fee eligibility and other
factors, we would like to reduce this to $5,450,000. If the City Council desires to partially fund or phase this
application and not include any construction, then planning and design would only be General Fund eligible. It
is preferrable that planning, design, and construction are funded at the same time, for the sake of efficiency and
impact fee eligibility. A more detailed justification and breakdown of costs, scopes, and possible funding sources
by and within each task are included in the below table, its footnotes, and the following paragraph.
Task General Fund Impact Fees Total
1. Rose Park Lane Trail Improvements and Beautification $545,0001 $305,0002 $850,000
2. Planning, Design, and Engagement for 30 Undeveloped
Acres at the RAC and 3.2 Acres of Rose Park Lane Open Space
$350,0003 $250,0004 $600,000
3. Phase 1 Construction (2 public fields, walkways, north
parking lot)
$2,000,0005 $2,000,0006 $4,000,000
Total $2,895,000 $2,555,000 $5,450,000
Footnotes to the above table:
1 Replacement: Existing Rose Park Lane trail demolition and reconstruction; irrigation repairs
2 New Amenities: Irrigation and landscaping improvements on Rose Park Lane (water meter, mains,
laterals, xeriscaping, ground cover, shrubs, trees)
3 Planning and engagement that creates a vision for expanding the RAC’s fields, the Rose Park Lane
Open Space, and future public amenities in both spaces ($100,000 from General Fund), as well as
the non-impact fee-eligible costs for the development of Phase 1’s construction documents
($250,000).
4 Impact fee-eligible costs for the development of Phase 1’s construction documents
5 Non-impact fee-eligible costs for the construction of Phase 1’s improvements
6 Impact fee-eligible costs for the construction of Phase 1’s improvements
Public Lands believes that, in addition to the $305,000 in impact fee-eligible expenses from Task 1 (see table
above), the impact fee eligibility of the remainder of this application (Tasks 2 and 3) is 50%, or $2,250,000, for a
total of $2,555,000 in impact fees. This was based primarily on the length of the Regional Athletic Complex’s
season, during which the fields would be open at all: April 15 to October 31, or approximately 196 (54%) out of
365 to 366 calendar days. A slight reduction from 54% to 50% should be considered because we estimate that,
during roughly 60-70 days per season, these two fields may be either reserved by tournaments or in need of
preparation or repair by our grounds crews, and therefore not usable by the public. 60-70 is fewer days per
season than many of the impact fee-eligible, publicly accessible and reservable fields, pavilions, and other
infrastructure elsewhere in the Public Lands system.”
Project #53 International Peace Gardens: The Council requested a cost breakout for the improvements
and how much of the project could be eligible for parks impact fees. The Administration provided the below
table and stated $289,397 is eligible for parks impact fees of the $512,696 total cost.
Task Description Qty Unit Unit Price Subtotals
Decorative, 6’ Steel Security Fencing and Gates 1 LS $250,000 $250,000
Educational Entrance Signage/Kiosks 3 EA $3,000 $9,000
Educational Panels 28 EA $1,000 $28,000
Construction +
Soft Costs and
Contingency
Construction management, design contingency,
permits, fees (40% of above costs)1 LS $114,800 $114,800
Construction contingency (10% of project
value, above five items), needed to bid 1 LS $40,180 $40,180
Task Subtotal: $441,980
Inflation Factor
8% annually for two years from, application’s
cost estimate 1 LS $70,716 $70,716
Task Subtotal: $70,716
PROJECT TOTAL:$512,696
Page | 10
Project #57 First Encampment Park: The Council asked whether this project was partially or possibly fully
addressed by Funding Our Future parks maintenance appropriations in recent years including the $683,152 for
capital maintenance in the FY2025 annual budget. The Council also asked whether the LDS Church has been
engaged in discussions about supporting the project. The Administration responded that several capital
maintenance items of the project had been completed with FOF parks maintenance appropriations as listed
below. However, additional funding is likely needed for some remaining items, especially drainage
improvements and sewer system connections. The Public Lands Department stated recent conversations have
not engaged the LDS Church but could reach out to explore interest.
Capital maintenance items addressed at First Encampment Park with FOF parks capital maintenance
appropriations include:
- “Irrigation: Parks Division crews have tested and assessed all irrigation and adjusted irrigation to limit
spray on monument signs and engravings. A more thorough overhaul of the entire park’s irrigation
system is still needed due to the current system’s aging infrastructure.
- Invasive Species: Some of this work has been completed using maintenance funding.
- Stone Engravings: In consultation with the community groups involved in the park, we have hired a
contractor to create two new tablet monuments to ensure historical accuracy of all engravings. The stone
that was originally used was not ideal for engravings, posing repair difficulties. These new monuments
will last longer. Several of the existing stones are salvageable and will be re-inked with the same
contractor, in collaboration with the community.
- Plaques: We have commissioned the design and installation of three new plaques that will be installed in
Summer 2024.
- Benches: Old benches have been removed and new benches were installed in 2024.”
Project #76 Vacant and Leased City-owned Property Maintenance: The Council asked how the
funding would be used? There is approximately $1.1 million available from FY2023 and FY2024 and $700,000
proposed in FY2025. The Administration provided the below response that most of the funds are proposed to be
used for predevelopment at the Fleet Block such as mitigating security issues, demolitions, utility
disconnections, and environmental remediation (e.g., asbestos, soil contamination). Note that the $500,000 of
FY2025 CIP funding could be approved on August 27 as part of the CIP project-specific allocations vote, and the
FY2023 and FY2024 would be rescopes in Budget Amendment #1.
“The Administration is requesting that $700,000 of FY 23 and FY 24 CIP Vacant/Surplus Maintenance funding
be rescoped to prepare the Fleet Block property, located at 300 – 400 West and 800 – 900 South for
redevelopment. In addition to the $700,000, the Administration is proposing that up to $500,000 of the CIP
Vacant/Surplus Maintenance funding be allocated for the same purpose through the FY 25 CIP budget, for a
total of $1,200,000. Funding will be utilized to prepare the property for redevelopment and to mitigate
mounting security and safety issues. It has become increasingly costly to secure the block, with the
Administration seeing an immediate need for security services of over $250,000 per year to address daily break-
ins and vandalism. Rather than hiring long-term security services, the Administration proposes substantially
decreasing security concerns and increasing public safety at the property site as soon as possible. Specific
activities will be terminating utility connections, surveying the property, abating asbestos and other
environmental contaminants within the buildings, and demolition activities. The CIP Vacant/Surplus
Maintenance funding to be rescoped for this project is broken down as follows:
- FY 2023: $200,000
- FY 2024: $500,000
- FY 2025: $500,000”
Trees on North Temple where Herbicide was Accidentally Applied: Council Members asked what
funding would be needed to replace the dying trees and landscaping along North Temple where herbicide was
accidentally sprayed last fall. The $683,152 of FOF parks capital maintenance appropriation could be used.
Alternatively, the Council could add a project to CIP for this purpose or request the Administration recommend
in a budget amendment funding to remedy the situation. The Public Lands Department stated 174 dead or dying
trees are estimated to be removed in the next couple months. The irrigation system along North Temple is in
good condition. The Department provided the below interim plan and table of potential costs.
“In the interim, the Division is working with a contractor to schedule the removal of dead trees. The top four
inches of soil will be removed, and mulch will fill in the ROWs. The department will install large planters to hold
Page | 11
soil and trees to prevent contaminated soil from reaching the trees. These new trees in planters can be
transplanted back into the park strips once soil tests confirm that it is safe to do so. Public Lands leaders will
meet with community groups prior to tree removal to begin repairing trust and provide detailed information.
Details will be provided about the herbicide application occurrence, our current situation, and the City's
proposed path forward. A more detailed action plan and timeline is being developed as the department works
with contractors and identifies materials delivery dates.”
Item Subtotal
Tree removal, stump grinding, new trees planted in planters $85,000
Tree planters (Qty 100, Unit Cost ~$2,000)$200,000
Landscaping, soil removal (top 4”), mulch, modify irrigation for
planters $220,000
Total $505,000
Information below was provided to the Council at earlier briefings
At the July 2 briefing, the Council discussed the possible recapture of $1,887,153 from completed projects and a
cancelled project. The funds could be used for new CIP projects and/or added to the Cost Overrun Account. The
Council also requested two larger policy discussions with the Administration at a future date. First is about the
Cost Overrun process, amounts, and percentages as shown in Resolution 29 of 2017 section 11 (See Attachment
1). Second is all funding and programs for sidewalks which likely includes the Public Services, Community &
Neighborhoods, and Public Utilities Departments, and the deliberations could result in changes to City Code
such as the 50/50 cost share program. The Council also asked what resources would be needed to provide
ongoing regular publicly available status updates for CIP projects. Council staff will coordinate with the
Administration on next steps for these policy topics.
The Council began reviewing the funding log (Attachment 2) which was updated to be formatted for printing.
Note that the projects are listed from high to low scores by the CDCIP resident advisory board. The Council is
scheduled to continue reviewing the funding log at the July 9 work session in the afternoon. The first of two
public hearings is scheduled for the July 9 formal meeting in the evening.
Projects of Council Member Interest for Potential Additional Funding
Listed below are projects identified by Council Members as potential priorities for funding. This list is a
snapshot based on the July 2 briefing and will likely change based on future briefings.
- Project #4 Complete Streets Reconstruction requested $4.5 Million and the Board recommended $3.5
Million and the Mayor recommended full funding.
o Council Members Young and Dugan identified this project as a high priority if additional
funding is available such as the potential recapture of $1 million from completed projects. They
emphasized that local residential streets have not seen as much improvement compared to
major arterial streets in recent years. Part of this is a result of the policy decision to split the $87
million voter-approved Streets Reconstruction Bond 80% to major streets and 20% to local
streets. The Council could identify local residential streets as the priority for some or all funding
to reconstruct streets this CIP cycle.
- Project #6 Complete Streets Overlay requested $3.5 Million and Board recommended $2.75 Million and
Mayor recommended full funding.
o Like Project #4 above, Council Members Young and Dugan identified this project as a high
priority if additional funding is available. The Council could identify local residential streets as
the priority for some or all funding to reconstruct streets this CIP cycle. It’s important to note
that many of the streets in worst condition are local residential streets where the pavement is in
serious or failing condition. An asphalt overlay is not an option once pavement has deteriorated
to a serious or failed condition, so a full reconstruction is needed in those cases.
- Project #11 Safer Crossings Citywide requested $600,000 and is recommended for $300,000 from the
Board and the Mayor.
Page | 12
o Council Members Dugan and Lopez Chavez identified this project for potential additional
funding and asked how far the recommended funding level could go. A HAWK signal at a single
location would cost more than the recommended funding level and require using another
funding source to be completed such as the Cost Overrun Account or paired with a Livable
Streets traffic calming project. The recommended funding level would be enough for a few
smaller safety improvements such as flashing crosswalk signs, colored / stamped concrete,
raised crosswalk, and pedestrian refuge islands.
o Council Member Lopez Chavez has heard safety concerns from constituents about the
intersection of 700 South and 900 East which could use these funds for smaller safety
improvements as well as intersections along 500 South between 700 East and 900 East.
- Project #12 Sugar House Park Pavilion Replacement(s) requested $960,000 and is recommended for
$480,000 by the Board and the Mayor.
o Council Members Mano and Young commented that funding two pavilions at the requested
funding level might have some savings and efficiencies compared to funding one pavilion at a
time. They also expressed support to fully fund this project given that the County has budgeted
matching funds of $960,000 and would reduce that budget to match a lower City project-
specific funding level. The pavilion replacements have an equal cost share split 50/50 between
the City and County. If this project was fully funded, then four pavilion replacements would
remain at Sugar House Park and would return for funding in future CIP cycles.
- Project #13 Transition to Regionally Appropriate Landscapes, Adapting Irrigation Systems, and
Reducing Water Use requested $3.25 Million and is recommended for $500,000 by both the Board and
the Mayor.
o Some Council Members asked for a prioritization of projects that could use these funds. The
Public Lands Department provided the below list of the highest need areas based on irrigation
system conditions:
▪1200 East islands (South Temple to 400 South): Irrigation upgrades
▪700 East islands (900 South to 1300 South, UDOT owned and SLC maintained):
Irrigation upgrades
▪1300 East medians/islands and park strips (Parkway Avenue to Claybourne Avenue):
Irrigation upgrades
▪Allen Park: Full irrigation system improvements to supplement GO Bond funding and
provide cost efficiency with concurrent implementation and in concert with the
recommendations from the 2024 Adaptive Reuse and Management Plan
▪Roots Disc Golf/Jordan River Par 3: New irrigation and root watering systems
specifically for trees
o Some Council Members commented in recent discussions on the need for capital maintenance
improvements and water conservation specifically for medians and islands. The Public Lands
Department identified five high need irrigation system replacement locations on islands as
shown below. Note that these five are after the three medians / islands (1200 East, 700 East,
and 1300 East) listed in the top priorities list above. The Department also noted that water costs
are the second highest operating expense after personnel costs, and medians are one of the
largest opportunities to reduce water use by upgrading irrigation systems to water trees
separately from ornamental grasses.
▪200 West islands (north of North Temple)
▪200 South islands (east of 900 East)
▪600 East Islands (South Temple to 900 South)
▪Parleys Way islands
▪800 West islands (300 North to ~150 South, 600 South to 900 South)
- Project #19 Traffic Signal Replacements and Upgrades requested $2.7 Million and the Board
recommended $730,000 and the Mayor recommended $860,000.
o Council Members Mano, Young, and Dugan flagged this project for potential additional funding
to ensure a minimum of two traffic signal replacements could be funded. Recent traffic signal
projects estimated the cost at $450,000 for an intersection so at least $900,000 would likely be
needed for two intersections, and the Cost Overrun Account could contribute some additional
funding if needed.
o Council Member Lopez Chavez emphasized that upgrading signals for cyclists and pedestrians is
a safety need in addition to replacing older signals.
Page | 13
- Project #20 Memory Grove Park Repairs and Preservation & Maintenance Plan requested $1.91 Million
and was not recommended for funding by the Board but recommended for full funding by the Mayor.
o Multiple Council Members requested a detailed cost breakout of the individual projects,
prioritization of the projects, and what, if any, obligations the City has as stewards of the war
memorials and monuments in the park.
o Upon review, the Public Lands Department “does not believe that there are any agreements in
place that legally bind the City nor any partners to ongoing maintenance of the monuments and
memorials in the park. We will continue to investigate within our department and with our
partners to determine if there are any that we have missed. Though informal, several groups do
help or have helped with regular cleanups and small projects in the park (typically in-kind, but
sometime monetarily), including the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Preservation Utah, the Beta
Sigma Phi International Sorority, and the Friends of Memory Grove (which is organized through
the Greater Avenues Community Council).”
o One of the nine sub-projects would directly improve a monument in the park. The proposed
preservation and maintenance plan would recommend detailed improvements, repairs, and cost
estimates for the other monuments in the park. The nine sub-projects and associated costs are
listed below:
▪Meditation Stairs stone repairs ($119,700)
▪Repointing the 8-pillar monument (pagoda) ($79,900)
▪Repairing front entrance gate concrete pillars ($81,250)
▪Replacing the westside entryway planter ($8,200)
▪Cleaning and recoating the fountain to preserve concrete ($27,000)
▪Redo the Canyon Road sidewalk within the park so that it is historically correct (as the
stones are currently placed in concrete instead of mortar) ($98,000)
▪Podium repairs ($11,100)
▪Remove and replace concrete lighting ($31,000) (more could be appropriated to this
task in order to fully replace all concrete lighting in Memory Grove and City Creek
Parks, as well as along Canyon Road – note this is one of the most urgent projects
▪Replace the asphalt path with a concrete path on the west hillside, near the Capitol
Building ($602,500) – note this is one of the most urgent projects
▪Soft costs for the above nine projects estimated at $691,350 for contingency, permits,
design costs, and inflation over two years. These represent 40% of the total $1.75
Million cost.
- Project #29 Jordan River Trail Food Forest + Og Woi Partner Garden requested $385,000 but did not
receive a funding recommendation from the Board or the Mayor.
o Council Members Petro and Wharton identified this as a project of interest. The two projects
could be funded separately, which slightly increases the total cost. The Food Forest creation is
estimated to cost $280,000 and formalizing and bringing up to standards the Og-Woi
community garden is estimated to cost $120,000. There is uncertainty about potential
environmental contamination and impacts to the cost and project feasibility at these funding
levels. The Administration reports that given these concerns, a conservative approach would be
to fund the project with General Fund dollars and then after construction in a midyear budget
amendment using park impact fees to reimburse the General Fund.
- Project #41 California Avenue Pedestrian Safety Improvements Construction requested $807,000 and
did not receive a funding recommendation from the Board or the Mayor.
o Council Member Puy expressed interest to staff about recapturing the $875,000 from the
cancelled corridor connection project at the Sorenson Center Campus and using some of those
funds to fully fund project #41. He mentioned this traffic calming project is a few blocks down
California Ave from the Sorenson Center Campus and would benefit many of the same students
and families using the Center’s facilities as well as those attending the adjacent Glendale Middle
School and Mountain View Elementary School. Council Member Young expressed support for
this approach.
- Project #48 Fayette Avenue Improvements between Washington Street & 200 West requested $560,000
but did not receive a funding recommendation from the Board or the Mayor.
o Council Members Mano, Lopez Chavez, and Puy identified this project for potential funding and
requested phasing options for smaller projects. One option is to split the project into a design
Page | 14
phase estimated to cost $80,000 and then a second phase funding construction at
approximately $480,000 in a future CIP cycle. The CIP project funding could be used as a local
match for state grant applications that the constituent has expressed an interest in pursuing.
Information below was provided to the Council at earlier briefings
At the July 2 and July 9 briefings, the Council may wish to identify any priority projects that do not have funding
recommendations or where additional funding is proposed, and any project-specific questions. Responsive
information and funding options would be gathered so the Council could balance the CIP project-specific
budgets on August 13 or 20. As part of the annual budget adoption vote on June 11, the Council made three
changes to the Mayor’s Recommended Budget for FY2025 CIP:
- Increased the transfer by an additional $250,000 from the General Fund to the CIP Fund which
are the most flexible dollars available for any CIP project.
- Added $2 million for project #23 the Livable Streets traffic calming program from the
quarter cent sales tax for transportation fund balance (separate from General Fund Balance) which
neither the resident advisory board nor the Mayor recommended to fund. The Council discussed a desire
to prioritize this program for funding over the next several years to reach all of the higher need
neighborhoods and a longer-term goal of implementing traffic calming in all residential neighborhoods.
The Council may wish to request that the Administration include stable ongoing funding for Livable
Streets traffic calming as a high priority in developing a five-year Capital Asset Plan.
- Added $3 million for public utility upgrades underneath 2100 South during the street
reconstruction between 700 East and 1100 East from Funding Our Future Fund Balance in addition to
the $7 million approved in Budget Amendment #5 of FY2024. The City anticipates reimbursement in
the future by requiring connection agreements of adjacent property owners as they seek to tie into the
upgraded utility lines. The resulting connection fee is proportional to each property’s front footage per
City Code. The connection fee obligation is also recorded against the adjacent properties so current and
future owners are notified of it.
Recapture $1 Million from Completed Projects
The Administration confirmed there is $1,012,153 of general fund dollars remaining and could be recaptured
from CIP projects that were constructed and fully closed out. Per the Council’s CIP policies section 12 (see
Attachment 1), these funds could be made available as additional funding to the Cost Overrun Account in
FY2025. It has a current balance of $937,232 and is proposed to receive an additional $223,171 in FY2025 CIP
for a new balance of $1,160,403. The Council could recapture some or all of the $1,012,153 from completed
projects or designate some of it for the Cost Overrun Account. The Administration reports this account has lower
utilization in recent years because the formula in CIP policy section 11 (see Attachment 1) has dollar limits that
have lost significant purchasing power since originally set in 2004. This means that the Cost Overrun Account
does not fill project funding gaps as much as before. The Council could request that the Administration review
and recommend adjustments to the Cost Overrun Account formula including the dollar and percentage limits.
Recapture $875,000 from a Cancelled Project: Connecting Corridor for Sorenson Multicultural
Center and Unity Center Funded Five Years Ago
The Council fully funded the proposed connecting corridor project to link the two community center buildings
on the Sorenson Campus five years ago. The Administration has confirmed that the project is cancelled. Per the
Council’s CIP policies (see Attachment 1), unfinished projects older than three years should be reviewed for
funding recapture. The $875,000 are General Fund dollars which are the most flexible of the CIP funding
sources and available to go to any project.
Aging Reports and Status Updates for CIP Projects
The Council may wish to ask for a list of projects that are older than 2 years, and any notes about the status of
the project, obstacles, and anticipated completion dates.
Updated CIP Debt Load Projections Chart through FY2028
The Finance Department provided the below updated chart of projected debt load on the CIP Fund through
FY2028. This updated version from the one in the Additional Info Section reflects a 9% goal for the annual
Page | 15
transfer from the General Fund to CIP instead of the historical 7% trend. It also includes larger ongoing projects
funding outside of the competitive CIP process such as new urban trail capital maintenance, new planning and
design funding, expanded public lands capital maintenance, and expanded vacant and leased city owned
property maintenance.
Information below was provided to the Council at earlier briefings
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
Each year, the Council appropriates overall funding available for the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and
approves debt payments and ongoing obligations as part of the annual budget in June. Over the summer, the
Council reviews individual projects and per state law must approve project specific funding by September 1. CIP
is an open and competitive process where residents, local organizations, and City departments submit project
applications. The Community Development and Capital Improvement Program (CDCIP) resident advisory board
reviews the applications in public meetings and makes funding recommendations to the Mayor and Council. The
Mayor provides a second set of funding recommendations which this year includes using $15 million from a
capital maintenance holding account that was created after the CDCIP Board completed their deliberations. The
Council considers both sets of funding recommendations and ultimately decides project specific funding.
Funding for capital improvements sometimes occurs in midyear budget amendments but the annual CIP process
is the Council’s largest annual opportunity to fund large public construction projects. This report provides an
overview of the proposed General Fund CIP budget for FY2025, projects of Council Member interest not
recommended for funding, policy questions, and further details in the Additional Info section and attachments.
Overview of the FY2025 CIP Proposed Budget
The total FY2025 CIP budget is $43.1 million. However, this increases to $58.1 million when including the $15
million capital maintenance holding account that the Council created in FY2024 Budget Amendment #5 and is
being added to the summer CIP deliberations. This is $17.5 million (43%) more than last year. The FY2024 CIP
budget was closer to the City’s typical funding levels in recent years. FY2023 was a record year for CIP with
nearly $47 million total funding plus the $67.5 Million Sales Tax Revenue Bond and voters approved $85 million
for Parks, Trails, and Open Space General Obligation Bonds. The Council approved spending the first $24.6
million issuance of that Parks Bond in October 2023.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 FY 2026 -27 FY 2027 -28
Allocation of CIP General Fund Transfer Amount, 6 Year Projection, assuming 2%
revenue growth per year, and continued allocation of 9% of GF revenue to CIP
Debt Service On Bonds Other Debt Service Other Commitments Pay as You Go Projects
Page | 16
The combined $25.2 million from the General Fund + Funding Our Future transfer to CIP (first and third rows
in the table below) is 6.8% of ongoing revenues which is slightly below the 7% seen in most budget years. On
May 7, in Budget Amendment #5 of FY2024, the Council appropriated $15 million to a CIP holding account for
capital maintenance projects. Taken together, the $40.2 million from the General Fund ($15 million plus the
$25.2 million) would be equivalent to a 10.8% of ongoing General Fund revenues transfer to CIP which is the
largest percentage for many years. Previous plans identified 7% as a recommended minimum level of investment
and a goal of 9%. The City did reach the 9% funding level in FY2023, although several departments have noted
difficulty with getting projects constructed due to staffing constraints, continued supply chain challenges, and
construction inflation.
A funding log summarizing the CDCIP resident advisory board and mayoral funding recommendations
including the $15 million for capital maintenance is available as Attachment 2. Note that the funding log is not
formatted for printing and is best viewed on an electronic device with a large screen. Updated funding logs
formatted for printing will be available for the July and August deliberations. The table below details funding
sources for CIP by fiscal year. See Attachment 5 for an overview of the major CIP Funding Sources. Other
highlights include:
Comparison of CIP Funding Sources by Fiscal Year
$9.3 Million Unrestricted General Funds – $9,370,549 of the ongoing transfer from the General Fund are
unrestricted funds available for any new projects (the most flexible funding available). This is calculated by
removing the debt service payments on existing bonds and rental payments for properties the City leases long-
term. The Council has restricted Funding Our Future to five critical need areas which is not part of this amount.
$855,950 Increase using Impact Fees – The amount of impact fees in the proposed CIP budget is
$3,824,800 which is entirely parks impact fees. There are over $24.2 million of impact fees available to spend
across the four types: fire, parks, police, and transportation. Most of the available funds are for parks. See the
Additional Info section for details.
$ Change % Change
General Fund 15,126,884$ 25,231,431$ 21,189,461$ 21,355,753$ 166,292$ 1%
Capital Maintenance
Holding Account -$ -$ -$ 15,000,000$ 15,000,000$ ONE-TIME
Funding Our Future*3,580,000$ 5,100,000$ 4,271,001$ 3,837,642$ (433,359)$ -10%
Class C 3,021,706$ 3,000,000$ 3,500,000$ 4,250,000$ 750,000$ 21%
Impact Fees**8,276,103$ 4,159,755$ 2,968,850$ 3,824,800$ 855,950$ 29%
CDBG 322,000$ 722,000$ -$ -$ -$ ONE-TIME
Repurpose Old CIP
Accounts***252,271$ 152,660$ 614,689$ PENDING -ONE-TIME
County 1/4¢ Sales Tax 4,900,000$ 8,000,000$ 7,700,000$ 8,200,000$ 500,000$ 6%
Surplus Land Fund 200,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ ONE-TIME
Smith's Naming Rights
Revenue 154,000$ 154,000$ 150,000$ -$ (150,000)$ -100%
Landfill Revolving Fund -$ -$ -$ 1,500,000$ 1,500,000$ ONE-TIME
SLC Sports Complex ESCO 148,505$ 148,505$ 150,500$ 155,300$ 4,800$ 3%
Memorial House Rent
Revenue 68,554$ 68,554$ 50,000$ 20,000$ (30,000)$ -60%
TOTAL 36,027,131$ 46,736,905$40,594,501$ 58,143,495$ 17,548,994$ 43%
TOTAL without
ONE-TIME 35,252,860$45,862,245$39,979,812$ 41,643,495$ 1,663,683$ 4%
**Th ere are four impact fee types: fire, parks, police and streets
***Includes recaptured funds from multiple funding sources
Note: There's a $22,892 debt service rescope reduction not separated out in th e table above for FY2022
CIP Funding Sources Adopted
2021-22
Adopted
2023-24
Proposed
2024-25
FY2024 to FY2025
*Includes % to CIP "off th e top" available to any project, and funding for transit, and public righ t of way
infrastructure. Also, funding source is ongoing but Council could change th e use categories in th e future
Adopted
2022-23
Page | 17
$500,000 Increase using County 1/4¢ Sales Tax for Transportation – This became a new funding
source four years ago and is available to transportation projects per state law. As seen in other sales tax revenue
line items, this one has experienced significant growth in recent years. The City has conservatively budgeted for
new sales tax line items until a few years of actual revenues is available on which to base future projects. As a
result, the Quarter-cent Sales Tax for Transportation Fund Balance is estimated to have $6 million available in
addition to the $8.2 million in the FY2025 CIP proposed budget. The Council took a straw pool on June 4 during
the unresolved issues briefing to use $2 million of that Fund Balance for the Livable Streets traffic calming
Program which neither the CDCIP resident advisory board nor the Mayor recommended funding in FY2025.
$750,000 Increase using Class C (gas tax) – The City’s annual CIP budget for Class C funding has been
relatively flat at $3 million - $3.5 million for many years. This year, an additional $750,000 was identified in the
cash reserves / fund balance when incoming revenues exceeded the budget. The Finance Department is
conducting a reconciliation to determine whether additional funds could be available.
$12 Million Debt and Lease Payments – $11,985,204 (48%) of the ongoing General Fund transfer to CIP
(including Funding Our Future dollars) is needed to cover debt and rental payments. This calculation does not
include the $15 million from the capital maintenance holding account because those are one-time dollars from
the General Fund balance.
Recapture Funds from Completed Projects and Unfinished Projects Older than Three Years
(Attachment 6 – Review by Departments was pending at time of publishing this staff report)
The CIP and Debt Management Resolution (Attachment 1) states that remaining funds should be considered for
recapture from completed projects and unfinished projects that are older than three years unless there has been
significant progress. The table in Attachment 6 is the staff’s attempt to follow up on the Council’s policy
guidance for CIP projects. Most of the 128 projects received General Fund dollars or impact fees. Some of this
funding could be recaptured by the Council as one-time revenue for General Fund uses, however, the other
sources like Class C, CDBG, impact fees, and donations have uses limited by law. A response and potential
funding to recapture will be added to one of the Council’s upcoming unresolved issues briefings.
Differences between CDCIP Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations
The CDCIP Board’s recommendations do not include the $15 million for capital maintenance projects because
the appropriation was made after the Board’s final FY2025 budget meeting. The tables below summarize the
Mayor’s funding recommendations to use the $15 million for capital maintenance projects in three ways. The
Mayor’s recommendations also add $1.5 million of funding on top of the CDCIP Board’s funding levels from
three sources: $84,490 more from the General Fund, $750,000 more from Class C (gas tax), and $678,600
more from parks impact fees.
Mayor recommends additional funding to projects recommended by the CDCIP Board
General
Fund
Class C
(Gax Tax)
Parks
Impact
Fees
Funding Our
Future
Streets
Funding Our
Future
Transit
Transportation
1/4 ¢
Sales Tax
General
Fund
Capital
Maintenance
Holding Account
Complete Streets
Reconstruction 3,500,000$1,000,000$ 4,500,000$
Completes Streets
Overlay 2,750,000$ 750,000$ 3,500,000$
Facilities
Replacement and
Renewal Plan
1,366,350$1,390,150$ 2,756,500$
Sport Courts and
Playgrounds
Replacements
549,150$ 54,490$904,450$ 1,508,090$
Traffic Signal
Replacements &
Upgrades
500,000$ 230,000$ 130,000$ 860,000$
Amplifying Our
Jordan
River Bond
1,300,000$200,000$ 1,500,000$
Project
CDCIP Board Funding Recommendations Mayor Additional
Funding Totals
(Board +
Mayor)
Page | 18
Mayor recommends funding capital maintenance projects without CDCIP Board funding recommendations
Mayor recommends substituting $3.14 million from the capital maintenance holding account for an equivalent
amount of quarter cent sales tax for transportation funding recommended by the CDCIP Board for rebuilding
the 400 South Jordan River Bridge and reallocate the $3.14 million to the Green Loop project for designing
eligible transportation parts of the project.
Budget Cleanup Position & Funding Inadvertently Not in Mayor’s Recommended Budget:
New Financial Analyst IV FTE for Impact Fees Tracking and Compliance
The Administration notified the Council Office earlier this week that a financial analyst IV FTE was
inadvertently not included in the Mayor’s Recommended Budget. The position would be funded for 10 months to
recognize the time to hire at a cost of $143,258 at pay grade 32. The fully loaded annual cost is estimated at
$171,910. The position would be fully funded from impact fees and entirely dedicated to tracking, compliance,
and planning for impact fees. The four types of impact fees could equally split the cost of the position. The
Finance Department provided the below summary of why the position is needed:
"We are requesting the position based on the new requirements from the state auditor. The reporting
and tracking for impact fees has become extremely complex. All impact fees that are budgeted must be
tracked individually. This includes the dedicated revenues that are associated by the building permit as
well as any match. Individual revenues and expenses have to be tied to the individual project. This
tracking is going to take a lot of work for Salt Lake City to ensure that the revenues are being spent in a
timely fashion by project and to update the departments that the timing of the funds needing to be
spent. If we don't do this type of tracking on an ongoing basis, it could result in more refunds that have
to be given." Staff note: state law requires impact fees to be encumbered or spent within six years of
the City receiving them, and a refund of impact fees must be paid with interest to the original payor.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1.$15 Million Capital Maintenance Holding Account – The Council may wish to discuss whether
the funding recommendations for the one-time $15 million capital maintenance holding account align
with the policy goals to catch up on capital renewal and maintenance projects and any potential changes.
Some Council Members expressed interest in adding more funding for street reconstruction and overlay
General Fund Class C
(Gax Tax)
Parks Impact
Fees
Capital Maintenance
Holding Account Totals
700 South Phase 7 from 4600 West
to 5000 West 4,500,000$ 4,500,000$
Memory Grove Park Urgent
Repairs, Preservation, and
Maintenance Plan
-$ 1,910,000$ 1,910,000$
Art Barn Failing Infrastructure and
ADA Improvements 500,000$ 500,000$
Fairmont Park Basketball Court 678,600$ 75,400$ 754,000$
Alleyway Improvements 500,000$ 500,000$
Historic Signs / Markers 30,000$ 30,000$
Public Way Concrete Replacement
and Repairs 750,000$750,000$
Project
Projects with Funding Only Recommended by the Mayor
1/4 ¢ Sales Tax for
Transportation Totals 1/4 ¢ Sales Tax for
Transportation
Capital Maintenance
Holding Account Totals
400 South Jordan River
Bridge Reconstruction 4,000,000$ 4,000,000$ 860,000$ 3,140,000$ 4,000,000$
Green Loop -$ -$ 3,140,000$ -$ 3,140,000$
Project
MayorCDCIP Board
Page | 19
projects, especially on local streets. The existing Overall Condition Index or OCI for roads that need to
be reconstructed is 83% are local and 17% are arterial (major) roads, and for roads that are eligible for
an asphalt overlay is similar at 83% local, 14% arterial, and 3% collector (in between local and arterial).
2.Differences between CDCIP Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations – The Council
may wish to ask the Administration about the different funding recommendations from the CDCIP
residents advisory board and the Mayor as summarized in the three tables earlier in this report.
3.Livable Streets (Traffic Calming) Program Funding Level – The Council may wish to discuss
the funding level and pace of implementing the Livable Streets Program. See Attachment 9 with
information from the Transportation Division including second year accomplishments and maps of the
highest need zones. The Division anticipates completing 10 zones (neighborhoods) with the additional
$2 million straw polled by the Council at the June 4 meeting. An additional $8 million would be needed
to fully fund the remaining 16 high need zones (red, orange, and yellow on the color-coded map
assuming an average cost of $500,000 per zone).
4.Sidewalk Repair and Replacement Funding – The Council may wish to have a policy discussion
about the City’s overall approach to sidewalk repairs, replacements, and ADA ramps. The Council
discussed these issues in CIP last year such as using a sliding scale based on income for the 50/50 cost
share program, wanting to better understand the citywide sidewalk assessment results, how the separate
cost share program and proactive repair programs are related, and adding sidewalks as an eligible
funding strategy for the new 2025 – 2029 Consolidated Plan for CDBG. The FY2025 CIP budget
includes $750,000 for public right of way sidewalk repairs and replacements, and a separate $500,000
for the Proactive Public Way Concrete Repair Program which is broader to include assets in addition to
sidewalks like retaining walls, curb and gutter. The Council may also wish to consider whether some of
this funding should be moved out of the annual CIP competition and placed in the Engineering
Division’s operational maintenance budget. The Council endorsed this approach for multimodal bike
lane maintenance moving $200,000 from the CIP competition into the Streets Division’s base operating
budget.
5.Placeholder for Reconnecting Communities Implementation Grant Local Matching Funds
– The Council may wish to discuss when to identify local matching funds for anticipated applications to
the federal government to construction improvements addressing the east-west transportation divide.
The City received a $1.97 million grant from the federal reconnecting communities planning grant and
$1.77 million of local matching funds were provided ($1.27 million from the City and $500,000 from the
Utah Transit Authority). Council Members have encouraged the Administration to consider applying for
federal implementation grant funding which may need to be done before the final planning study report
is available. There are limited federal funding opportunities to implement the results of the study but the
largest federal grants are scheduled to only be available for two or three more years. Most of these
construction grants are authorized by the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
6.Status of 2022 Sales Tax Revenue Bond Projects – The Council may wish to request an update
and next steps for capital projects funded by the 2022 bond which have not spent most of the available
funding in the past two years such as the $6.1 million for westside railroad quiet zones, $7.5 million for
radio tower upgrades, $3 million for Fisher Mansion stabilization and improvements, $2 million for an
urban wood reutilization program, and $3 million for the city owned ballpark (before The Bees
announced a relocation out of the city). Some of these projects are issued by tax-exempt bond funds
which have approaching spending deadlines in the next couple years.
7.Status of $24.6 Million First Issuance of the Parks Bond Projects – The Council may wish to
ask the Administration for next steps to spend these funds that the Council gave final spending approval
for in October 2024. Only $30,169 out of $24.6 million has been spent so far.
8.Capital Asset Plan Early Policy Check-in Briefing – The Council may wish to request a briefing
for an early policy check-in about the guiding priorities and framework for developing the Capital Asset
Plan (five-year CIP plan bridging the City’s 20-year master plans and annual CIP budgets). Some
Council Members have expressed an interest in identifying the Livable Streets Program as a top priority
in the Capital Asset Plan to ensure funding over multiple years. They have also mentioned performance
metrics for CIP such as time from appropriation to completing construction. The FY2024 Non-
departmental budget transferred $350,000 to IMS for Capital Asset Planning software to facilitate
Page | 20
development and periodic updating of the plan. See Attachment 7 for the Council’s potential policy
goals, metrics, and requests from a briefing in 2019.
9.Inflationary Price Increases and the Cost Overrun Account – The Council may wish to ask the
Administration how inflationary price increases have impacted departments utilizing the CIP Cost
Overrun Account, and if additional funding may be needed to avoid project scope reductions. The
Council could also re-evaluate the funding level for the account and/or the formula for the maximum
amounts a project may receive, which hasn’t been updated since 2004 (see section 11 of Attachment 1).
10.Resources to Support Constituent Applications – The Council may wish to discuss with the
Administration the need to address geographic equity issues with additional targeted City resources for
neighborhoods that submit few or no constituent applicants. Some Council Members expressed interest
in being proactive to support constituent applications from neighborhoods with higher poverty rates.
Some constituents and CDCIP Board Members commented at public meetings in recent years that they
felt like some projects get more support from departments than others.
ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Definition of a CIP Project
As defined in the Council-adopted 2017 Capital and Debt Management Guiding Policies Resolution (Attachment
1), a CIP project must “involve the construction, purchase or renovation of buildings, parks, streets or other
physical structures, … have a useful life of five or more years, … have a cost of $50,000 or more, … or significant
functionality can be demonstrated…such as software.” The Council also set a three-year spending deadline as
part of the guiding policies. CIP accounts older than three years are periodically reviewed for recapture from
projects that finished under budget or were not pursued.
Comparison of CIP Project Requests by Year and Type
This chart was prepared by Council staff as a comparison of total project requests on the CIP funding log since
FY2017, and whether the application is from a constituent or internal to a City department. The FY2025 CIP
cycle has 72 project requests which is above average over the time shown in the chart. FY2021 had the fewest
with 19 project requests only from departments (it was intentionally an “abbreviated CIP cycle” per the
Administration at the time). FY2023 had the most with 90 project requests.
Note: this chart only includes funding requested in the competitive portion of CIP so debt service and ongoing
obligations are generally not reflected in the above figures
Cost Estimates for Regular CIP Projects
(Attachment 8)
10 13 19 14 0
24
41
29
40
67
37 35 40
19
50
49
30
32
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2022 FY2024 FY2025
Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
Total Project Requests by Fiscal Year (FY)
Constituent Departmental
Page | 21
Cost estimates will be updated over the summer to inform the Council’s project-specific deliberations in July and
August. The current version was last updated in July 2023. Cost estimates for various types of projects are based
on actual costs from recent years. The document was developed by Council staff in collaboration with the
Administration. The three categories of project cost estimates are parks, streets, and transportation. Inflation
and supply chain constraints have continued to impact the City’s capital projects so the costs shown in the
current version are likely more expensive now. Some categories have seen significant increases while others have
closer to typical inflation rate increases. The Engineering Division provided some context that the City doesn’t
know to what extent the larger price increases are temporary (such as related to pandemic caused short-term
supply chain disruptions) or longer-term trends.
Surplus Land Fund
The Administration reports the current available to spend balance is $4,833,240. The Surplus Land Fund
receives proceeds from the sale of real property (land and buildings). According to City policy the Surplus Land
Fund can be spent on purchasing real property. The funds are one-time because the property can only be sold
once. The funds remaining in this special account until used and do not lapse to General Fund Balance.
Cost Overrun Account
The Administration reports the current available to spend balance is $937,233. The FY2025 CIP budget includes
$223,171 of additional funding. If the two appropriations are approved, then the total available balance would be
$1,160,404. The Administration some prior year recaptured funding may also be available and the amount was
being confirmed at the time of publishing this report. The Council established this account for projects that
experience costs slightly higher than budgeted. A formula determines how much additional funding may be
pulled from the Cost Overrun account depending on the total Council-approved budget. See section 11 of
Attachment 1 for the formula. This process allows the Administration to add funding to a project without
returning to the Council in a budget amendment. A written notification to the Council on uses is required. The
purpose is to allow projects to proceed with construction instead of delaying projects until the Council can act on
a budget amendment which typically takes a few months.
1.5% for New Art and Maintenance of Existing Artworks
(New annual report is pending from the Arts Council)
The Administration stated the annual report required by ordinance about maintenance of City artworks in the
past fiscal year and planned for the next will be transmitted to the Council in July or August. This timing is after
the annual budget is adopted so the amount of funding available in CIP overall allows the 1.5% to be calculated
and inform how those funds would be used.
Salt Lake City Code, Chapter 2.30, established the Percent for Art Fund and designates roles for the Art Design
Board and Arts Council related to artist selection, project review and placement. The Public Art Program also
oversees projects with funding from the Airport and RDA. In April 2021 the Council amended Chapter 2.30 to
make several changes to the ordinance including an increase from 1% to 1.5% of ongoing unrestricted CIP
funding for art. There is no ceiling so the Council could approve funding for art above 1.5%. The ordinance also
sets a range of 10%-20% for how much of the resulting annual funding is allocated to maintenance (as opposed
to new artworks). This section of the ordinance also states that before funds are deposited into the separate
public art maintenance fund a report from the Administration will be provided to the Council identifying works
of art that require maintenance and estimated costs. This created the first ongoing dedicated funding for
conservation and maintenance of the City’s public art collection consisting of over 270 pieces and counting.
Impact Fee Unallocated “Available to Spend” Balances and Refund Tracking
The Council approved several million dollars of impact fee projects in the past few years. The table below is
current as of May 1, 2024 and includes a couple adjustments based on Budget Amendment #5 of FY2024 which
was adopted after the Mayor’s Recommended Budget was proposed to the Council on May 7. Available to spend
impact fee balances are bank account balances subtracting encumbrances and expired funds. The Mayor’s
recommended CIP budget proposes using $3,824,800 of parks impact fees. Impact fees must be encumbered or
spent within six years of the City receiving them. Expired impact fees must be returned to the entity who paid
them with interest over the intervening six years.
Type Unallocated Cash
“Available to Spend”Next Refund Trigger Date $ Expiring in
FY2027
Fire $578,695 More than two years away -
Parks $20,931,089 August 2026 $6,893,768
Page | 22
Police $1,553,249 More than two years away -
Transportation $1,154,192 August 2026 $2,691,888
Note: Encumbrances are an administrative function when impact fees are held under a contract
CIP Debt Load Projections through FY2027
The Administration provided the following chart to illustrate the ratio of ongoing commitments to available
funding through FY2027. Pay as you go projects reflect new capital projects. The chart shows relatively stable
debt load projections using approximately 55% of the annual General Fund transfer to CIP. An important caveat
to note is the chart assumes 9% of ongoing General Fund revenues are transferred into CIP annually. The
FY2023 budget hit the 9% transfer goal but the City has typically been closer to 7% over the past 15 years. The
FY2024 budget transferred 7.1% of ongoing General Fund revenues into CIP (after including the Council’s $1.2
million above the Mayor’s Recommended Budget) which means less funding is available to go to new projects.
Most of these commitments are debt payments on existing bonds. Other commitments include, ESCO debt
payments, the Crime Lab lease, capital replacement funding for parks and facilities, contributions to the CIP cost
overrun account and the 1.5% for art fund. The CIP Budget Book includes an overview and details on each of the
ongoing commitments. Note that General Obligation (G.O.) bonds are not paid from CIP because they are
funded through a separate, dedicated voter-approved property tax increase.
An updated version of this chart was pending at the time of publishing this staff report. The below version is
from last year.
Clarifying “Complete Streets” and “Livable Streets” Initiatives
(See Attachment 9 for a Livable Streets Program update from the Transportation Division including second
year accomplishments and maps of the highest need zones)
There are two separate pots of funding – one for “complete streets” and another for “Livable Streets” – which are
both under the CIP umbrella. The “complete streets” funding is intended to be used to ensure that major street
reconstruction projects meet the standards defined in City Code Chapter 14.06, with elements like bike lanes
(Complete Streets). The “Livable Streets” funding is intended to be used for neighborhood scale traffic calming
projects as defined by the Livable Streets program presented to the Council in October 2021. This is separate
from street reconstruction projects. The program ranked all 113 zones citywide across several variables including
crash data, community assets, and resident socioeconomic factors. In August 2022, the Council provided policy
guidance that a citywide needs-based equity approach should be used to prioritize zones based on the ranking.
Page | 23
The program’s website is available at: https://www.slc.gov/transportation/plans-studies/livable-
streets/#LivableStreetsProjects
Public Map of FY2025 CIP Project Applications
The Administration shared the below link to a recently published public map of the FY2025 CIP project
applications which includes an overlay of Council Districts for reference. Note that some projects are a polygon
for a larger area, others are lines such as for alleyway improvements, and some are dots when a project is limited
to a single property.
https://maps.slcgov.com/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=64074a434d9b4e5f86000306b65813a2
ATTACHMENTS
1. Capital and Debt Management Guiding Policies Resolution 29 of 2017
2. FY2025 CIP Funding Log – Note the spreadsheet from the Administration is not formatted for printing
3. Mayor's Recommended CIP Book FY2025 Including $15 Million for Capital Maintenance
4. FY2025 Simplified CIP Funding Log by CDCIP Board Scores – PENDING
5. Overview of CIP Major Funding Sources
6. List of Completed and Unfinished Projects Older than Three Years – PENDING REVIEW BY
DEPARTMENTS FOR POTENTIAL FUNDING RECAPTURE
7. Capital Asset Plan (CAP) Council Requests from January 2019
8. Regular CIP Projects Cost Estimates (last updated July 2023)
9. Livable Streets Traffic Calming Program First Year Accomplishments Summary and Updated Zone Map
ACRONYMS
CAP – Capital Asset Plan (a five-year CIP plan)
CDBG – Community Development Block Grants
CDC – Centers for Disease Control
CDCIP – Community Development and Capital Improvement Program Advisory Board
CIP – Capital Improvement Program
ESCO – Energy Service Company
FOF – Funding Our Future
FTE – Full-time Employee
FY – Fiscal Year
GO Bond – General Obligation Bond
PSB – Public Safety Building
RESOLUTION NO . _29_0F 2017
(Salt Lake City Council capital and debt management policies.)
R 17-1
R 17-13
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council ("City Council" or "Council") demonstrated its
commitment to improving the City's Capital Improvement Program in order to better address the
deferred and long-term infrastructure needs of Salt Lake City; and
WHEREAS, the analysis of Salt Lake City's General Fund Capital Improvement
Program presented by Citygate Associates in February 1999, recommended that the Council
review and update the capital policies of Salt Lake Corporation ("City") in order to provide
direction to the capital programming and budgeting process and adopt and implement a formal
comprehensive debt policy and management plan; and
WHEREAS, the City's Capital Improvement Program and budgeting practices have
evolved since 1999 and the City Council wishes to update the capital and debt management
policies by updating and restating such policies in their entirety to better reflect current
practices; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to improve transparency of funding opportunities
across funding sources including General Fund dollars, impact fees, Class C (gas tax) funds,
Redevelopment Agency funds, Public Utilities funds, repurposing old Capital Improvement
Program funds and other similar funding sources.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City,
Utah:
That the City Council has determined that the following capital and debt management
policies shall guide the Council as they continue to address the deferred and long-term
infrastructure needs within Salt Lake City:
Capital Policies
1. Capital Project Definition-The Council intends to define a capital project as follows:
"Capital improvements involve the construction, purchase or renovation of
buildings, parks, streets or other physical structures. A capital improvement must
have a useful life of five or more years. A capital improvement is not a recurring
capital outlay item (such as a motor vehicle or a fire engine) or a maintenance
expense (such as fixing a leaking roof or painting park benches). In order to be
considered a capital project, a capital improvement must also have a cost of
$50,000 or more unless such capital improvement's significant functionality can
be demonstrated to warrant its inclusion as a capital project (such as software).
Acquisition of equipment is not considered part of a capital project unless such
acquisition of equipment is an integral part of the cost of the capital project."
2. Annual Capital Budget Based on 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan-The Council requests that
the Mayor's Recommended Annual Capital Budget be developed based upon the 10-Year
Capital Facilities Plan and be submitted each fiscal year to the City Council for consideration
as part of the Mayor 's Recommended Budget no later than the first Tuesday of May.
3. Multiyear Financial Forecasts-The Council requests that the Administration :
a. Prepare multi-year revenue and expenditure forecasts that correspond to the capital
program period;
b . Prepare an analysis of the City's financial condition , debt service levels within the capital
improvement budget, and capacity to finance future capital projects; and
c . Present this information to the Council in conjunction with the presentation of each one-
year capital budget.
4. Annual General Fund Transfer to CIP Funding Goal-Allocation of General Fund revenues
for capital improvements on an annual basis will be determined as a percentage of General
Fund revenue . The Council has a goal that no less than nine percent (9%) of ongoing General
Fund revenues be invested annually in the Capital Improvement Fund.
5. Maintenance Standard-The Council intends that the City will maintain its physical assets at
a level adequate to protect the City's capital investment and to minimize future maintenance
and replacement costs.
6 . Capital Project Prioritization-The Council intends to give priority consideration to projects
that:
a. Preserve and protect the health and safety of the community;
b. Are mandated by the state and/or federal government; and
c. Provide for the renovation of existing facilities resulting in a preservation of the
community's prior investment, in decreased operating costs or other significant cost
savings , or in improvements to the environmental quality of the City and its
neighborhoods.
7. External Partnerships -All other considerations being equal, the Council intends to give fair
consideration to projects where there is an opportunity to coordinate with other agencies ,
establish a public/ private partnership, or secure grant funding .
8. Aligning Project Cost Estimates and Funding-The Council intends to follow a guideline of
approving construction funding for a capital project in the fiscal year immediately following
the project's design wherever possible. Project costs become less accurate as more time
passes. The City can avoid expenses for re-estimating project costs by funding capital
projects in a timely manner.
9. Advisory Board Funding Recommendations-The Council intends that all capital projects be
evaluated and prioritized by the Community Development and Capital Improvement
Program Advisory Board . The resulting recommendations shall be provided to the Mayor ,
and shall be included along with the Mayor 's funding recommendations in conjunction with
the Annual Capital budget transmittal , as noted in Paragraph two above.
10. Prioritize Funding Projects in the 10-Year Plan-The Council does not intend to fund any
project that has not been included in the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan for at least one (1)
year prior to proposed funding, unless extenuating circumstances are adequately identified.
11. Cost Overrun Process -The Council requests that any change order to any capital
improvement project follow the criteria established in Resolution No. 65 of2004 which
reads as follows:
a. "The project is under construction and all other funding options and/ or methods
have been considered and it has been determined that additional funding is still
required.
b. Cost overrun funding will be approved based on the following formula:
1. 20% or below of the budget adopted by the City Council for project
budgets of $100,000 or less;
ii. 15% or below of the budget adopted by the City Council for project
budgets between $100,001 and $250,000;
iii. 10% or below of the budget adopted by the City Council for project
budgets over $250,000 with a maximum overrun cost of $1oo,ooo.
c. The funds are not used to pay additional City Engineering fees.
d. The Administration will submit a written notice to the City Council detailing the
additional funding awarded to projects at the time of administrative approval.
e. If a project does not meet the above mentioned criteria the request for additional
funding will be submitted as part of the next scheduled budget opening.
However, if due to timing constraints the cost overrun cannot be reasonably
considered as part of a regularly scheduled budget opening, the Administration
will prepare the necessary paperwork for review by the City Council at its next
regularly scheduled meeting."
12. Recapture Funds from Completed Capital Projects-The Council requests that the
Administration include in the first budget amendment each year those Capital Improvement
Program Fund accounts where the project has been completed and a project balance remains.
It is the Council's intent that all account balances from closed projects be recaptured and
placed in the CIP Cost Overrun Contingency Account for the remainder of the fiscal year, at
which point any remaining amounts will be transferred to augment the following fiscal year's
General Fund ongoing allocation.
13. Recapture Funds from Unfinished Capital Projects-Except for situations in which
significant progress is reported to the Council, it is the Council's intent that all account
balances from unfinished projects older than three years be moved out of the specific project
account to the CIP Fund Balance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, account balances for bond
financed projects and outside restricted funds (which could include grants, SAA or other
restricted funds) shall not be moved out of the specific project account.
14. Surplus Land Fund within CIP Fund Balance -Revenues received from the sale of real
property will go to the unappropriated balance of the Capital Projects Fund and the revenue
will be reserved to purchase real property unless extenuating circumstances warrant a
different use. It is important to note that collateralized land cannot be sold.
15 . Transparency of Ongoing Costs Created by Capital Projects-Any long-term fiscal impact to
the General Fund from a capital project creating ongoing expenses such as maintenance,
changes in electricity /utility usage, or additional personnel will be included in the CIP
funding log and project funding request. Similarly, capital projects that decrease ongoing
expenses will detail potential savings in the CIP funding log.
16. Balance Budget without Defunding or Delaying Capital Projects -Whenever possible,
capital improvement projects should neither be delayed nor eliminated to balance the
General Fund budget.
17. Identify Sources when Repurposing Old Capital Project Funds-Whenever the
Administration proposes repurposing funds from completed capital projects the source(s)
should be identified including the project name, balance of remaining funds, whether the
project scope was reduced, and whether funding needs related to the original project exist.
18. Identify Capital Project Details -For each capital project, the capital improvement projects
funding log should identify:
a. The Community Development and Capital Improvement Program Advisory Board's
funding recommendations,
b. The Administration's funding recommendations,
c. The project name and a brief summary of the project,
d . Percentage of impact fee eligibility and type,
e. The project life expectancy,
f. Whether the project is located in an RDA project area,
g. Total project cost and an indication as to whether a project is one phase of a larger
project,
h. Subtotals where the project contains multiple scope elements that could be funded
separately,
1. Any savings derived from funding multiple projects together,
j. Timing for when a project will come on-line,
k. Whether the project implements a master plan,
1. Whether the project significantly advances the City's renewable energy or
sustainability goals,
m . Ongoing annual operating impact to the General Fund,
n. Any community support for the project -such as community councils or petitions,
o. Communities served,
p. Legal requirements/mandates,
q. Whether public health and safety is affected,
r. Whether the project is included in the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan,
s. Whether the project leverages external funding sources, and
t. Any partner organizations .
Debt Management Policies
1. Prioritize Debt Service for Projects in the 10 -Year Capital Facilities Plan -The Council
intends to utilize long-term borrowing only for capital improvement projects that are
included in the City's 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan or in order to take advantage of
opportunities to restructure or refund current debt. Short-term borrowing might be utilized in
anticipation of future tax collections to finance working capital needs.
2. Evaluate Existing Debt before Issuing a New Debt-The Council requests that the
Administration provide an analysis of the City's debt capacity, and how each proposal meets
the Council's debt policies, prior to proposing any projects for debt financing. This analysis
should include the effect of the bond issue on the City's debt ratios , the City 's ability to
finance future projects of equal or higher priority , and the City's bond ratings.
3. Identify Repayment Source when Proposing New Debt-The Council requests that the
Administration identify the source of funds to cover the anticipated debt service requirement
whenever the Administration recommends borrowing additional funds.
4. Monitoring Debt Impact to the General Fund-The Council requests that the Administration
analyze the impact of debt-financed capital projects on the City's operating budget and
coordinate this analysis with the budget development process.
5. Disclosure of Bond Feasibility and Challenges -The Council requests that the
Administration provide a statement from the City's financial advisor that each proposed bond
issue appears feasible for bond financing as proposed. Such statement from the City's
financial advisor should also include an indication of requirements or circumstances that the
Council should be aware of when considering the proposed bond issue (such as any net
negative fiscal impacts on the City 's operating budget, debt capacity limits , or rating
implications).
6. A void Use of Financial Derivative Instruments -The Council intends to avoid using interest
rate derivatives or other financial derivatives when considering debt issuance.
7 . Maintain Reasonable Debt Ratios-The Council does not intend to issue debt that would
cause the City's debt ratio benchmarks to exceed moderate ranges as indicated by the
municipal bond rating industry .
8. Maintain High Level Bond Ratings-The Council intends to maintain the highest credit
rating feasible and to adhere to fiscally responsible practices when issuing debt.
9. Consistent Annual Debt Payments Preferred -The Council requests that the Administration
structure debt service payments in level amounts over the useful life of the financed
project(s) unless anticipated revenues dictate otherwise or the useful life of the financed
project(s) suggests a different maturity schedule.
10. Sustainable Debt Burden-The Council intends to combine pay-as-you-go strategy with
long-term financing to keep the debt burden sufficiently low to merit continued AAA general
obligation bond ratings and to provide sufficient available debt capacity in case of
emergency.
11. Lowest Cost Options-The City will seek the least costly financing available when evaluating
debt financing options .
12. Avoid Creating Structural Deficits-The City will minimize the use of one-time revenue to
fund programs/projects that require ongoing costs including debt repayments.
13. Aligning Debt and Project Timelines-Capital improvement projects financed through the
issuance of bonded debt will have a debt service that is not longer than the useful life of the
project.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this -~3L.Lr_...d ___ day of
October , 2017.
ATTEST :
HB _A TTY -#64309 -v3-CIP _a nd _ Debt_ Management_Pol icies
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
By 4 = ASL
CHAIRPERSON -=-::::::::____
Salt Lake City
App ed As To Form
By: ~~~~~~~.P
aysen Oldroyd
Da e: lt:>/-:z.../ 17
FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢
Sales Tax
REQUEST 858,800$
CDCIP 858,800$ 858,800$
MAYOR 858,800$ 858,800$
COUNCIL 858,800$ 858,800$
REQUEST 4,000,000$
CDCIP 4,000,000$ 4,000,000$
MAYOR 4,000,000$ 860,000$ 3,140,000$
COUNCIL 4,000,000$ 860,000$ 3,140,000$
REQUEST 124,000$
CDCIP 124,000$ 124,000$
MAYOR 124,000$ 124,000$
COUNCIL 124,000$ 124,000$
REQUEST 4,500,000$
CDCIP 3,500,000$ 3,500,000$
MAYOR 4,500,000$ 3,500,000$ 1,000,000$
COUNCIL 4,500,000$ 3,500,000$ 1,000,000$
1 Stabilize the Fire Training Tower Deterioration
Fire Department
The fire training tower is experiencing significant deterioration, posing safety concerns that
necessitate urgent attention. To rectify the situation, essential measures include patching
spalled concrete, addressing rebar corrosion, repairing cracks, and implementing waterproofing
measures. Ensuring the structural integrity of the tower is paramount, not only to maintain its
functionality but also to safeguard the well-being of individuals utilizing the facility for training
purposes.
2 400 South Jordan River Bridge Reconstruction
Engineering Division
This project will reconstruct the 400 South vehicle bridge over the Jordan River. This bridge has
deteriorated to a rating below 60 on the Bridge Health Index (BHI) as determined by UDOT
bridge inspection. Engineering had planned a rehabilitation project for the existing bridge
structure in previous years, however continued degradation, accelerated by the 2020
earthquake, has made reconstruction necessary. A consulting firm with specialized experience
will be used for this project.
FOF
Transit
Transportation Dedicated Sources Capital
Maintenance
(Holding Acct)
#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
3 Liberty Park Greenhouse Restoration
Constituent Application; Public Lands Department
The purpose of this proposal is to identify steps to secure the Liberty Park Greenhouse (LPG),
restore it to its once historical prominence, and identify innovative ways to renovate/redesign
the building to enhance its educational / recreational / environmental conservancy value to the
community. This work will be completed in advance of other funded work to produce design and
construction documents for the reconstruction of the greenhouse.
1) Facility Structural Audit Initiative- Funds would be used to develop/issue a call for proposals,
select a vendor, and pay for contracted engineering services to assess in detail the current
condition of the facility, identify construction services, and develop construction documents to
support structural restoration.
2) Facility Redesign Initiative- Working from/building upon the Facility Structural Audit, funds
would be allocated to support a case competition conducted the University of Utah's College of
Architecture and Planning Department aimed at completing design work that preserve the
facility's historical roots, provide multiple programming to enhance the community's
biodiversity/recreational/ educational interests as well as contribute to Liberty Park's overall
aesthetic beauty.
4 Complete Streets Reconstruction
Engineering Division
This annual program funds the vital reconstruction of deteriorated City streets, including street
pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalk, drainage improvements as necessary, and appropriate
complete streets bicycle and pedestrian access improvements.
Exhibit A - Fiscal Year 2025 Capital Improvement Program Project Allocations Funding Log
Last Updated August 27, 2024 Page 1
FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢
Sales Tax
FOF
Transit
Transportation Dedicated Sources Capital
Maintenance
(Holding Acct)
#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
REQUEST 921,700$
CDCIP 921,700$ 804,500$ 117,200$
MAYOR 921,700$ 804,500$ 117,200$
COUNCIL 921,700$ 804,500$ 117,200$
REQUEST 3,500,000$
CDCIP 2,750,000$ 2,750,000$
MAYOR 3,500,000$ 2,750,000$ 750,000$
COUNCIL 3,500,000$ 2,750,000$ 750,000$
REQUEST 750,000$
CDCIP 500,000$ 500,000$
MAYOR 500,000$ 500,000$
COUNCIL 500,000$ 500,000$
6 Complete Streets Overlay
Engineering Division
This annual program funds the overlay of City streets that have not yet fallen to the level of
deterioration where full reconstruction is required. This Engineering Division overlay program
includes a 3” or greater depth asphalt mill and overlay (thicker than Streets Division
maintenance overlays of 2” or less), curb and gutter replacement and sidewalk replacement in
select locations, drainage improvements as necessary, and appropriate Complete Streets bicycle
and pedestrian access improvements.
7 Public Way Concrete
Engineering Division
This annual program addresses deteriorated or defective concrete sidewalks, accessibility
ramps, curb and gutter, retaining walls, etc. in the public way through saw-cutting, slab jacking,
or removal and replacement.
5 Liberty Park Greenhouse Design and Construction Documents
Public Lands Department
In 2023, the Salt Lake City Public Services Department and Facilities Division completed a
Facility Condition Assessment for the greenhouse. This report identified the overall facility
condition as poor/failing. As of January 2024, Public Lands is no longer using the facility for
operational purposes.The Liberty Park Greenhouse, first constructed in 1902, has been the
primary greenhouse facility in Salt Lake City to propagate, grow, and store flowers, native
plants, and shrubs for planting throughout Salt Lake City’s Public Lands system. The
greenhouse has been a critical operational facility for the Public Lands Department and has
become an iconic and historic public asset within the City’s largest park. The recommended
phasing strategy includes:
1. Initial Facility Condition Assessment: Completed in 2023.
2. Detailed Structural Assessment for East Greenhouse: Funding Requested through FY 24
Budget Amendment 2. Completion of this step may allow for the use of the east greenhouse
while other areas undergo planning, design, and reconstruction.
3. Complete Structural Assessment: Funding requested through an FY 25 constituent CIP
application, separate from this application.
4. Design and Construction Documents for the construction of new greenhouse facilities:
Funding requested through this FY 25 internal CIP application, building off of the tasks funded
by the requested constituent application.
5. Renovation of the east greenhouse and reconstruction of the remaining greenhouses:
Future/timeline TBD, based on successful, subsequent funding request in FY 25-26.
Exhibit A - Fiscal Year 2025 Capital Improvement Program Project Allocations Funding Log
Last Updated August 27, 2024 Page 2
FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢
Sales Tax
FOF
Transit
Transportation Dedicated Sources Capital
Maintenance
(Holding Acct)
#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
REQUEST 2,756,500$
CDCIP 1,366,350$ 1,366,350$
MAYOR 2,756,500$ 1,366,350$ 1,390,150$
COUNCIL 2,756,500$ 1,366,350$ 1,390,150$
REQUEST 2,200,000$
CDCIP 2,200,000$ 2,200,000$
MAYOR 2,200,000$ 2,200,000$
COUNCIL 2,200,000$ 2,200,000$
REQUEST 1,500,000$
CDCIP 750,000$ 750,000$
MAYOR 750,000$ 750,000$
COUNCIL 750,000$ 750,000$
REQUEST 600,000$
CDCIP 300,000$ 300,000$
MAYOR 300,000$ 300,000$
COUNCIL 352,531$ 52,531$ 300,000$
11 Safer Crossings Citywide
Transportation Division
Pedestrian-focused crossings such as HAWK Beacons, Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons,
raised crosswalks, curb extensions, and other similar safety improvements.
8 Facilities Replacement and Renewal Plan
Facilities Division
The Facility Renewal and Deferred Asset Management Initiative for Fiscal Year 2025 (FY25) is a
targeted effort aligned with the 10-year plan. Our goal is to strategically manage the existing
backlog of deferred assets by categorizing and prioritizing them based on building and
component criticality. This involves dividing the current backlog into three equal parts, enabling
us to address an approximately consistent number of assets per year. Additionally, we aim to
proactively tackle 50% of incoming deferred assets to prevent further accumulation. This
focused approach ensures efficient resource allocation and sets the foundation for sustained
facility enhancement over the coming years. It's crucial to highlight the ongoing facilities
condition assessment. This assessment will provide insight into the overall health of our
buildings and components, enabling us to make more informed decisions regarding replacement
and renewal.
9 Plaza 349 HVAC Improvements - Phase I
Facilities Division
Plaza 349 is critical to the day-to-day operations of the city by hosting several key departments
including: Human Resources, Engineering, Information Management Services, Transportation,
and Building Inspection divisions. In 2019 a space planning and vulnerability study identified
key elements to be updated that included life safety, access controls, and security. Facilities has
also identified key assets that include the HVAC system and parking structure. This CIP
application is for the first phase of the project and will include upgrading life safety, security,
HVAC design, and key HVAC asset upgrades. In 2022, Colvin Engineering completed an HVAC
replacement feasibility study, which will aid in this initiative.
10 Transit Capital Program / Funding Our Future Transit
Transportation Division
Continue our partnership with UTA installing bus stops, mobility hubs, and accessible first/last-
mile connections to them, on frequent transit routes. This program implements two of the key
recommendations of the Transit Master Plan, seeking to make all transit stops accessible, safe,
and comfortable for people of all ages and abilities. UTA provides stop amenities in-kind and
maintains them for the life of the assets. Some of the new shelters are now equipped with
lighting, which will make passengers who are waiting more visible to operators, as well as to
increase safety and security while they are waiting. Also as outlined in the Transit Master Plan, a
highly visible frequent service brand has been developed and is ready for deployment of this
brand and associated enhanced amenities at Frequent Transit Route bus stops throughout the
city. These investments in branding and enhanced stations can help achieve the Transit Master
Plan goal of providing a safe and comfortable transit access and waiting experience.
Exhibit A - Fiscal Year 2025 Capital Improvement Program Project Allocations Funding Log
Last Updated August 27, 2024 Page 3
FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢
Sales Tax
FOF
Transit
Transportation Dedicated Sources Capital
Maintenance
(Holding Acct)
#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
REQUEST 960,000$
CDCIP 480,000$ 480,000$
MAYOR 480,000$ 480,000$
COUNCIL 960,000$ 960,000$
REQUEST 3,250,000$
CDCIP 500,000$ 500,000$
MAYOR 500,000$ 500,000$
COUNCIL 500,000$ 500,000$
12 Sugar House Park – Pavilion(s) Replacement (One at $480k or Two at $960k)
Public Lands Department
Sugar House Park’s seven pavilions are over 50 years old—beyond their lifespan—and do not
meet code or accessibility guidelines. Failure of the pavilions could lead to injury or death. A
2016 Pavilion Study by Salt Lake County recommends full replacement of all seven pavilions.
This application seeks funding to match the County’s funding to replace one of these seven, as
well as associated amenities (signage, tables, barbecues, landscaping, water, and accessibility
features). Approving this funding will bring the total number of pavilions that have been or can
be replaced to two. (Recent City and County funding will replace the Fabian Lakeside Pavilion in
2024.) Five remain to be funded. Approval of this request will provide park patrons (typically
Salt Lake City residents) with one complete pavilion replacement (a $960,000 project value) for
the cost (to the City) of just half of one. In 1957, with the incorporation of Sugar House Park,
Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County made a contractual agreement to jointly own the park
property and appropriate funds for facilities. The Sugar House Park Authority depends on these
appropriations from Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County to carry out the park’s purpose as an
equitable, regional park of the highest quality. Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County are
committed to matching one another’s funds (1:1) and continuing this partnership to improve or
replace more assets in the future.
13 Transitioning to Regionally-Appropriate Landscapes, Adapting Irrigation Systems,
and Reducing Water Use
Public Lands Department
(1) improving irrigation efficiency and (2) replacing some turf areas with low-water, regionally-
appropriate plantings. Many of our public lands’ irrigation systems are 50-60 years old. They
use more water, take more time, and cost more to maintain than newer systems. Converting
irrigation systems so that trees can be watered separately from turf reduces water usage and
protects these critical assets, too. During extreme drought conditions, upgraded irrigation
systems can also dramatically reduce or even turn off turf irrigation while continuing to water
trees.The minimum effective amount of funding for this fiscal year's request is $500,000:
design and new irrigation for roughly 2.5 acres. Fully funding the request ($3.25M), however,
would fund new irrigation systems for up to 16 acres (which is less than 2% of the Public Lands
Department's irrigated landscapes). Due to the 25-30 year lifespan of irrigation systems and
some landscapes, ongoing requests would likely need to be around the $6M to $9M per year. If
partially funded, as recommended in the Mayor’s Budget, the Public Lands Department will
choose up to two acres from one or more of the following six priority sites within three types of
public lands (natural lands, parks, and islands): Miller Park, Wasatch Hollow Park and
Preserve, Ensign Peak, Allen Park, 1200 East islands (from South Temple to 400 South), and
1300 East median and park strips (from Parkway Ave to Claybourne Ave).
Exhibit A - Fiscal Year 2025 Capital Improvement Program Project Allocations Funding Log
Last Updated August 27, 2024 Page 4
FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢
Sales Tax
FOF
Transit
Transportation Dedicated Sources Capital
Maintenance
(Holding Acct)
#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
REQUEST 1,300,000$
CDCIP 1,300,000$ 1,300,000$
MAYOR 1,300,000$ 1,300,000$
COUNCIL 1,300,000$ 1,300,000$
REQUEST 100,000$
CDCIP 100,000$ 100,000$
MAYOR 100,000$ 100,000$
COUNCIL 100,000$ 100,000$
14 HVAC Control Replacement at the Public Safety Building
Facilities Division
At Public Safety Building, we have outdated Microsoft servers unsupported beyond Windows
Server 2016 and an obsolete Siemens Apogee building controls system. These vulnerabilities
jeopardize both operational efficiency and public safety. To address these pressing concerns, we
advocate for a holistic upgrade strategy. This involves transitioning from the unsupported
Microsoft 2012 and Siemens Apogee systems to Utah Yamas Controls. Our proposed solution
encompasses upgrading the City's EBO platform, provisioning advanced automation servers,
modernizing essential building systems, replacing antiquated temperature sensors, and
deploying new communication wiring throughout the facility. By implementing these upgrades,
we aim to enhance operational reliability, security, and resilience at the critical public safety
building, safeguarding both personnel and the community.
15 Citywide Park Restroom Planning Study/Fairmont Restroom Conceptual Design
Constituent Application; Public Lands Department
Friends of Fairmont Park propose a Restroom Pilot CIP for 2024-25 for: (1) a planning study to
update planning guidance for city-wide parks restroom policy and practice, (2) conceptual
design for a new restroom if warranted by the study; (3) with the recommendation that a new
design be built and tested in Fairmont Park to demonstrate whether or not any new guidance is
workable in the Salt Lake context. Note that it is expected that the new design strategy will
reduce vandalism and maintenance costs and increase restroom uptime and safety. The intent is
to benchmark a proposed new restroom configuration against the current design in other parks,
to test the viability of this approach, developing best practice in park restroom management for
the city. Restroom safety and vandalism present ongoing problems in City parks, especially the
large, heavily used parks.
Exhibit A - Fiscal Year 2025 Capital Improvement Program Project Allocations Funding Log
Last Updated August 27, 2024 Page 5
FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢
Sales Tax
FOF
Transit
Transportation Dedicated Sources Capital
Maintenance
(Holding Acct)
#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
REQUEST 1,600,000$
CDCIP 970,000$ 20,000$ 950,000$
MAYOR 970,000$ 20,000$ 950,000$
COUNCIL 970,000$ 20,000$ 950,000$
REQUEST 3,100,000$
CDCIP 549,150$ 549,150$
MAYOR 1,508,090$ 549,150$ 54,490$ 904,450$
COUNCIL 1,508,090$ 549,150$ 54,490$ 904,450$
17 Courts & Playgrounds
Public Lands Department
This application will fund the replacement of one playground or partial reconstruction or
resurfacing of at least one court (some of our system’s most well-used and high-demand assets)
that are in the poorest condition. 63% of Public Lands assets have been evaluated to be in poor
or fair condition. With a typical lifespan of 20-30 years, it is essential that, going forward, the
City replace at least two playgrounds and one to two courts every year to ensure safe and
accessible features in our parks.
The following is a list of potential parks where court improvements or one playground
replacement project could occur, in descending order of priority (including condition,
opportunity, geographic need, and equity criteria).
1. Popperton Park (playground)
2. Wasatch Hollow Park (playground)
3. Sunnyside Park (courts) Curtis Park planning and design (playground) $60,000
4. 10th East Senior Center (courts)
5. Riverside Park (courts and playground)
6. Fairmont Park (courts, possibly playground)
7. Warm Springs Park (courts)
8. Westpointe Park (courts and playground)
16 Neighborhood Byways Program
Transportation Division
This project requests design and construction 30% matching funds for two neighborhood
byways currently under consideration for 70% state funding, under UDOT’s Transit
Transportation Investment Program, First-Last Mile (TTIF-FLM). The 800 East Neighborhood
Byway, Phase 2 (1300 South to the 900 East TRAX Station, 1.5 miles), would construct a first-
last mile connection to Red Line TRAX. UDOT has ranked this project #10 statewide. If state
funds are not received, this request will enable the project to construct intersection
improvements at 1300 South to connect the completed Phase 1 portion of the byway (1300 S to
1700 S) to future phases north of 1300 S. Funds would also be used for the design from 1300 S
to 900 E TRAX station, with construction funds to be sought in a subsequent year. The
Kensington Neighborhood Byway (1500 South, from West Temple to the McClelland Trail) has
already received both CIP and federal funds. However, construction costs have escalated, and a
more robust crossing of 700 East (a state highway) has been negotiated with UDOT than
previously anticipated. It is part of the east-west neighborhood byway traversing most of the city
east of I-15, connecting to the westside via the 1300 South viaduct. This crossing has also been
nominated for TTIF-FLM, and ranked #11 statewide, right behind the 800 East Project. If state
funds are not awarded, additional funds would be needed to complete the funding package.
Note most or all of these funds are anticipated to be used for the Kensington Byway project.
Additional funding is needed because grant funding was not awarded, designs for UDOT road
intersections (e.g. 700 East) are more complex and expensive, and impacts of inflation. This
would fund construction of the whole byway instead of in smaller phases.
Exhibit A - Fiscal Year 2025 Capital Improvement Program Project Allocations Funding Log
Last Updated August 27, 2024 Page 6
FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢
Sales Tax
FOF
Transit
Transportation Dedicated Sources Capital
Maintenance
(Holding Acct)
#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
REQUEST 4,500,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR 4,500,000$ 4,500,000$
COUNCIL 4,500,000$ 4,500,000$
REQUEST 2,700,000$
CDCIP 730,000$ 230,000$ 500,000$
MAYOR 860,000$ 230,000$ 500,000$ 130,000$
COUNCIL 900,000$ 40,000$ 230,000$ 500,000$ 130,000$
REQUEST 1,910,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR 1,910,000$ 1,910,000$
COUNCIL 1,910,000$ 1,910,000$
18 700 South (Phase 7, 4600 West to 5000 West) Additional Funding
Engineering Division
The project is desperately needed to complete the last half mile of 700 South’s 4.6 mile long
reconfiguration from 25 Ft wide deteriorated asphalt road to a 50 FT wide concrete street with
bicycle lanes, curb and gutter, sidewalk, and storm drainage from Redwood Rd to 5600 West.
Where 700 South meets the Union Pacific rail at 4800 West is the City’s worst street/rail
intersection. The rail crossing restricts emergency services, causing re-routing delays, and
brings a plethora of constituent service requests each year.
19 Traffic Signal Replacement and Upgrades Program
Transportation Division
Based on condition rankings, the proposed allocation will fund the replacement of two traffic
signals in failing condition with structural and/or equipment deficiencies. The typical life of a
traffic signal is 30 years. After that age, frequent repairs are needed, and the structural supports
for the traffic signal may be at risk of failing, such that the signal might fall over including
potentially onto people or vehicles. But age is only one factor in ranking. Ranking has been
determined by an independent study, that combines equipment age, equipment condition, and
maintenance staff input. Signals that need frequent repairs are targeted for replacement.
Depending on actual construction costs, this amount may be sufficient to also upgrade one
intersection signal detection (which triggers a signal to respond to traffic, bicyclists, and
pedestrians) to current standards, and to replace one non-functional CCTV camera, used to
monitor signal operations to allow real-time signal adjustments in collaboration with UDOT's
valley-wide network.
20 Memory Grove Park Urgent Repairs + Preservation & Maintenance Plan
Public Lands Department
Memory Grove is one of Salt Lake City’s most iconic park spaces. It is one of the thriving cultural
centerpieces of Salt Lake City’s parks system. But the features that draw visitors to the Park –
the historic features and mature trees that give Memory Grove its unique atmosphere – are in a
state of accelerating deterioration.
This funding would facilitate the completion of significant improvements to Memory Grove Park
through two phases:
(Phase 1, $1,750,000) Urgent capital repairs to be completed as soon as possible, with the
guidance of historic landscape architects and the Utah State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO). It is critical to the continued success of Memory Grove that the City begins now to
restore, preserve, and renew the assets that create the unique character of Memory Grove.
(Phase 2, $160,000) The development of a Preservation & Maintenance Plan for Memory Grove
Park and the Freedom Trail.
Exhibit A - Fiscal Year 2025 Capital Improvement Program Project Allocations Funding Log
Last Updated August 27, 2024 Page 7
FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢
Sales Tax
FOF
Transit
Transportation Dedicated Sources Capital
Maintenance
(Holding Acct)
#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
REQUEST 1,410,300$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST 1,500,000$
CDCIP 1,300,000$ 1,300,000$
MAYOR 1,500,000$ 1,300,000$ 200,000$
COUNCIL 1,500,000$ 1,300,000$ 200,000$
REQUEST 3,000,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST 500,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR 500,000$ 500,000$
COUNCIL 500,000$ 500,000$
24 Art Barn Failing Infrastructure and Accessibility Improvements
Arts Council
The Salt Lake City Arts Council, part of the Department of Economic Development, requests will
address failing infrastructure (due to flooding, neglect, and lifespan end), ADA requirements,
energy efficiency, and the option to provide additional services to the public. Items include:
Interior Accessibility Ramp, Energy Efficient Gallery Lighting Upgrade, Hardwood Floor
Replacement, and Lower Level Community workspace/office renovations.
21 Fire Training Grounds Site Improvements
Fire Department
The fire training ground site improvement includes the excavation and construction of paved
area surrounding fire training props to allow access for firefighters and fire vehicles as they
train. Ideally this training ground would simulate a small cross section of the structures that are
in Salt Lake City and the site improvement would resemble streets and access points like what is
in the city. Currently there is approximately 45,000 square feet of underutilized training
ground.
22 Amplifying Our Jordan River Revitalization: Leveraging Bond Investment
Public Lands Department
Doubles the impact of the estimated $1,250,000 in GO Bond funding planned for the segment of
the Jordan River corridor between Indiana Avenue and California Avenue. Bond funding is
intended to focus on overall corridor improvements, water trail development, irrigation, tree
health, and the Parkway Trail: namely, non-impact fee eligible costs. This impact fee funding,
however, will be used on increasing level of service along and near the Jordan River corridor and
its public lands spaces, particularly focused on increasing safety, activation, and recreation
amenities. Some likely, high-priority improvements may include water and resource-efficient
irrigation and planting where they do not currently exist, additional lighting, nature-focused
pathways, river interaction and education opportunities, and additional features that activate
the corridor. The River corridor’s Indiana Avenue to California Avenue segment has the highest
concentration of destinations and activity: seven parks and open spaces, and active
transportation intersections of the 9-Line Trail, the Jordan River Parkway Trail, sidewalks, and
bike lanes on Indiana, 900 West, and California. Of these seven spaces, the International Peace
Gardens, Bend in the River, and Modesto Park face difficult challenges that have made them
high-need, high-priority areas for both the Public Lands Department and the surrounding
communities. Improvements to the Fife Wetlands and the International Peace Gardens
including security fencing are the top priority areas.
23 Livable Streets Traffic Calming Program
Transportation Division
Note: The Council approved $2 million from the Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Transportation's
fund balance (separate from General Fund Balance) as part of the annual budget adoption on
June 13
Exhibit A - Fiscal Year 2025 Capital Improvement Program Project Allocations Funding Log
Last Updated August 27, 2024 Page 8
FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢
Sales Tax
FOF
Transit
Transportation Dedicated Sources Capital
Maintenance
(Holding Acct)
#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
REQUEST 200,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST 250,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST 500,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
25 Jordan River Trail Safer Crossing Improvements
Constituent Application; Public Lands Department
This project would fund design and construction of a raised crosswalk at 200 South on the
Jordan River Parkway Trail. This would also fund the installation of improved safety and
visibility features as well as aesthetic improvements at the I-80 underpass to enhance safety and
comfortability at this key section of the trail.
26 Police Department Training Center
Police Department
The police department requires a dedicated Training Facility. As SLC grows, so does the public
safety need. The SLCPD on-boards and trains 50-80 employees a year. The training consists of a
state certified satellite police academy and exclusive SLCPD academy. Both curriculums require
facilities to be effective and complete. Additionally, the department has statutory training
requirements for over 600 officers, which requires dedicated facilities (range, scenario locations,
emergency vehicle operations, arrest control and defensive tactics mat room, exercise facility,
dedicated academy and in-service classrooms, etc.). The department currently uses community
classrooms and a dilapidated city warehouse for academy training and in-service training.
27 Pedestrian Safety / HAWK at Richmond St. and Zenith Ave.
Constituent Application; Transportation Division
I've lived at the corner of Richmond and Zenith for 3 years and walk across Richmond daily to
get to the daycare on another corner. Many pedestrians cross Richmond to get to daycare, parks,
bus stops, the grocery store, and Nibley Park School. Pedestrian traffic is only likely to increase
as more apartment buildings are completed in the Brickyard area. Despite all the pedestrian
traffic, Richmond remains a 4-lane street with a turning lane in the middle a road design the city
has expressed interest in replacing to improve pedestrian and cyclist safety (e.g., the 2100 S
reconstruction). There is only a set of flashing pedestrian yield signs at Richmond and Zenith,
which drivers either don't notice or choose to disregard. My family and I often stand at the
Zenith corner so long, waiting for all 4 lanes to stop, that we have to hit the pedestrian crosswalk
button more than once. There are no speed limit signs on Richmond between the controlled
intersection at 1300 E/Highland and the next controlled intersection at Richmond/Brickyard,
nearly a half mile apart. Almost everything in between is residential. With no expected reasons
to slow down or stop, drivers treat Richmond like a highway.
Exhibit A - Fiscal Year 2025 Capital Improvement Program Project Allocations Funding Log
Last Updated August 27, 2024 Page 9
FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢
Sales Tax
FOF
Transit
Transportation Dedicated Sources Capital
Maintenance
(Holding Acct)
#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
REQUEST 4,600,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST 385,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL 20,000$ 20,000$
REQUEST 1,500,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
28 Transportation Corridor Transformations Program
Transportation Division
This funding will be used to make transformative transportation changes to streets that are not
in need of reconstruction. This includes changes to streets that are receiving surface treatments
(chip seal or slurry seal) and/or streets that are being repaved without full reconstruction. Some
streets may also receive transformative changes to transportation use without resurfacing.
These funds are generally used to make corridor-long changes to several blocks of street,
including but not limited to changes to striping, lane configurations, changes to curbs, parking,
streetscape elements such as street trees, and installation of semi-permanent infrastructure
such as separation curbs, bollards, delineators, or planters. Streets that are anticipated to be
considered with FY25 funds include sections of 500 or 600 South Grand Boulevards, 900 South
Streetscape additions, and several streets being resurfaced citywide.
29 Jordan River Trail Food Forest + Partner Garden
Constituent Application; Public Lands Department
The main purpose of this project is to install city water access to a new Wasatch Community
Gardens (WCG) food forest farm and the Og Woi People's Orchard and Garden (a project of
Blue Sky Institute), located on adjoining parcels of public land along the Jordan River Trail in
Fairpark/Rose Park. The WCG Food Forest Farm will serve as a living pantry to a community
without access to fresh, local food in an underutilized area with contaminated soil. The space
will be transformed from inoperable to flourishing through diverse planting of edible plants that
attempt to mimic the ecosystems and patterns found in nature. The Og Woi People' s Orchard
and Garden (OPOG) is a community collective project that serves as a model of how food can be
free and accessible. It involves helping a fruit orchard and associated vegetable gardens thrive,
with the intent of providing the produce grown by the plants to the people in the community. It
is also a place to enhance the overall health of the environment and to learn and teach
community resiliency and caring. Now that the OPOG site has been added to WCG's Green City
Grower's contract with Salt Lake City, WCG will partner with Og Woi to ensure all city
established management and infrastructure guidelines for a community garden are followed,
per WCG's documented and demonstrated best practices. As part of this partnership, WCG will
act as liaison between the participants in the Og Woi garden and SLC via the Green City
Grower's contract. The $20,000 is for soil testing. If the results show that the project is viable,
then the Council requests that the Administration propose in a budget amendment fully funding
the project with parks impact fees.
30 Urban Trails Program
Transportation Division
This FY25 request for citywide urban trails is anticipated to fund a new extension of the Sugar
House Greenway to complement S-Line Extension; provide funding for the currently nicknamed
“Alphabet Trail” which is roughly parallel to the “alphabet streets” along 1300 East south of I-
80; and to implement other trails, citywide, included in the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan
(2015).
Exhibit A - Fiscal Year 2025 Capital Improvement Program Project Allocations Funding Log
Last Updated August 27, 2024 Page 10
FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢
Sales Tax
FOF
Transit
Transportation Dedicated Sources Capital
Maintenance
(Holding Acct)
#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
REQUEST 500,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST 1,100,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
31 Route 209 - Accessibility, Bus Shelters, Benches, and Trash Cans
Constituent Application; Transportation Division
When the UTA created the new 209 route through the Avenues they greatly increased the
frequency and access to downtown / the U / Millcreek--it's great for mobility. However, nearly
every bus stop is non-ADA accessible, lacks benches / stools to support riders while they wait, a
shelter to protect them in the winter nor trash bins. My house is directly in front of a bus stop
and riders have left trash all over the street, the bus has to use my driveway to let anyone in a
wheelchair board and riders end up sitting in my yard when it's inclement weather because of
the protection of the trees. Every bus stop I've driven along the 209 route is the same--there are
no benches, there are no trash cans, and almost all of them don't have a clear easement from
sidewalk to curb to assist ADA / elderly riders. This is a huge opportunity to improve rider
safety and access, provide support and shelter to our riders and make sure neighborhoods stay
clean and safe. Adding more features to each bus stop would greatly improve community
support for expanded access to public transit.
32 Fairmont Park East Enhancement
Constituent Application; Public Lands Department
The project will improve the currently unsafe east side of Fairmont Park through numerous
enhancements that provide safer access and usability. These changes are urgently needed before
three new high-rise apartment complexes (due east of the park) come online in the next year or
two. The overall project may include, in order of priority and with the associated divisions, the
following:
#1 (Transportation Division Projects), an active transportation path connecting the east
Fairmont Park entrance to the S-Line Trail, adding ADA access to the east entrance (replacing
stairs), space for food trucks and dining infrastructure on the west side of 1100 East, and raised
crosswalks on 1100 East
#2 (Public Lands Department, repair the firepit area and add signage about historic
significance; add additional lighting to help prevent loitering/camping in this area; add a
woodchip pollinator pathway along the riparian for a closer look into the pollinator habitat.
Providing more interpretive signage
#3 (Public Lands Department), daylighting a spring and extending the existing boardwalk over
the spring, on the east side of the pond where it now flows across the sidewalk.
#4 (Arts Council), adding art features
#5 (Fire Department, Transportation Division, Public Lands Department), building a pollinator-
friendly median on 1100 East, pending Fire Department and Transportation Division review and
approval
Exhibit A - Fiscal Year 2025 Capital Improvement Program Project Allocations Funding Log
Last Updated August 27, 2024 Page 11
FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢
Sales Tax
FOF
Transit
Transportation Dedicated Sources Capital
Maintenance
(Holding Acct)
#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
REQUEST 10,000,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR 3,140,000$ 3,140,000$
COUNCIL 3,140,000$ 3,140,000$
REQUEST 170,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST 337,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
33 Green Loop Implementation
Public Lands Department
This funding request is a joint application between Public Lands and Transportation, with active
participation from several other departments. The Green Loop project reimagines part of the
City’s underutilized public rights-of-way as functional green space in the heart of downtown.
Transformation of the public right-of-way requires design and construction of both above-
ground improvements (sidewalks, paths, bikeways, plazas, roadway, forest, plantings, park
features, and rain gardens) and below-ground infrastructure (public and private utilities).
Project costs include design and construction of above-ground green space, roadway
reconstruction, and some utility (public and private) relocation. The intent of this application is
to allocate funding to bring strategic segments of the Green Loop to construction as soon as
possible, particularly where there are timely opportunities to leverage grant funds and/or
develop financial partnerships. Robust public engagement is currently informing an in-progress
planning, and design process to develop a schematic design for the 200 East segment of the
Green Loop (South Temple to 900 South) and potentially others as opportunities arise.
Contingency for Green Loop Funding includes a public space management plan for the three
blocks of 500 West. The public space management plan will address site amenities,
programming opportunities, public safety, and neighborhood context for those three blocks.
This management plan will provide the framework for future projects along the Green Loop and
Downtown.
34 Main Street Alley Improvements, from No-Tell Motel to Utah Pride
Constituent Application; Engineering Division
This application is for safety improvements for the public alleyway that runs north-south
between Main Street and Richards Street, for two blocks in particular: from behind the Utah
Pride Center to Andrew Avenue, one door north of the Main Street Motel. This application
unanimously supported by the board of the Ballpark Community Council together with Josh
Blankenship, who leads our neighborhood's weekly volunteer trash pickup group. Currently the
alley is without lighting and is bordered by several properties that are temporarily closed (The
Utah Pride Center), are periodically closed and are scheduled to be permanently closed (Smith's
Ballpark), homes that have been unoccupied and have been boarded for 7-9 years (1411 and 1415
S. Richards Street), or have been on pause in their development for over a year (1448 - 1470 S.
Main Street, the Gabbott's Row 40-unit townhome-style apartments proposed for that site). The
improvements we are requesting would follow recommendations from the Crime Prevention
Through Environmental Design (CPTED).
35 Faultline Park Playground
Constituent Application; Public Lands Department
Replace playground equipment at Faultline Park which will include a new design, removal of
existing play equipment, concrete footings and surfacing. The new playground should
approximately be in the same footprint as the existing which will mean only minor modifications
to the surrounding surfacing. Lastly will be the installation of new play equipment and
surfacing. There may be existing site furnishings around the playground that will need to be
replaced.
Exhibit A - Fiscal Year 2025 Capital Improvement Program Project Allocations Funding Log
Last Updated August 27, 2024 Page 12
FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢
Sales Tax
FOF
Transit
Transportation Dedicated Sources Capital
Maintenance
(Holding Acct)
#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
REQUEST 2,517,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST 601,900$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST 115,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL 115,000$ 115,000$
37 Plaza 349 EV Charging Phase 1 and 2
Public Services Department
We are seeking funding for the initial two phases of a crucial project dedicated to upgrading the
charging infrastructure at Plaza 349. Situated off 200 E and University Boulevard, the Plaza 349
complex comprises an office building and a six-level parking garage, both served by a single
existing electrical service. The proposed project involves installing (20) new Level 2 charger
ports and backfeeding (4) pre-existing charging ports within the Plaza 349 parking garage,
which currently accommodates (38) fleet vehicles according to telematics data. Following the
recommendations from Kimley-Horn & Sawatch, the initial funding will support the first two
phases, including the installation of a new utility switching cabinet and transformer strategically
placed between the main building and parking garage to facilitate the required electrical service
for efficient EV charging. This initiative aligns with our commitment to sustainable
transportation and positions our city at the forefront of accommodating the evolving needs of
our expanding EV fleet.
38 500 East Raised Crosswalk (400 Block)
Constituent Application; Transportation Division
First Step House respectfully requests that the City implement a mid-block raised crosswalk on
500 E between 400 S and 500 E. Raised crosswalks improve safety for both vehicles and
pedestrians. This block of 500 E features mixed-use residential housing on the east side and a
Smith's Marketplace and bus station on the west side. First Step House operates a residential
treatment facility, outpatient treatment center, and two permanent supportive housing
buildings on the east side of the block. These buildings have 186 beds for residential clients and
provide outpatient services to dozens more individuals every day. The population served is very
low-income. First Step House clients primarily navigate the city on foot, including when they get
groceries or take the bus. A raised crosswalk between the residential side of the street and the
Smith's on the other side would dramatically improve safety for all pedestrians, including 200+
First Step House clients each day, and help calm traffic in a busy city passage.
36 Guadalupe Neighborhood Streets Improvement
Constituent Application; Transportation Division
The Guadalupe Community Improvement project aims to enhance pedestrian mobility in
Historic Guadalupe Neighborhood through the improvement of N 500 W. The project aims to
enhance pedestrian mobility through the installation of sidewalks and added street lights for
nighttime visibility and activation. Additionally, the inclusion of a bike lane, contingent on the
city's safety assessment, further promotes safe transportation options that'll connect cyclists in
the neighborhood to the larger SLC bike lane network. To mitigate environmental impact from
the highly active and nearby train tracks, a protective barrier along these tracks will prevent
aggregate leakage onto the road as well as keep pedestrians from crossing train tracks via Union
Pacific property, while the potential introduction of trees along the street adjacent to the
railroad tracks not only enhances the visual appeal but also contributes to noise and air quality
improvement.
Exhibit A - Fiscal Year 2025 Capital Improvement Program Project Allocations Funding Log
Last Updated August 27, 2024 Page 13
FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢
Sales Tax
FOF
Transit
Transportation Dedicated Sources Capital
Maintenance
(Holding Acct)
#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
REQUEST 874,400$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST 657,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST 807,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL 807,000$ 807,000$
REQUEST 530,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
39 PSB EV Charging Phase 1 and 2
Public Services Department
We are seeking funding for the initial two phases of a vital project aimed at upgrading the
charging infrastructure at the Salt Lake City Public Safety Building, a central facility for the city's
police and fire departments, emergency operations center, and combined dispatch unit. The
project involves the installation of (20) new Level 2 charger ports, along with backfeeding (10)
pre-existing ports within the existing two-floor garage, catering to a fleet of (50) public services,
police, and fire vehicles. Following the recommendations from Kimley-Horn & Sawatch, the
proposed funding will support the first two phases, which include the installation of a new utility
transformer on the east end of the property to facilitate the required electrical service for
efficient EV charging. This investment aligns with our commitment to sustainable
transportation and positions our city at the forefront of accommodating the evolving needs of
our expanding EV fleet.
40 Poplar Grove Park Lighting
Constituent Application; Public Lands Department
Safety and utility lighting around the perimeter and some interior of Poplar Grove Park. The
new lights will offer lighting to the sidewalks surrounding the park without increasing light
pollution to the surrounding neighborhood. Using the cities Victorian style lights with
underground power. This will allow the removal of overhead poles, which would remove clutter
from the skyline. Most of the existing poles only deliver power to the existing light fixtures,
(essentially stringing up extension cords in the sky.) With proper placement, poles existing
around the park, lighting street intersections can be removed as well, offering further
improvement of the skyline. The new lights should have fresnel glass guiding the majority of the
light down toward the sidewalk. Or appropriate task light such as lighting an intersection and
crosswalk. One third of the project cost, $219,000, is eligible for parks impact fees for the eight
new interior lights that expand capacity for the park to be used for recreation at night.
41 California Avenue Pedestrian Safety Improvements Construction
Constituent Application; Transportation Division
This project will implement the recommendations of a previously funded study to make
pedestrian safety improvements at the intersections of California Avenue and Concord
Street/Glendale Drive.
42 600 South Safety Improvements
Constituent Application; Transportation Division
This project aims to create a more complete 600 S street by implementing elements of the One-
Way Grand Boulevard Street Typology to the street. This would include the addition of protected
bicycle lanes, and bulb-outs or enhanced crossings that slow down traffic and encourage drivers
to check for people crossing. Our preferred solution is to create protected bike lanes 200 E to
600 E, add bulb-outs where they do not exist, and install decorative crossings. 600 S fronts
several community destinations, like parks, recreation centers, and shopping centers. Traffic
volume data from UDOT shows a substantial decrease in traffic on 600 S east of State St (from
39,000 to 21,000) while the same number of travel lanes is maintained. The project is unlikely
to have a significant impact on motor vehicle travel times or parking while increasing safety for
all users and accommodating more modes of travel. The CIP supports the city's goal of Vision
Zero and helps create better community space.
Exhibit A - Fiscal Year 2025 Capital Improvement Program Project Allocations Funding Log
Last Updated August 27, 2024 Page 14
FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢
Sales Tax
FOF
Transit
Transportation Dedicated Sources Capital
Maintenance
(Holding Acct)
#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
REQUEST 52,600$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST 530,000$
CDCIP 530,000$ 530,000$
MAYOR 530,000$ 530,000$
COUNCIL 530,000$ 530,000$
REQUEST 960,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST 80,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
43 Victory Park Tennis Courts
Constituent Application; Public Lands Department
The project will resurface two existing tennis courts. Remove grape vines that create leaf clutter
from the existing south fence and make all necessary fence repairs.
44 Riverside Park Pathway Loop
Constituent Application; Public Lands Department
Create a looping recreational pathway that accommodates multiple user types that goes through
the park and utilizes the Jordan River Parkway Trail. Creating a looping path gives the people
who recreate at Riverside Park a place to continuously walk and recreate in a fixed location that
is ADA accessible. Potentially something that resembles something like the looping pathways at
Liberty and Sugar House Parks.
Improve or widen strategic pathways in the park: As an important community asset that has
been historically underserved and not seen capital improvements in 27 years, we believe this
park and our community deserve the investment required to have amenities on par with Liberty
Park and Sugar House Park. Making the pathways at Riverside Park more accessible, connected,
and purposeful serves to improve the health and happiness of our communities.
45 Curtis Park Reimagined
Constituent Application; Public Lands Department
Curtis Park hosts a boarded-up playground and underutilized open space. Despite its state, the
area remains highly frequented due to its proximity to the bustling Foothill Village and vibrant
surrounding communities. Our project aims to revitalize this space in tandem with Foothill
Village's 2024-2025 multimillion dollar remodel and their new grand promenade exiting
directly onto this public land.
Revamping the Park. Replacing the worn playground with a larger, contemporary version and
reducing physical barriers by lowering the earth wall along 2200 E., installing ADA-accessible
ramps, stairs, and concrete pathways, including a corridor to the forthcoming Foothill Village
entrance, construction of a centralized pavilion, and addressing safety issues.
This initiative deserves CIP funding because of timely relevance, promoting walkability,
enhancing safety, and community transformation. Acknowledging the current economic
challenges, we propose a phased three-year project that optimizes CIP funds.
See project #17 where the Council adjusted that project scope to provide $60,000 for planning
and design to replace a playground at Curtis Park.
46 Marmalade-Fairpark East-West Connector Study
Constituent Application; Transportation Division
Critical to the area's success is the design and construction of a safe intersection at 400 N 400 W
that may involve concepts such as reduced lanes, raised crosswalks, benches, pedestrian refuge
islands, and possible greening of park strips. Placemaking, activation, and creating connections
to the multiple local businesses and community nodes (public library, schools, etc.) in the area
are features of this project. Multiple local businesses in the area ask for safer connections and a
more cohesive transportation network tie-in from various surrounding neighborhoods. The
project would take a phased approach, beginning with a study to create recommendations and
appropriate technical solutions for the project area. This request is for Phase 1 - Study, with the
potential for design depending on level of funding.
Exhibit A - Fiscal Year 2025 Capital Improvement Program Project Allocations Funding Log
Last Updated August 27, 2024 Page 15
FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢
Sales Tax
FOF
Transit
Transportation Dedicated Sources Capital
Maintenance
(Holding Acct)
#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
REQUEST 754,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR 754,000$ 678,600$ 75,400$
COUNCIL 754,000$ 678,600$ 75,400$
REQUEST 560,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL 560,000$ 560,000$
47 Fairmont Park Basketball Court
Constituent Application; Public Lands Department
Over the last few years, there has been a lot of investment in Fairmont Park. The improvements
to the pond, playground, dog park, jogging paths, and pickleball courts have brought a lot of
new activity and users to the park. More activity means that usage of the basketball court has
increased, as well. The court is currently a half-court size, with one hoop, no lines to indicate the
free throw or 3-point line, no lighting, and uneven concrete. The latter often results in puddles
after rain. The single hoop and small court create a bottleneck in the park, and users often must
wait to use the court on summer evenings. The size, location, and amenities will be determined
through public engagement and coordination with other capital projects in Fairmont Park.
48 Fayette Avenue Improvements between Washington Street & 200 West
Constituent Application; Engineering Division
The public infrastructure on Fayette Avenue between 200 and 300 West is not at minimum
standard for Salt Lake City. The proposed project includes improvements on unimproved City-
owned parcels on the south side of Fayette Avenue as well as sidewalk, curb, and gutter
installation on the north side of Fayette Avenue. Proposed improvements on the south side of
Fayette include completion of paved parking area and installation of curb, gutter,
sidewalk/pedestrian walkway, street trees, landscaping, and street lighting on both sides of
Fayette Avenue. This project is located in an area zoned FBUN-2 and is intended to be a
walkable community. Located within 0.25 mile of the 900 South TRAX stop, sidewalk, curb, and
gutter should be present to support walkability.
Design funding is estimated at $80,000.
Exhibit A - Fiscal Year 2025 Capital Improvement Program Project Allocations Funding Log
Last Updated August 27, 2024 Page 16
FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢
Sales Tax
FOF
Transit
Transportation Dedicated Sources Capital
Maintenance
(Holding Acct)
#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
REQUEST 5,450,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST 650,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
49 “Elevating Access”: The Regional Athletic Complex’s Blueprint for the Future
Public Lands Department
This project will plan, design, and ultimately construct two new, publicly-accessible fields at the
RAC, a northern parking lot at the RAC, and a new trail and landscaping along Rose Park Lane
(the main public entrance to the RAC). Other planning and design work would also be
completed, as described in Steps 1-3, below. The planning, design, and construction proposed in
this application will strongly position Public Lands to pursue remaining needed funding (for up
to six additional fields and other public amenities) from Salt Lake County’s next authorization of
the Zoo, Arts, and Parks (ZAP) Program, which could be available in 2025 or 2026. At this
expanded size (24 total fields), the RAC would be able to host larger tier events and bring in
vastly more visitors and economic impact potential. The economic impact of the RAC would also
increase by up to 100% (est.), from $15 to $19 million each year (currently) to up to $25 to $30
million.
1. Rose Park Lane Trail Improvements and Beautification design and construction, irrigation
upgrades, and landscaping. $850,000 total: $545,000 General Fund and $305,000 parks
impact fees.
2. Planning, Engagement, and Design for the Remaining, Undeveloped 30 Acres of the RAC and
the 3.6-acre Rose Park Lane Open Space Property. $600,000 total: $350,000 General Fund and
$250,000 parks impact fees.
3. Phase 1 RAC Construction: Construction of the first phase of improvements identified in the
sitewide plan (Step 2, above), which will include two new fields open for public use, walkways,
and the northern parking lot. $4 Million total: $2 Million General Fund and $2 Million parks
impact fees.
50 SLC Public Safety Building (Police Occupancy) Remodels
Police Department
This project focuses on overhauling six office spaces within the Public Safety Building (PSB) to
amplify functionality, security, and overall efficiency tailored for the police department's needs.
GSBS provided a detailed quote that outlines each room's scope, such as the removal and
installation of specific elements like flooring, millwork adjustments, and cabinetry finishing will
be executed with precision. The extensive remodel of the six office spaces within the PSB is
designed to facilitate both immediate function and future growth, seamlessly integrating
modern design elements and infrastructure upgrades to optimize operational efficiency and
adaptability for the police department.
Exhibit A - Fiscal Year 2025 Capital Improvement Program Project Allocations Funding Log
Last Updated August 27, 2024 Page 17
FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢
Sales Tax
FOF
Transit
Transportation Dedicated Sources Capital
Maintenance
(Holding Acct)
#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
REQUEST 350,000$
CDCIP 350,000$ 350,000$
MAYOR 350,000$ 350,000$
COUNCIL 350,000$ 350,000$
REQUEST 500,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR 500,000$ 500,000$
COUNCIL 500,000$ 500,000$
REQUEST 512,696$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST 347,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
51 Street Futsal Courts 1:1 Match
Constituent Application; Public Lands Department
“Free the Game” is a SLC-based non-profit on a mission to make soccer (the world's game) more
accessible to all. Over the years, soccer has become more of a business than a game - requiring
you to play for a club or a team to be able to play. Around the world, the game is played in
neighborhood parks and features low-maintenance materials like chain link fencing and
concrete. This proposal may convert unutilized or underutilized concrete courts (or add new
concrete pads) at several of the following parks in Salt Lake City into “futsal” or street soccer
courts. Salt Lake City funding would be a 50% match for private funding from “Free the Game”.
Proposed locations:
Jordan Park (1060 South 900 West)
9th South River Park (1000 West Gennessee Avenue)
Liberty Park (600 East 900 South), dependent on Historic Landmark Commission approval
11th Avenue Park (581 North Terrace Hills Drive)
Jefferson Park (1084 South West Temple)
Fairmont Park (1040 East Sugarmont Avenue)
52 Alleyway Improvements and Mitigation
Engineering Division
This annual program funds reconstruction or rehabilitation of deteriorated City alleyways,
including pavement and drainage improvements, as necessary.
53 International Peace Gardens
Constituent Application; Public Lands Department
First, building a security fence around the gardens to protect the artwork and structures.
Second, we would add educational kiosks at the entrances and provide informational panels at
each countries' garden that would contain details of that countries people, culture, and
involvement in peace. The International Peace Gardens located at 1160 Dalton Ave S, SLC, were
conceived in 1939 but due to World War II were dedicated in 1952. Twenty-eight countries from
the Americas, Europe, Africa, and Asia are represented, symbolizing the true spirit of democracy
and world peace, history, literature, and many lands' cultural heritage. Recently, due to
vandalisms and theft, some of the remaining statues and artwork have been removed and put in
storage. The Salt Lake City Arts Council is working to restore and/or replace art pieces that can
be returned to the gardens. Note that these same improvements could be funded by project #22
and/or the $9 million for the Jordan River Corridor from the Parks, Trails, & Open Space Bond.
54 1200 E Curb/Gutter/Sidewalk and repave street
Constituent Application; Engineering Division
Install curb and gutter on east side of road, and curb, gutter, and sidewalk on west side of road
on 1200 East between Zenith Ave. and Crandall Ave and repave 1200 E between Crandall Ave
and Zeith Ave.
Exhibit A - Fiscal Year 2025 Capital Improvement Program Project Allocations Funding Log
Last Updated August 27, 2024 Page 18
FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢
Sales Tax
FOF
Transit
Transportation Dedicated Sources Capital
Maintenance
(Holding Acct)
#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
REQUEST 2,400,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST 500,000$
CDCIP 500,000$ 500,000$
MAYOR 500,000$ 500,000$
COUNCIL 500,000$ 500,000$
REQUEST 145,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST 69,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
55 700 East Median Tree Planting Project
Constituent Application; Transportation Division
Create a boulevard of trees on 700 E between 1300 S and 2100 S similar to the existing
boulevard of trees on 700 E between 900 S and 1300 E (across from Liberty Park). Just for
clarity the project is NOT referring to the trees on the park strip, it's to create a boulevard of
trees in the existing median between the two directions of traffic. The median is currently made
of asphalt and this project proposes to replace the asphalt with a boulevard of trees. The benefits
of this tree planting initiative are multifold and are outlined below:
i) Median will create safer flow of traffic in this very busy road and prevent road accidents
such as the recent one involving students from Hawthorne Elementary School.
ii) Provide shade and reduce the heat island effect along this huge area of asphalt.
iii) Contain air pollution and noise pollution in this busy road within the city limits.
iv) Add aesthetic appeal to businesses, schools and residential areas along this road and
contribute to positive economic impact along this road.
56 Playground Shade
Constituent Application; Public Lands Department
Install shade clothes over up to five existing playgrounds. In the summer, playground
equipment is too hot to use by 10am. By providing shade to the existing playgrounds, the
community will enjoy increased use of all play equipment for the full day in the summer. Shade
clothes will also help with the prevention of skin cancer.
The playgrounds selected, based on solar exposure, usage during the day, and feasibility, at
which shade clothes and structures could be added may be (in no order): Fairmont Park, Poplar
Grove Park, Wasatch Hollow Park, Westpointe Park, and Donner Trail Park.
57 First Encampment Park
Constituent Application; Public Lands Department
Our current goals for this request include repairing the engraved pioneer names that are eroding
from the rocks and correcting where needed to ensure historical accuracy; replacing damaged
monuments & adding context about the contributions of those who helped create the park;
adding QR codes on new signage to make additional historical information readily accessible
online; improving drainage in the dry 'riverbed' to reduce standing water issues that attract
mosquitoes & could prove deadly to human life; adding lighting for safety & other systems to
discourage criminal activity that many green spaces are struggling with; upgrading the sprinkler
system to reduce water waste & rock erosion; removing invasive plant species & replanting
water-wise vegetation while maintaining sight-lines & visibility within the park. These CIP
improvements could help facilitate creating curriculum for field trips & outdoor classroom
resources; working with Park Rangers to share historical information & connecting with other
Salt Lake Parks with historic significance, like Donner Park, as we work to 'Sustain our Stories' .
58 Alley Improvement A798
Constituent Application; Engineering Division
Residential alley improvement project at approximately 521 East Driggs Avenue.
Exhibit A - Fiscal Year 2025 Capital Improvement Program Project Allocations Funding Log
Last Updated August 27, 2024 Page 19
FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢
Sales Tax
FOF
Transit
Transportation Dedicated Sources Capital
Maintenance
(Holding Acct)
#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
REQUEST 477,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST 500,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL 30,000$ 30,000$
59 Westminster Urban Forestry and Traffic Calming Measures
Constituent Application; Transportation Division
This project aims to reduce traffic in the Westminster Neighborhood of Salt Lake City, and
expand urban forestry efforts in Sugarhouse. It is made up of two basic parts:
1. A study of (1) existing conditions, constraints, and opportunities, and (2) infrastructure and
programmatic recommendations, including the most effective, cost-efficient, and community-
supported methods of improving neighborhood street livability and expanding urban forestry.
This study may also include a series of tests of the recommendations.
2. Design and construction, or implementation, of the above recommendations in the defined
project area.
60 Harvey Milk Blvd LGBTQ+ and Neighborhood Visibility
Constituent Application; Arts Council
This application is being brought forward on behalf of Equality Utah, East Liberty Park
Community Organization, and Central 9th Community Council. The request would include the
following installations:
23 bike racks from 400 W. to 1300 E. at gathering places on each block along the street, with 3
additional racks placed in high-demand bike parking areas.
15 Benches installed along both sides of the street in the heart of the four business districts.
1000 E to 800 E, 400 E to 300 E, and West Temple to 400 W.
27 Banner arms would be placed in the heart of the four business districts. They would be placed
along both sides of the street. from 1000 E to 800 E, 400 E to 300 E, and West Temple to 400
W. (The banners will be funded privately.) Council funding is for the banner arms.
3 Placemaking stand-alone art installations incorporating education about Harvey Milk, the
LGBTQ+ Civil Rights movement, and the LGBTQ+ community in Salt Lake City and Utah. On
city property near the street by Liberty Park, overhead in the Liberty Wells Neighborhood
between State Street and 200 East, and in the parking median between West Temple and 300 W
in the Central 9th Neighborhood.
Exhibit A - Fiscal Year 2025 Capital Improvement Program Project Allocations Funding Log
Last Updated August 27, 2024 Page 20
FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢
Sales Tax
FOF
Transit
Transportation Dedicated Sources Capital
Maintenance
(Holding Acct)
#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
REQUEST 75,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST 134,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST 75,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
61 200 E 1910 S Public Art
Constituent Application; Arts Council
Public Art at the intersection of 200 E 1910 S. There is an 'island' of cement to split the lanes.
Bushes/trees and weeds have grown in the cracks. It looks terrible and has so for years. The
bushes accumulate garbage from people cleaning their cars or getting rid of a used baby diaper.
The bushes are so big that someone could hide in/behind which is a public safety concern. I
would like to see if this spot can be approved for public art.
62 Alleyways between Sherman/Harrison and Harrison/Browning
Constituent Application; Engineering Division
This project is intended to activate/adopt/improve the alleyways on the east side of 1100 East
between Sherman/Harrison and Harrison/Browning. There are several important community
centered small businesses combined with rental properties and home owners all of whom
border on these alleyways. These businesses and residents use the alleyways in order to avoid
the use of 1100 East. The alleyways are used for through access leading to the back entries of
these businesses and residences on 1100 East, Harrison Ave, Sherman and Browning. Residents
and businesses contract with snow removal services in the winter to allow free and safe traffic to
the businesses. The project will also facilitate the natural extension of the McClelland bicycle
trail so that cyclists can avoid the redesigned intersection of Harrison and 1100 East. The
alleyways are used regularly by constituents in the neighborhood for walking dogs and general
exercise.
63 Jackson Park Art
Constituent Application; Arts Council
Bring art to Jackson Park, an overlooked neighborhood gem in need of investment. Our
neighborhood is historically underserved and currently experiences serious crime, safety, and
health issues with our parks. With these issues hampering utilization of Westside parks,
Jackson's central location offers rare, walkable access. As the only accessible green space for
residents between major roadways and barriers, art here would promote health, invite play, and
show that Jackson Park matters. With highway expansions, elementary schools closing, and
this area hard hit with air quality issues, we need more than ever parks that are cared for. High-
quality, interactive art would go a long way to signal to the community that this is a fun, safe,
well-maintained park that you can feel comfortable bringing your children to.
1. A large sculpture or piece that can easily be interacted with by both kids and adults.
Something can be climbed on my kids and adults and/or have an interactable music or kinetic
element.
2. The sculpture to be memorable. Something on par with the Cats at Steinblick.
3. Animal motif to complement both the neighborhoods lived experienced with wildlife and the
theme of Steinbleck Park's Cat statues.
Exhibit A - Fiscal Year 2025 Capital Improvement Program Project Allocations Funding Log
Last Updated August 27, 2024 Page 21
FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢
Sales Tax
FOF
Transit
Transportation Dedicated Sources Capital
Maintenance
(Holding Acct)
#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
REQUEST 330,000$
CDCIP 330,000$ 330,000$
MAYOR 330,000$ 330,000$
COUNCIL 330,000$ 330,000$
REQUEST 174,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST 55,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
64 Pocket Park Community Space - Jake Garn Way
Constituent Application; Public Lands Department
Utilize this underutilized and unprogrammed small, city owned parcel more fully by creating a
pocket park and installing a playground on it. Proximity to residential areas, high concentration
of single family homes, and underutilized functionality make this a logical space for recreation
and community gathering. Many master plans overlap with this project area and initial input
from the community has been overwhelmingly positive. While protecting current trees and
vegetation, community members would like to see an engaging play structure, seating area,
garbage can, and signage.
65 800 East Parks and Pathway
Constituent Application; Public Lands Department
From South Temple extending southward to 900 S, 800 E is a two lane, low speed road with
intermittent grassy medians separating the two lanes of traffic traveling in different directions.
These planted medians add visual appeal but are otherwise unused space in a densely populated
area and have potential to further serve the community. This project proposes designing the
transformation of these planted medians on 800 E into usable public spaces by turning them
into mini-parks with a two-way multi-use path that extends down the middle connecting all
these medians/mini parks from South Temple to 900 S. This project would align with and
extend the project already in progress to turn 800 E from 800 S to 2700 S into a neighborhood
byway. The already existing planted medians on 800 E north of 900 S and this neighborhood
byway in progress present a unique opportunity to use this green space to extend this byway and
add amenities like small park spaces. Turning the grassy medians on 800 E into park spaces
would entail some infrastructure modifications and some addition of amenities. Lowering the
curb at the north and south edges of each median to allow access to the park spaces and multi-
use path would be essential. Benches could be added along with a few small pieces of
playground equipment, and space could be dedicated for a small community garden. The multi-
use path would also need to be created with gravel or pavement.
66 Fairpark placemaking signage
Constituent Application; Engineering Division
Fairpark Community Council would like to have signage for our neighborhood. Similar to Rose
Park and 9th & 9th -- cement base with metal cut out. We take great pride in our community
and would like others to know which neighborhood they are visiting!
Exhibit A - Fiscal Year 2025 Capital Improvement Program Project Allocations Funding Log
Last Updated August 27, 2024 Page 22
FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢
Sales Tax
FOF
Transit
Transportation Dedicated Sources Capital
Maintenance
(Holding Acct)
#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
REQUEST 86,200$
CDCIP 86,200$ 86,200$
MAYOR 86,200$ 86,200$
COUNCIL 86,200$ 86,200$
REQUEST 280,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST 50,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
67 Equal Grounds Project (Calisthenics-Fitness Area)
Constituent Application; Public Lands Department
Building a calisthenics/fitness area within the confines of Salt Lake City's Liberty Park (District
5), dependent on Historic Landmark Commission approval. As alternative options, I would
propose Pioneer Park (District 4), Sugar House Park (District 7) and Jordan Park (District 2) are
also centrally located and heavily utilized by the public. Salt Lake City Public Lands staff have
added several other possible alternatives: Riverside Park, Poplar Grove Park, Jefferson Park,
and Westpointe Park.
The proposal is to devote 900-1500 square feet within the park to an area where 12-20 patrons
could utilize cemented/in-place calisthenic bars, and potentially weight equipment, who
currently enjoy the park, or would prospectively. To provide everyone with an equal and free
opportunity for strength fitness, and another option for the community. As the city continues to
grow in size and diversity, and with continued challenges associated with economic and
healthcare inequity, this project will be an extension and evolution to activities already provided,
with the hope of forwarding community and social progress for all.
68 Liberty Wells Community Garden
Constituent Application; Public Lands Department
The Liberty Wells Community Council would like to convert an underutilized piece of UDOT
property located on 700 East (west side) at approximately 1800 South to a community garden.
LWCC already leases the property across the street and to the south from the State for our
'shed', that we use for storage for the numerous events we hold during the year. This new piece
of property is already maintained by SLC. SLC has a contract with the State which I believe is
pretty much mowing it to keep the weeds down. I have spoken to the State about this and they
have no problem with the concept and indicated that they would donate any surplus materials
we might need like fencing. I have also spoken with Wasatch Community Gardens about
managing it once it has been built. This parcel would make a superb garden. It has no trees on it
so it would be in the sun during most of daylight hours unlike many community gardens
including another LWCC community garden located on 1700 South and 700 East which has
several large trees on it.
69 Drop Arm Gate on the Entry to the Rear Parking Lot
Police Department
The East parking lot at the PSB is consistently occupied by apartment tenants despite numerous
efforts to alleviate the issue. To establish better control and ensure appropriate use of the space,
a cost-effective solution would be to install a drop arm. Drop arms are recognized for their
effectiveness in regulating access to parking areas, providing a simple yet efficient mechanism to
manage entry and exit, thereby addressing the current occupancy challenges.
Exhibit A - Fiscal Year 2025 Capital Improvement Program Project Allocations Funding Log
Last Updated August 27, 2024 Page 23
FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢
Sales Tax
FOF
Transit
Transportation Dedicated Sources Capital
Maintenance
(Holding Acct)
#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
REQUEST 50,000$
CDCIP 50,000$ 50,000$
MAYOR 50,000$ 50,000$
COUNCIL 50,000$ 50,000$
REQUEST 95,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST 200,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST 30,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR 30,000$ 30,000$
COUNCIL 30,000$ 30,000$
73 Historic Markers
Mayor's Office
Note: This was added after the CDCIP Board had completed their deliberations and funding
recommendations
Additional one-time funding for creating and installing metal historic markers around the City
to highlight underrepresented communities and equity. The City's Human Rights Commission
and Racial Equity in Policing Commission could provide site selection prioritization feedback.
Potential sites could include Japantown, Plum Alley, Greektown, Radio City Lounge as the
oldest gay bar west of the Mississippi, and Seraph Young casting the first vote by a woman in a
US election, among others.
70 5th West Commons Conversation Center(s)
Constituent Application; Public Lands Department
Install tables and chairs/seats to facilitate face-to-face meetings - conversations. Tables would
make it possible to eat, play games, with others. We need a way to foster community. This might
be a low cost first step. I suggest we start with the area about 150 South 500 West. The area is
under trees but has a pronounced slope. Some grading may be required. The tables will be
installed in the park blocks along 500 West, between 50 North and 500 South. The concrete
picnic tables will be placed on hard surface paving and will not require bolting. The exact
product chosen may differ from what is displayed below.
71 Sugar House Map and Historic Recognition Project
Constituent Application; Transportation Division
The Sugar House Map and Historic Recognition Project. A series of metal maps throughout the
district to identify open spaces, trails, historic landmarks, public property, and retail space.
Includes a QR code to link to Sugar House Business Community.
72 East Bench H Rock Preserve
Constituent Application; Public Lands Department
In recent years, the H-Rock and its surrounding slopes have seen significant damage and soil
erosion from unmanaged visitation and expanding vandalism. The hundreds of gallons of paint
from over the years have leached into surrounding soils and vegetation. The "H" - as well as all
other sides of the rock - repeatedly get vandalized with graffiti, profanity, and even hate speech.
Numerous user-created access trails spoke out from the H-Rock expanding the degradation of
the open space. In meetings this fall with Highland student council officers, the school principal,
and the Division of Trails & Natural Lands staff, there was a consensus of mutual concern
regarding student safety and environmental abuse. This project proposal includes
environmental clean-up and landscape repair, trail and open space restoration, and the addition
of trail-related amenities such as fencing, signage, and benches. TNL staff has already started
working with the Highland community to protect its connection to this space and to design and
implement a new H-Rock tradition that does not sacrifice student safety or the natural
environment.
Exhibit A - Fiscal Year 2025 Capital Improvement Program Project Allocations Funding Log
Last Updated August 27, 2024 Page 24
FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢
Sales Tax
FOF
Transit
Transportation Dedicated Sources Capital
Maintenance
(Holding Acct)
#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
REQUEST 750,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR 750,000$ 750,000$
COUNCIL 750,000$ 750,000$
REQUEST 350,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR 350,000$ 350,000$
COUNCIL 350,000$ 350,000$
REQUEST 500,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR 500,000$ 500,000$
COUNCIL 500,000$ 500,000$
74 Concrete Replacement
Engineering Division
Note: This was added after the CDCIP Board had completed their deliberations and funding
recommendations
This one-time City funded project addresses deteriorated or defective concrete sidewalks in the
public way through saw-cutting, slab jacking, or removal and replacement.
75 Planning and Design for Future CIP Applications
Available to Any Department / Division
Note: This was added after the CDCIP Board had completed their deliberations and funding
recommendations
These funds would be used to create design documents and refine cost estimates for future CIP
applications. The Council identified this funding is to be available for projects that advance the
policy goals of implementing the Citywide Transportation Plan (including Vision Zero and the
Pedestrian & Bicycle Master Plan), traffic calming (including the Livable Streets Program), and
water conservation. These policy goals are only applicable to the funding in this CIP cycle. Policy
goals could change in future cycles. For example, this funding tool could also be paired with
projects prioritized in a future Capital Asset Plan (five-year CIP plan).
76 Vacant and Leased City-owned Property Maintenance
Real Estate Services Division
The Administration is requesting that $700,000 of FY 23 and FY 24 CIP Vacant/Surplus
Maintenance funding be rescoped to prepare the Fleet Block property, located at 300 – 400
West and 800 – 900 South for redevelopment. In addition to the $700,000, the Administration
is proposing that up to $500,000 of the CIP Vacant/Surplus Maintenance funding be allocated
for the same purpose through the FY 25 CIP budget, for a total of $1,200,000. Funding will be
utilized to prepare the property for redevelopment and to mitigate mounting security and safety
issues. It has become increasingly costly to secure the block, with the Administration seeing an
immediate need for security services of over $250,000 per year to address daily break-ins and
vandalism. Rather than hiring long-term security services, the Administration proposes
substantially decreasing security concerns and increasing public safety at the property site as
soon as possible. Specific activities will be terminating utility connections, surveying the
property, abating asbestos and other environmental contaminants within the buildings, and
demolition activities. The CIP Vacant/Surplus Maintenance funding to be rescoped for this
project is broken down as follows: FY 2023: $200,000, FY 2024: $500,000, FY 2025:
$500,000”
Exhibit A - Fiscal Year 2025 Capital Improvement Program Project Allocations Funding Log
Last Updated August 27, 2024 Page 25
FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢
Sales Tax
FOF
Transit
Transportation Dedicated Sources Capital
Maintenance
(Holding Acct)
#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
77 REQUEST 200,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR 200,000$ 200,000$
COUNCIL 200,000$ 200,000$
78 REQUEST -$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST -$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR 223,171$ 223,171$
COUNCIL 223,171$ 223,171$
REQUEST -$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR 167,378$ 167,378$
COUNCIL 200,000$ 200,000$
REQUEST 91,457,096$
CDCIP 25,046,200$ 7,300,000$ 1,100,000$ 3,146,200$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 3,500,000$ 8,000,000$ -$
MAYOR 42,999,839$ 8,570,549$ 1,154,490$ 3,824,800$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 4,250,000$ 8,200,000$ 15,000,000$
COUNCIL 45,136,992$ 10,707,702$ 1,154,490$ 3,824,800$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 4,250,000$ 8,200,000$ 15,000,000$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
80 1.5% for Art
Arts Council
Funding set aside annually to provide public art at City developed projects per Salt Lake City
Code.
TOTALS
COUNCIL AVAILABLE TO SPEND
Urban Trails Maintenance
Transportation Division
Not presented to CDCIP Board. Would be base funding ongoing annually. These funds will be
used for repaving, crack and seal repair, bridge re-decking, bridge replacements, trail shoulder
surfacing, snow removal, and debris removal on urban paved trails. Maintenance could be
performed by contractors and include equipment and material expenses. Project locations
include the Jordan River Parkway, 9-Line Trail, and Folsom Trail.
City Hall Physical Security Improvements Holding Account Release
Public Services Department
On June 26, the Administration sent a transmittal requesting the Council release $123,133 for
two projects described below. In Budget Amendment #5 of FY2023, the Council put $1 million
into a CIP Fund holding account for one-time to be determined physical security improvements
to City Hall. If the Council approved releasing these funds, then the holding account would have
a remaining balance of $586,867. The Council previously approved releasing some funds in
January this year.
$83,733 for Camera System Upgrades (hardware and software): The current camera system in
use throughout the City and City Hall, manufactured by Pelco, is outdated and its software
license is set to expire at the end of 2024. Due to the outdated technology and expiring license,
the cameras and servers they operate on require replacement. The City will be migrating to
Milestone's system for use in City Hall. Milestone has already been successfully implemented by
the SLC Police Department in the Public Safety Building. Transitioning to Milestone will ensure
enhanced security and uniformity across the City infrastruture.
$39,400 for Emergency Notification System Upgrades (hardware in three buildings):
Emergency Management will be transitioning from the current RAVE emergency notification
platform to Titan HST. The Emergency Management Division will cover the subscription cost;
however, there is a hardware component associated with this change that needs funding. The
necessary hardware will be initially installed at City Hall, Plaza 349, and the Public Safety
Building to support this new system. This first phase will inform future deployments of
hardware at other buildings.
79 Cost Overrun Account
Finance Department
Funding set aside annually to cover unforeseen costs of projects per the Council's adopted CIP
policies resolution. The current balance of the Cost Overrun Account is $937,233.
Exhibit A - Fiscal Year 2025 Capital Improvement Program Project Allocations Funding Log
Last Updated August 27, 2024 Page 26
Mayor’s
Recommended
Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
This page intentionally left blank
MAYOR AND COUNCIL MESSAGES Page:
MAYOR’S MESSAGE 5
SALT LAKE CITY PROFILE
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION ORGANIZATION 9
SALT LAKE CITY AT A GLANCE 11
SALT LAKE COMMUNITY PROFILE 14
SALT LAKE CITY BUDGET-IN-BRIEF 18
MAYOR’S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
BUDGET SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 35
FY 2024-25 CAPITAL AND OPERATING BUDGET 41
GENERAL FUND KEY CHANGES 53
OTHER FUND KEY CHANGES 64
LBA KEY CHANGES 79
RDA KEY CHANGES 80
MULTI-AGENCY DRUG TASK FORCE KEY CHANGES 91
FINANCIAL POLICIES
DEBT POLICIES 95
DEBT STRUCTURE 98
REVENUE 102
FY 2023-24 LEGISLATIVE INTENTS 122
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT OVERVIEW 135
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2024-25 PROJECTS LIST 141
DEPARTMENT BUDGETS
OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL 151
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 155
DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS 159
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 165
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOODS 171
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 177
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE 183
FIRE DEPARTMENT 189
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 195
DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES 201
JUSTICE COURT 209
POLICE DEPARTMENT 214
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC LANDS 221
Table of Contents
1 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES 227
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES 235
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 241
DEPARTMENT OF SUSTAINABILITY 245
911 COMMUNICATIONS BUREAU 251
NON-DEPARTMENTAL 255
STAFFING DOCUMENT
STAFFING DOCUMENT INTRODUCTION 265
STAFFING DOCUMENT SUMMARY 267
STAFFING DOCUMENT DETAIL 267
APPENDIX
APPENDIX A: LIBRARY 317
APPENDIX B: HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS & RETIREMENT CONTRIBUTIONS 333
Table of Contents
2 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Mayor’s Message
This page intentionally left blank
Dear Salt Lake City,
I’m excited and grateful to serve as your mayor. Great opportunities continue to
approach us at a quickened pace. The new trail we are breaking will have lasting,
generational impacts on Salt Lakers’ quality of life. It’s an honor to listen to residents
and collaborate with partners to reach promising vistas in our City that we once could
only hope for.
Our highest priorities in the Fiscal Year 2025 budget reflect what we’ve heard residents
need during this period of growth: continuing to bolster our City’s affordable housing
stock, investing in more open space and public lands, improving walkability, and
continuing changes that have made our public spaces and neighborhoods safer for
families.
What follows is a responsible budget that addresses our residents' needs and requests
and paves the way for a future filled with opportunities to benefit all Salt Lakers.
This fiscally responsible budget focuses on my administration’s priorities:
a.Livability for residents and families
b.Resiliency
c.Capital Projects
d.Organizational efficiency and well-being
I must express my appreciation for this year’s budget committee for their diligent work
in producing a budget that reflects our shared goals and the future we envision for Salt
Lake City and is balanced and responsive to your needs.
Thank you, Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer, Greg Cleary, Budget
Director, and the entire Finance Department; as well as Chief Equity Officer Damian
Choi; Chief Human Resources Officer Debra Alexander; Community and
Neighborhoods Director Blake Thomas; Chief Mike Brown; Public Utilities Director
Laura Briefer; City Attorney Katie Lewis; Chief Administrative Officer Jill Love; and
Chief Information Officer Aaron Bentley for their collaborative efforts.
Sincerely,
Mayor Erin Mendenhall
Salt Lake City Mayor's Message
5 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
This page intentionally left blank
Salt Lake City Mayor's Message
6 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Salt Lake City
Profile
This page intentionally left blank
SALT LAKE CITY ELECTED OFFICIALS
Fiscal Year 2024-25
MAYOR
Erin Mendenhall
CITY COUNCIL
Victoria Petro
(Chair)
District 1
Alejandro Puy
District 2
Chris Wharton
(Vice Chair)
District 3
Eva Lopez Chavez
District 4
Darin Mano
District 5
Dan Dugan
District 6
Sarah Young
District 7
Salt Lake City Budget-in-Brief
9 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Salt Lake City Budget-in-Brief
10 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
SALT LAKE CITY AT A GLANCE
177 YEARS 173 YEARS
Date Founded
July 24, 1847
Date Incorporated
January 19, 1851
MAYOR COUNCIL 111.1 SQ. MILES
Form of Government Since 1980 Total City Area
204,657 4,327 FT.
2022 Estimated Population Average Elevation (1,319 Meters)
Salt Lake City Budget-in-Brief
11 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
52.1˚F
(11.2 C) MEAN
28.2˚F
(-1.6 C) January
77.0˚F
(25.0 C) JULY
Average Daily Temperatures
58.5 INCHES
(1,486 MM)
16.5 INCHES
(419 MM)
Average Annual Snowfall Average Annual Rainfall
Salt Lake City Budget-in-Brief
12 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL DISTRICTS
MAP LEGEND
DISTRICT 1:Victoria Petro DISTRICT 5: Darin Mano
DISTRICT 2: Alejandro Puy DISTRICT 6: Dan Dugan
DISTRICT 3: Chris Wharton DISTRICT 7: Sarah Young
DISTRICT 4: Eva Lopez Chavez
Salt Lake City Budget-in-Brief
13 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
BUDGET DEVELOPMENT CALENDAR
Fiscal Year 2024-25
Salt Lake City Budget-in-Brief
14 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
$1,973,381,550
RECOMMENDED BUDGET FY 2025
6.6%
INCREASE
* Redevelopment Agency Included in the Other Enterprise Fund Amount.
Salt Lake City Budget-in-Brief
15 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Salt Lake City Budget-in-Brief
16 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
$475,245,078
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
6.3%
INCREASE
GENERAL FUND REVENUE BY TYPE FY 2025
24%Property Taxes with
Pilot 6%Interfund
Reimbursement
37%Sales & Use Taxes 1%Intergovernmental
3%Franchise Taxes 1%Charges & Fees
8%Licenses & Permits 1%Fines
Salt Lake City Budget-in-Brief
17 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Budget-in-Brief
Salt Lake City’s budget is comprised of several different types of funds,
including the General Fund, Enterprise Funds, and Internal Service Funds.
Enterprise funds, unlike the General Fund, are not supported by property
or sales taxes. Revenues in these funds come primarily from fees charged
for services provided. For instance, the Airport derives a large portion of its
revenues from landing fees while Public Utilities receives revenue from
water and sewer services.
The City also has a number of internal service funds such as Fleet and
Information Management Services. Internal service funds exist to account
for the financing of goods and services provided by one City agency or
department to another.
Salt Lake City Budget-in-Brief
18 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
CITYWIDE EXPENDITURES
Fund Type FY 23 Adopted Budget FY 24 Adopted Budget
FY 25 Recommended Budget
Increase/ Decrease from FY 24 Adopted
Percent Change
General Fund 425,537,407 448,514,917 475,245,078 26,730,161 6.28%
Airport Enterprise Fund 384,681,671 520,438,997 576,395,097 55,956,100 14.55%
Public Utilities Enterprise Funds 413,124,942 508,778,032 553,114,955 44,336,923 10.73%
Other Enterprise Funds 128,758,874 137,218,660 136,574,724 (643,936)(0.50)%
Internal Service Funds 118,806,965 138,145,589 137,517,819 (627,770)(0.53)%
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funds 35,460,387 29,708,286 32,322,843 2,614,557 7.37%
All Other Funds 83,363,494 65,516,043 62,211,034 (3,305,009)(3.96)%
Total 1,589,733,740 1,848,320,524 1,973,381,550 125,061,026 7.87%
FY 2023 AND 2024 ADOPTED BUDGETS AND FY 2025 RECOMMENDED BUDGET
FY 23 Adopted Budget FY 24 Adopted Budget FY 25 Recommended Budget
General Fund Airport
Enterprise
Fund
Public
Utilities
Enterprise
Funds
Other
Enterprise
Funds*
Internal
Service Funds
Capital
Improvement
Program (CIP)
Fund
All Other
Funds
0
100,000,000
200,000,000
300,000,000
400,000,000
500,000,000
600,000,000
700,000,000
800,000,000
* Redevelopment Agency Included in the Other Enterprise Fund Amount.
Salt Lake City Budget-in-Brief
19 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
General Fund Departments FY 23 Adopted Budget FY 24 Adopted Budget
FY 25 Recommended Budget
Increase/ Decrease from FY 24 Adopted
Percentage Change
Economic Development 3,695,620 4,425,091 4,809,183 384,092 8.68%
Human Resources 4,236,836 4,659,300 5,059,723 400,423 8.59%
Justice Courts 5,199,660 5,489,720 5,958,110 468,390 8.53%
Council Office 5,387,707 5,610,149 6,289,340 679,191 12.11%
Mayor's Office 6,625,451 6,820,067 7,366,396 546,329 8.01%
Attorney's Office 9,007,633 10,490,844 12,881,528 2,390,684 22.79%
Finance Department 10,709,847 12,168,296 12,963,889 795,593 6.54%
911 Communications Bureau 10,872,140 11,259,756 11,610,306 350,550 3.11%
Public Lands 24,229,676 27,295,271 29,716,013 2,420,742 8.87%
Community & Neighborhoods 29,311,147 33,143,161 34,709,138 1,565,977 4.72%
Public Services 39,398,484 43,449,292 46,261,468 2,812,176 6.47%
Fire Department 48,586,492 52,264,357 54,549,009 2,284,652 4.37%
Police Department 103,977,042 110,976,812.49 120,001,456 9,024,644 8.13%
Non Departmental 124,299,673 120,462,801.4 123,069,522 2,606,721 2.16%
Total 425,537,408 448,514,918 475,245,078 26,730,164 5.96%
Salt Lake City Budget-in-Brief
20 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
4,425,091
4,809,183
4,659,300
5,059,723
5,489,720
5,958,110
5,610,149
6,289,340
6,820,067
7,366,396
10,490,844
12,881,528
12,168,296
12,963,889
11,259,756
11,610,306
27,295,271
29,716,013
33,143,161
34,709,138
43,449,292
46,261,468
52,264,357
54,549,009
110,976,812.49
120,001,456
120,462,801.4
123,069,522
Economic Development
Human Resources
Council Office
Justice Courts
Mayor's Office
Attorney's Office
Finance Department
911 Communications Bureau
Public Lands
Community & Neighborhoods
Public Services
Fire Department
Police Department
Non Departmental
FY
2
4
A
d
o
p
t
e
d
B
u
d
g
e
t
FY
2
5
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
B
u
d
g
e
t
—25,000,000 50,000,000 75,000,000 100,000,000 125,000,000
Salt Lake City Budget-in-Brief
21 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
Fiscal Year 2024-25
Salt Lake City Budget-in-Brief
22 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
GENERAL FUND REVENUES BY TYPE - 2018-2025
FY 2018 Actuals FY 2019 Actuals FY 2020 Actuals FY 2021 Actuals FY 2022 Actuals FY 2023 Actuals FY 2024 Budget FY 2025 Budget
Property Taxes w/ PILOT 90,414,308 94,654,243 99,342,715 99,474,985 103,862,288 113,256,864 116,207,713 116,996,349
Sales and Use Taxes 67,940,454 99,403,846 116,199,002 122,654,953 160,262,167 172,197,395 166,213,479 177,400,679
Franchise Taxes 28,418,423 27,238,435 26,863,146 23,952,168 11,750,309 12,756,596 12,348,127 14,450,000
Licenses & Permits 30,608,768 36,960,240 32,637,293 36,428,067 43,313,623 43,946,412 40,878,104 38,989,244
Fines & Forfeitures 5,567,814 3,316,215 3,753,706 3,539,471 3,717,871 3,519,427 4,063,548 4,435,035
Intergovernmental 5,791,774 6,066,496 5,086,254 4,781,753 5,960,591 5,936,546 5,134,621 5,954,017
Charges & Fees 5,671,710 5,573,679 4,283,760 4,842,902 5,840,601 5,811,594 4,881,922 6,886,114
Parking 3,404,582 3,509,898 2,771,331 1,915,888 2,997,333 2,616,322 2,801,089 2,701,331
Other Revenue 39,643,865 38,231,125 49,561,874 51,980,733 91,840,076 135,320,383 95,986,315 107,432,309
Total Operating Revenue 277,461,698 314,954,177 340,499,081 349,570,920 429,544,859 495,361,539 448,514,918 475,245,078
Salt Lake City Budget-in-Brief
23 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
GENERAL FUND REVENUES BY TYPE
2018–2025
Th
o
u
s
a
n
d
s
Property Taxes w/ PILOT Sales and Use Taxes Franchise Taxes
Licenses & Permits Fines & Forfeitures Intergovernmental
Charges & Fees Parking Other Revenue
FY 2018
Actuals
FY 2019
Actuals
FY 2020
Actuals
FY 2021
Actuals
FY 2022
Actuals
FY 2023
Actuals
FY 2024 Budget FY 2025 Budget
This stacked bar graph depicts the
various types of revenue collected
for the Salt Lake City General Fund
and how some of these revenues
have fluctuated over the years. It
is worth noting that sales tax
revenues have increased markedly
starting in FY 2019 due to the
implementation of Funding Our
Future 0.5% increase in Salt Lake
City’s sales tax rate. The Other
Revenue category has been
impacted by American Recovery
Act grant funds.
Salt Lake City Budget-in-Brief
24 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
GENERAL FUND REVENUE - FY 2024 ADOPTED V. 2025 REC'D BUDGETS
General Fund Revenue FY 2024 Adopted Budget FY 2025 Rec'd Budget Increase/ Decrease Percentage Change
Property Tax 114,302,140 114,923,082 620,942 0.54%
RDA Related Property Tax 15,545,000 19,220,752 3,675,752 23.65%
Sales and Use Tax 166,213,479 177,400,679 11,187,200 6.73%
Franchise Tax 12,348,127 14,450,000 2,101,873 17.02%
Payment in Lieu of Taxes 1,905,573 2,073,267 167,694 8.80%
Intergovernmental Revenue 5,134,621 5,954,017 819,396 15.96%
Charges, Fees and Rentals 5,690,001 6,886,114 1,196,113 21.02%
Other Revenue 68,375,964 89,562,654 21,186,690 30.99%
Interfund Transfers In 26,131,213 5,495,833 -20,635,380 (78.97)%
Available Fund Balance/Cash Reserves 32,868,799 39,278,680 6,409,881 19.50%
Total 448,514,917 475,245,078 26,730,161 5.96%
FY 2025 GF Revenue
Property Tax
114,923,082
RDA Related Property Tax
19,220,752
Sales and Use Tax
177,400,679
Franchise Tax
14,450,000
Charges for Services
6,886,114
Other Revenue
89,562,654
Available Fund Balance/
Cash Reserves
39,278,680
Salt Lake City Budget-in-Brief
25 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
GENERAL FUND REVENUE
Fiscal Year 2025
37%24%14%8%
Sales Use & Taxes Property Taxes Other Revenue Licenses and
Permits
8%4%3%1%
Available Fund
Balance // Cash
Reserves
RDA Related
Property Tax
Franchise Taxes Intergovernmental
1%
Charges for Service
Salt Lake City Budget-in-Brief
26 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Property Tax Rates
in Salt Lake City
According to Utah State Code,
municipalities cannot assess
properties for more property tax
revenue than was generated in the
previous year, with the exception of
new growth. As property values generally
increase or decrease, property tax rates
fluctuate accordingly. The accompanying
graph (on the right) demonstrates how
the boom in property values in the City
affected the property tax rates that were
assessed during the earlier years shown
on the table above. It is also apparent in
recent years as well.
HISTORY OF TOTAL PROPERTY TAX RATE
(2013-2024)
FY
2
0
1
3
FY
2
0
1
4
FY
2
0
1
5
FY
2
0
1
6
FY
2
0
1
7
FY
2
0
1
8
FY
2
0
1
9
FY
2
0
2
0
FY
2
0
2
1
FY
2
0
2
2
FY
2
0
2
3
FY
2
0
2
4
0.0030
0.0035
0.0040
0.0045
0.0050
0.0055
0.0060
General Operations Interest & Sinking Fund Library Total
FY 2013 0.003574 0.001097 0.000846 0.005517
FY 2014 0.003465 0.001064 0.00082 0.005349
FY 2015 0.003787 0.001066 0.000783 0.005636
FY 2016 0.003619 0.000989 0.000747 0.005355
FY 2017 0.003617 0.000941 0.000705 0.005263
FY 2018 0.003482 0.000772 0.00083 0.005084
FY 2019 0.003285 0.000692 0.000791 0.004768
FY 2020 0.003205 0.000648 0.000741 0.004594
FY 2021 0.002942 0.000713 0.000683 0.004338
FY 2022 0.002868 0.000556 0.000652 0.004076
FY 2023 0.002698 0.00046 0.000618 0.003776
FY 2024 0.002456 0.00042 0.00071 0.003586
Salt Lake City Budget-in-Brief
28 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Sales Tax Revenues
in Salt Lake City
The table to the right demonstrates a
steady increase in sales tax revenues
in Salt Lake City over the past several
years. A sharp increase came with
the implementation of the
additional one-half-percent sales
tax increase that is used for
funding our future. The drop in
revenue from FY2020 to FY2021 was
the result of the economic downturn
brought on by the COVID 19
pandemic. In FY2022, sales and use
tax revenues rebounded as the
economy recovered. Further healthy
sales tax growth is expected in
FY2025.
Fiscal Year Sales & Use Tax Receipts % Increase
FY 2014 Actual 55,380,938 2.98%
FY 2015 Actual 57,873,243 4.50%
FY 2016 Actual 59,927,247 3.55%
FY 2017 Actual 62,776,248 4.75%
FY 2018 Actual 67,940,454 8.23%
FY 2019 Actual 99,403,846 46.31%
FY 2020 Actual 116,199,002 16.90%
FY 2021 Actual 122,654,953 5.56%
FY 2022 Actual 160,262,167 30.66%
FY 2023 Actual 172,197,395 (6.77)%
FY 2024 Budget 166,213,479 11.24%
FY 2025 Budget 177,400,679 11.63%
Average Increase 12.41%
Salt Lake City Budget-in-Brief
29 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
RELATED ORDINANCE CHANGES AND OTHER BUDGETARY ACTIONS
2024-25
REVENUE RELATED ORDINANCES
Consolidated Fee
Schedule Adoption and
Changes
An ordinance amending the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule to
modify various fees included therein in accordance with the changes
presented in the budget. The changes include adjustments to the CPI;
Water, Sewer and Storm Water rates; Amending delivery of Business
Licensing Documents; and change in Refuse rates.
Budget Adoption
An ordinance adopting the City budget, excluding the budget for the
Library Fund which is separately adopted, and the employment staffing
document of Salt Lake City for Fiscal Year 2024-25.
Budget Adoption of
the Salt Lake City
Library
An ordinance adopting the budget and staffing document for the
Library Fund of Salt Lake City for Fiscal Year 2024-25.
Tax Rate of Salt Lake City
and the City Library,
including the Judgement
Levy
An ordinance adopting the rate of tax levy, including the levy for the
Library Fund, upon all real and personal property within Salt Lake City
made taxable by law for Fiscal Year 2024-25.
Adopting the Mayor’s
Recommended Budget as
the Tentative Budget of
Salt Lake City
An ordinance adopting the Tentative Budgets of Salt Lake City, including
the Tentative Budget of the Library Fund, for Fiscal Year 2024-25.
BUDGET RESOLUTIONS
Budget Adoption of the
Local Building Authority
(LBA)
A resolution adopting the final budget for the Capital Projects Fund of
the Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City for Fiscal Year 2024-25.
Adopting the Mayor’s
Recommended Budget
as the Tentative
Budget of the Local
Building Authority
A resolution adopting the Tentative Budgets for the Capital Projects
Fund of the Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City, for Fiscal Year
2024-25.
Salt Lake City Budget-in-Brief
30 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Budget Adoption of
the Redevelopment
Agency (RDA)
A resolution adopting the final budget for the Redevelopment Agency of
Salt Lake City for Fiscal Year 2024-25.
Adopting the Mayor’s
Recommended Budget as
the Tentative Budget of
the Redevelopment
Agency of Salt Lake City
A resolution adopting the Tentative Budgets of the Redevelopment Agency
of Salt Lake City, for Fiscal Year 2024-25.
HUMAN RESOURCES ISSUES
Compensation Plan
Ordinances
Ordinances adopting the compensation plan as ordinance for all
appointed and non-represented employees of Salt Lake City.
Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU)
Adoption Ordinance(s)
Ordinance(s) approving the Memorandum of Understanding(s) and
wage agreements between Salt Lake City Corporation and the American
Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Local 1004; the
International Police Association’s Local 75; and the International
Association of Firefighters Local 81.
Salt Lake City Budget-in-Brief
31 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
This page intentionally left blank
Mayor’s
Recommended
Budget
This page intentionally left blank
Budget Summary
As the City began planning for fiscal year 2025, a three-year plan was developed to
move the City forward. As part of this three-year plan, the City considered the
influx of one-time funding and the immediate help those funds provided against
the ongoing needs the use of those funds created. The budget would need to plan
not only for ongoing costs to provide services, but for future costs to maintain the
resources and staff paid for with the one-time revenues. Transitioning ongoing
costs paid for with one-time revenues to ongoing revenue streams is the goal of
the three-year plan.
The challenge facing the City was not about immediate funding options but about
creating ongoing revenue streams to meet the future needs of the City.
Salt Lake City has been experiencing strong growth in spite of the challenges of
the past few years. The City needs to continue to build and invest so future growth
will continue.
One positive ongoing revenue stream for the City has been sales tax. Sales tax
revenues over the past few years have performed much better than budget. Those
revenues have allowed the City to add to its fund balance and puts the City in a
sound position for the current year. The question that faced the mayor, her
administrative team, and the City budget committee was how to spend prudently
and continue establishing programs for the future of Salt Lake City.
The Mayor and her team looked at current revenues streams, one-time sources,
including the use of the City’s healthy fund balance, and potential new revenue
streams. The three-year outlook helped to provide a long-term strategy to carry
the City forward. The budget put forth today provides the City with a balance
between each of these options that will move the City forward to meet the
challenges that lie ahead.
The budget committee implemented a decision matrix to assist all departments in
comparing their insights. As the departments reviewed their insights, they were
asked to rate them based on different methods. The matrix looked at each City
service to determine why the City was performing it and whether there were
options to have the program provided through different means. It measured who
benefits from the program, with special consideration for those who have typically
been left behind in the past. It also looked at the process and outcome of adapting
to difficult or challenging incidents based on five criteria. Finally, the committee
considered whether the insight meets other goals as outlined by the Mayor for
2025, as well as the goals of the Council. The matrix allowed the budget committee
and the departments to have a broader view of each proposal and how programs
measured against each other.
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
35 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Because of this matrix, the initiatives brought forth in this budget have been
carefully weighed against the Mayor’s priorities of:
•Livability for residents and families
•Resiliency
•Capital Projects
•Organizational efficiency and well-being
The Mayor’s recommended budget provides a roadmap for Salt Lake City to
continue to grow and prosper. It has elements to take advantage of the economic
success of today and outlines a course to ensure the financial health of the City
going forward. This includes efforts to meet future needs for service through the
careful addition of needed personnel and the use of one-time funds to build
necessary resources to allow the City to continue to attract business and tourism
and provide services for its citizens.
REVENUES
Salt Lake City revenue across all funds for fiscal year 2025 are $2,045,216,014. This
represents an increase of 19.1% over fiscal year 2024 budgeted revenues. The
increase is the result of several sources. Sales tax revenue is a strong contributor
and the Airport continues to see growth in enplanements as well as retail
concessions. However, in an effort to maintain the continued growth, meet
regulatory requirements and other needs, the City will institute a rate increase at
Public Utilities and Refuse.
The largest contributors to City revenues are the Airport, Public Utilities and the
General Fund. Airport revenues are budgeted at $585.3 million while Public Utilities
total revenue across all funds is $628.3 million. The General Fund fiscal year 2025
budget is $475.2 million, including use of fund balance.
The City uses conservative revenue projections and maintains adequate reserves in
each fund to ensure long-term financial stability. For the general fund, Salt Lake
City creates its annual budget based on historical trend average of on-going
revenues. From these averages the City then projects future growth, one-time
revenues and potential new revenues to establish a final revenue projection. This
projection becomes the basis of the budget for the Mayor and administration to
create a balanced budget.
GENERAL FUND REVENUE
For fiscal year 2025, total general fund revenue increased by 5.96%. The increase is
associated with projected increases in property tax and sales and use tax, and the
use of $39.2 million of fund balance. For fiscal year 2025, the City projected
increases in interfund reimbursements and a slight increase in license revenue.
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
36 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
The City has budgeted to use fund balance reserves to help cover projected
deficits. The budget uses $39.2 million of fund balance representing 8.26% of
General Fund revenue. While fund balance reserves were used, the City will still
maintain at least a projected 13% fund balance for fiscal year 2025.
Sales and use tax is budgeted to increase by $11.1 million. Other notable increases
in revenue are in interfund reimbursement, which is up $5.9 million and license
revenue, notably in airport parking and innkeepers tax, budgeted to increase by
$1.7 million.
There is a noteworthy decrease in permits revenue, which is down $3.6 million
due to high interest rates causing a slow down in construction.
EXPENSES
Total expense for Salt Lake City is budgeted at $1,973,381,550 across all funds. This
represents an increase of $122.1 million from last fiscal year, or a 6.6% increase.
The total budget for the General Fund is $475.2 million. The Airport budget is set at
$576.4 million, while Public Utilities is budgeted at $553.1 million.
The budget includes the addition of 62 full-time positions (FTEs) across all funds.
Staffing in the General Fund will increase by 32.5 FTEs while the Airport (25) and
IMS (1) also see staffing increases. 20 positions were previously added through
budget amendments during fiscal year 2024
GENERAL FUND EXPENSE
General Fund expense increased by $26.7 million an increase of 5.95% from fiscal
year 2024. Major changes to expense include salary, pension and benefit changes
totaling $298.9 million. The budget also includes the addition of 32.5 FTEs at an
anticipated cost of approximately $3.2 million.
Newly proposed positions include 2 FTE's to create an additional Community
Health Access Team. Public Lands staffing increased by 8 FTE's to assist with Parks
bond projects and parks maintenance. Public Services staffing increased by 8 FTEs:
2 FTEs to help with the completion of Parks projects, 3 for a new Rapid Intervention
Team, and 3 FTEs in the Engineering Division. The Police Department increased by
6 FTEs due to the expansion at the Airport. The 2.5 FTEs in Finance meet the
expanded needs as the City continues to grow.
Notable budgetary increases in the General Fund are contractual and inflationary
increases across all City Departments. The budget also includes continuation of
construction mitigation funding to assist businesses affected by City projects.
Funding is also included to ensure City IT resources are protected from external
threats, supporting enhancements to city emergency response dispatch systems.
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
37 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
SALARY, BENEFIT AND COMPENSATION COSTS
The largest portion of the general fund budget is personnel costs. The total cost for
compensation included in the general fund budget is $298.9 million. This
represents a 7.2% increase over fiscal year 2024. Personnel costs for the Airport
total $76.5 million, while Public Utilities personnel costs total $58.7 million.
Citywide personnel costs total $475.2 million as part of the Mayor's Recommended
Budget.
The Administration recommends funding for a 5% general base pay increase for all
employees, including AFSCME union. The distribution of actual employee pay
increases is subject to negotiations resulting in either tentative or previously
ratified agreements, according to the City’s Collective Bargaining Resolution. The
projected cost for these pay increases is approximately $8.4 million for the general
fund and $14.4 million across the City.
Although wage negotiations with Police and Fire Unions are on-going at the time,
the fiscal year 2025 recommended budget includes an amount necessary to fund a
5% general increase to the base wages for represented employees.
HEALTH INSURANCE
Salt Lake City continues to offer one medical plan this year: Summit STAR - a High
Deductible Health Plan (HDHP). The medical plan is administered through Public
Employees Health Plan (PEHP). This year the budget includes a small premium
increase of 3.66% to the Summit STAR plan. As before, the city will continue to pay
95% of the total Summit Star medical premium.
The city has realized significant savings - largely because of implementing the high
deductible health plan and front-loading half the annual deductible into a Health
Savings Account (HSA) for employees. The City HSA contribution will fund one-half
of the deductible for the plan - $1000 for singles and $2000 for doubles and
families. This increase is needed to keep up with the cost of medical services, in
additional to federally mandated contribution limits. The implementation of a
single provider network in 2011 has also been a significant source of savings for
employees and the City.
Utah Retirement Systems (URS) requires the city’s medical plan reserve be
maintained at a level to cover claims for a minimum of 55 days and a maximum of
100 days of premiums. The medical plan reserve balance has increased and has
continued to maintain a positive balance since 2011.
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
38 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
MARKET ADJUSTMENTS
As recommended by the Citizens’ Compensation Advisory Committee, the budget
includes market adjustments for certain benchmarked employee groups in the City
who lag either slightly or significantly behind market pay rates by more than 2%.
The projected costs for market adjustments are approximately $563,000 for the
general fund and $358,000 across other funds.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP)
The Capital Improvement Fund is used for payment of sales tax and class B/C
bond debt service and other infrastructure improvements including streets,
sidewalks, city buildings, curb, gutter, street lighting, parks, open space, trails and
bicycle facilities. More information on the specific projects funded this year will be
available in the Capital Improvement Program Budget. A summary of proposed
projects is included later in the budget book.
The budget includes a General Fund contribution to the Capital Improvement Fund
of $25.2 million including funding from the Funding Our Future sales tax. The
contribution for new or maintenance projects totals $10.8 million for fiscal year
2025. This amount will be added to bond funding and other funding to continue to
enhance and maintain capital assets.
The total fiscal year 2025 CIP exceeds $541 million with the inclusion of various
projects funded by the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, the Department of
Airports, Public Utilities, Sustainability, Golf, federal and state partnerships, Class
“C” Funds, Impact Fees and the General Fund. Most of this funding is from Airport
CIP projects ($148.8 million), Public Utility improvements ($341.6 million) and $8.3
million in golf improvements to improve the golf experience on City owned
courses, and will support the positive trends golf has seen over the past two years.
FUNDING OUR FUTURE
To maintain our commitment to transparency, we have once again separated the
Funding Our Future budget of $57.8 million dollars to show use in the priority
areas of housing, transit, streets,public safety, and parks maintenance. Funding
supports a total of 172 FTE’s as well as setting aside funding for CIP.
Housing - The budget allocates $8 million toward affordable housing through land
discounts and financing, incentivized rent assistance and service to the most
vulnerable.
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
39 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Transit –$7 million is budgeted for the frequent transit network (FTN), with an
additional $3.3 million in funding for an on-demand ride service to help residents
reach transit networks.
Streets - The budget includes continuing funding for the new streets team funded
last year and additional equipment to expand the reach of that team. Additionally,
the budget includes $2 million for new infrastructure CIP projects.
Public Safety – The budget allocates funding for police officers, a Fire Department
Medical Response Team as well as mental health workers in both the Police and
Fire Departments. This year the expansion of the Rapid Intervention and the
Community Health Access Team are proposed to be funded through Funding Our
Future dollars.
CONCLUSION
The fiscal year 2024-2025 budget was prepared with the intent to maintain Salt
Lake City’s prosperity received over the past couple of years and sets forth a plan
to help the City meet ongoing costs with ongoing revenues. The budget will build
on the solid base the City has experienced and will help lead Salt Lake City into a
continued prosperous future, supporting the core values and services of the City.
This budget will allow City residents to continue to enjoy a safe, healthy, and
vibrant Salt Lake City.
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
40 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Revenue and Other Sources
GENERAL FUND (FC 100):
Property Taxes 110,885,727 113,861,387 114,923,082
RDA Related Property Tax 16,082,193 15,985,753 19,220,752
Sale and Use Taxes 172,197,395 166,213,479 177,400,679
Franchise Taxes 12,756,596 12,348,127 14,450,000
Payment in Lieu of Taxes 1,833,542 1,905,573 2,073,267
TOTAL TAXES 313,755,453 310,314,319 328,067,780
Intergovernmental Revenue 5,936,546 5,134,621 5,954,017
Charges for Services 5,811,594 4,881,922 6,886,113
Other Revenue 118,937,871 69,184,044 89,562,654
Interfund Transfers In 25,857,508 26,131,213 5,495,833
TOTAL OTHER REVENUES 156,543,519 105,331,800 107,898,617
SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES 470,298,972 415,646,119 435,966,397
Fund Balance/Cash Reserves Used — 32,868,798 39,278,681
TOTAL GENERAL FUND SOURCES 470,298,972 448,514,916 475,245,078
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND (FC 83, 84 & 86):
Intergovernmental Revenue 7,415,242 — 5,905,300
Sale of Land 23,115 200,000 —
Other Revenue 30,642,279 29,999,756 11,366,200
Bond Proceeds 89,956,695 — —
Interfund Transfers In 41,301,976 — 15,051,343
TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND REVENUES 169,339,307 30,199,756 32,322,843
Fund Balance/Cash Reserves Used — — —
TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND 169,339,307 30,199,756 32,322,843
ENTERPRISE FUNDS:
AIRPORT (FC 540)
Intergovernmental Revenue 126,422,049 45,870,000 98,016,100
Charges for Services 268,344,801 330,988,600 179,784,800
Other Revenue 47,513,609 26,654,400 307,503,000
TOTAL AIRPORT FUND REVENUES 442,280,459 403,513,001 585,303,900
Fund Balance/Cash Reserves Used 18,374,398 116,925,997 —
TOTAL AIRPORT FUND SOURCES 460,654,856 520,438,997 585,303,900
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
ANNUAL FISCAL PERIOD 2024-25
MAYORS
ADOPTED RECOMMENDED
ACTUALS BUDGET BUDGET
FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
41 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
GOLF (FC 680)
Charges for Services 10,644,232 10,550,653 11,286,031
Other Revenue 833,270 72,585 228,169
Interfund Transfers In 2,078,374 2,086,829 2,104,615
TOTAL GOLF FUND REVENUES 13,555,876 12,710,067 13,618,815
Fund Balance/Cash Reserves Used — 5,228,917 6,842,132
TOTAL GOLF FUND SOURCES 13,555,876 17,938,984 20,460,947
RDA (FC 920)
Charges for Services 311,954 1,403,600 —
Property Taxes 32,423,740 — 55,402,839
Other Revenue 7,345,557 47,321,567 8,548,376
Interfund Transfers In 41,165,412 27,037,843 20,705,669
TOTAL RDA FUND REVENUES 81,246,663 75,763,010 84,656,884
Fund Balance/Cash Reserves Used — 5,040,831 —
TOTAL RDA FUND SOURCES 81,246,663 80,803,841 84,656,884
REFUSE COLLECTION (FC 670)
Charges for Services 15,957,440 16,259,733 17,928,350
Other Revenue 2,767,515 8,980,726 4,734,044
TOTAL REFUSE COLLECTION FUND REVENUES 18,724,955 25,240,459 22,662,394
Fund Balance/Cash Reserves Used — 3,023,333 3,375,499
TOTAL REFUSE COLLECTION FUND SOURCES 18,724,955 28,263,792 26,037,893
SEWER UTILITY (FC 410)
Charges for Services 69,038,743 76,387,000 87,999,632
Debt Proceeds — 209,802,000 240,009,000
Other Revenue 18,798,268 3,752,178 3,750,152
TOTAL SEWER UTILITY FUND REVENUES 87,837,011 289,941,178 331,758,784
Fund Balance/Cash Reserves Used — 11,891,444 —
TOTAL SEWER UTILITY FUND SOURCES 87,837,011 301,832,622 331,758,784
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
ANNUAL FISCAL PERIOD 2024-25
MAYORS
ADOPTED RECOMMENDED
ACTUALS BUDGET BUDGET
FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
42 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
STORM WATER UTILITY (FC 420)
Charges for Services 13,904,732 13,563,906 14,919,297
Debt Proceeds — 5,028,000 5,028,000
Other Revenue 5,747,159 1,273,986 3,069,901
TOTAL STORM WATER UTILITY FUND REVENUES 19,651,891 19,865,892 23,017,198
Fund Balance/Cash Reserves Used — 3,081,582 5,142,398
TOTAL STORM WATER UTILITY FUND SOURCES 19,651,891 22,947,474 28,159,596
WATER UTILITY (FC 400)
Charges for Services 88,469,344 94,273,390 121,640,205
Debt Proceeds — 62,346,000 100,558,000
Interest Income 4,453,143 — 463,989
Other Revenue 9,045,004 20,017,898 45,749,504
TOTAL WATER UTILITY FUND REVENUES 101,967,491 176,637,288 268,411,698
Fund Balance/Cash Reserves Used — 1,316,499 —
TOTAL WATER UTILITY FUND SOURCES 101,967,491 177,953,787 268,411,698
STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT (FC 430)
Charges for Services 4,288,143 4,592,185 5,051,394
Other Revenue 136,571 89,000 62,594
TOTAL STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT FUND REVENUES 4,424,714 4,681,185 5,113,988
Fund Balance/Cash Reserves Used 630,264 1,362,964 1,662,775
TOTAL STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT FUND SOURCES 5,054,978 6,044,149 6,776,763
HOUSING LOANS & TRUST (FC 690)
Miscellaneous Revenue 358,510 — 4,465,000
Charges for Services 11,119 — —
Other Revenue 1,546,031 13,619,432 954,000
Interfund Transfers In 1,019,188 1,039,611 —
TOTAL HOUSING LOANS & TRUST FUND REVENUES 2,934,848 14,659,043 5,419,000
Fund Balance/Cash Reserves Used — — —
TOTAL HOUSING LOANS & TRUST FUND SOURCES 2,934,848 14,659,043 5,419,000
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
ANNUAL FISCAL PERIOD 2024-25
MAYORS
ADOPTED RECOMMENDED
ACTUALS BUDGET BUDGET
FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
43 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS:
FLEET MANAGEMENT (FC 610)
Interfund Reimbursement 14,404,066 956,503 956,503
Charges for Services 140,279 18,037,796 19,292,645
Other Revenue 169,497 1,343,865 355,150
Interfund Transfers In 12,091,900 11,770,805 5,657,993
TOTAL FLEET MANAGEMENT FUND REVENUES 26,805,742 32,108,969 26,262,291
Fund Balance/Cash Reserves Used — 389,782 1,685,374
TOTAL FLEET MANAGEMENT FUND SOURCES 26,805,742 32,498,751 27,947,665
GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY (FC 630)
Property Taxes 3,775,947 3,888,581 3,888,581
Other Revenue 2,000,000 — 200,000
Interfund Transfers In 500,000 — —
TOTAL GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY FUND REVENUES 6,275,947 3,888,581 4,088,581
Fund Balance/Cash Reserves Used — — —
TOTAL GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY FUND SOURCES 6,275,947 3,888,581 4,088,581
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES (FC 650)
Charges for Services 27,373,914 36,254,357 40,526,281
Other Revenue (77,120) — —
Interfund Transfers In — — —
TOTAL INFORMATION MGMT. FUND REVENUES 27,296,794 36,254,357 40,526,282
Fund Balance/Cash Reserves Used 132,827 2,447,814 —
TOTAL INFORMATION MGMT. FUND SOURCES 27,429,621 38,702,171 40,526,282
INSURANCE & RISK MANAGEMENT (FC 620)
Charges for Services 53,080,373 59,482,137 64,949,109
Other Revenue 190,143 1,450,000 200,000
TOTAL INSURANCE AND RISK MGMT. FUND REVENUES 53,270,516 60,932,137 65,149,109
Fund Balance/Cash Reserves Used — 2,642,518 —
TOTAL INSURANCE AND RISK MGMT. FUND SOURCES 53,270,516 63,574,655 65,149,109
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
ANNUAL FISCAL PERIOD 2024-25
MAYORS
ADOPTED RECOMMENDED
ACTUALS BUDGET BUDGET
FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
44 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FUNDS:
CURB/GUTTER (FC 150)
Special Assessment Taxes 13,050 3,000 3,000
Other Revenue 412,600 — —
TOTAL CURB /GUTTER S.A. FUND REVENUES 425,650 3,000 3,000
Fund Balance/Cash Reserves Used — — —
TOTAL CURB /GUTTER S.A. FUND SOURCES 425,650 3,000 3,000
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS:
CDBG OPERATING (FC 710)
Intergovernmental Revenue 4,074,525 5,597,763 5,485,515
Interfund Transfers In — — —
TOTAL CDBG FUND REVENUES 4,074,525 5,597,763 5,485,515
Fund Balance/Cash Reserves Used — — —
TOTAL CDBG FUND SOURCES 4,074,525 5,597,763 5,485,515
EMERGENCY 911 DISPATCH (FC 750)
E911 Telephone Surcharges — — —
Charges for Services 5,001,226 3,850,000 3,925,000
Other Revenue 215,773 75,000 —
TOTAL E911 FUND REVENUES 5,216,999 3,925,000 3,925,000
Fund Balance/Cash Reserves Used — — —
TOTAL E911 FUND SOURCES 5,216,999 3,925,000 3,925,000
MISC. GRANTS OPERATING (FC 720)
Intergovernmental Revenue 59,362,288 8,919,917 6,644,210
Other Revenue 789,837 — —
TOTAL MISC. GRANTS OPERATING FUND REVENUES 60,152,125 8,919,917 6,644,210
Fund Balance/Cash Reserves Used — — —
TOTAL MISC. GRANTS OPERATING FUND SOURCES 60,152,125 8,919,917 6,644,210
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
ANNUAL FISCAL PERIOD 2024-25
MAYORS
ADOPTED RECOMMENDED
ACTUALS BUDGET BUDGET
FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
45 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
MISC. SPEC. SERV. DISTRICTS (FC 760)
Special Assessment Taxes 1,568,910 1,700,000 1,700,000
Other Revenue 3,601 — —
Interfund Transfers In — —
TOTAL MISC. SPEC. SERV. DISTRICTS FUND REVENUES 1,572,511 1,700,000 1,700,000
Fund Balance/Cash Reserves Used 96,120 — —
TOTAL MISC. SPEC. SERV. DISTRICTS FUND SOURCES 1,668,631 1,700,000 1,700,000
OTHER SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS (FC 730)
Miscellaneous Revenue 77,095 300,000 300,000
Charges for Services 212,838 — —
Other Revenue 77,136 — —
Interfund Transfers In 300,000 100,000 100,000
TOTAL OTHER SPECIAL REVENUE FUND REVENUES 667,069 400,000 400,000
Fund Balance/Cash Reserves Used — — —
TOTAL OTHER SPECIAL REVENUE FUND SOURCES 667,069 400,000 400,000
SALT LAKE CITY DONATION FUND (FC 770)
Intergovernmental Revenue 1,611,853 — —
Other Revenue 2,367,766 — —
Miscellaneous Revenue 1,165,184 500,000 500,000
TOTAL DONATION FUND REVENUES 5,144,803 500,000 500,000
Fund Balance/Cash Reserves Used — — —
TOTAL DONATION FUND SOURCES 5,144,803 500,000 500,000
QUARTER CENT SALES TAX FOR TRANSPORTATION (FC 785)
Transfer from Salt Lake County 8,493,478 9,700,000 9,700,000
Other Revenue — — —
TOTAL QUARTER CENT REVENUES 8,493,478 9,700,000 9,700,000
Fund Balance/Cash Reserves Used 1,055,896 — 58,312
TOTAL QUARTER CENT SOURCES 9,549,374 9,700,000 9,758,312
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
ANNUAL FISCAL PERIOD 2024-25
MAYORS
ADOPTED RECOMMENDED
ACTUALS BUDGET BUDGET
FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
46 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS:
DEBT SERVICE (FC 101)
Property Taxes 18,468,652 17,342,055 15,398,389
Intergovernmental Revenue 5,447,064 2,179,461 2,170,324
Bond proceeds 576,108 — —
Other Revenue 478,162 1,746,842 3,280,810
Interfund Transfers In 9,006,627 11,073,228 10,201,562
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUND REVENUES 33,976,613 32,341,586 31,051,085
Fund Balance/Cash Reserves Used — 2,553,393 504,949
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUND SOURCES 33,976,613 34,894,979 31,556,034
TOTAL REVENUE BUDGET 1,645,634,959 1,665,128,307 2,003,686,974
TOTAL USE OF FUND BALANCE 20,289,505 188,773,872 58,550,120
GRAND TOTAL OF SOURCES 1,665,924,464 1,853,902,179 2,062,237,093
Expenses and Other Uses
GENERAL FUND RESERVES
CITY COUNCIL OFFICE
General Fund 4,725,478 5,960,249 6,289,340
CITY COUNCIL OFFICE TOTAL EXPENDITURES 4,725,478 5,960,249 6,289,340
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
General Fund 5,119,790 6,820,067 7,366,396
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR TOTAL EXPENDITURES 5,119,790 6,820,067 7,366,396
DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
Airport Fund 460,654,857 520,438,997 576,395,100
Increase Fund Balance/Cash Reserves — — 8,908,800
DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS TOTAL EXPENDITURES 460,654,857 520,438,997 585,303,900
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
ANNUAL FISCAL PERIOD 2024-25
MAYORS
ADOPTED RECOMMENDED
ACTUALS BUDGET BUDGET
FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
47 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
SALT LAKE CITY ATTORNEY
General Fund 8,683,237 10,490,844 12,881,528
Governmental Immunity Internal Svc. Fund 4,198,907 3,370,012 3,894,763
Increase Fund Balance/Cash Reserves 2,077,040 518,569 193,818
Insurance & Risk Mgmt. Internal Svc. Fund 3,533,343 4,856,345 5,091,906
Increase Fund Balance/Cash Reserves — — —
SALT LAKE CITY ATTORNEY TOTAL EXPENDITURES 16,415,486 18,717,200 21,868,197
DEPT OF COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOODS
General Fund 30,935,445 33,143,161 34,709,138
DEPT OF COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOODS TOTAL EXPENDITURES 30,935,445 33,143,161 34,709,138
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
General Fund 3,220,049 4,425,091 4,809,183
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TOTAL EXPENDITURES 3,220,049 4,425,091 4,809,183
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
General Fund 10,038,470 12,168,296 12,963,889
IMS - IFAS 4,814,192 5,929,187 —
Increase Fund Balance/Cash Reserves — — —
Risk 35,562 44,741 44,741
Increase Fund Balance/Cash Reserves — — —
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE TOTAL EXPENDITURES 14,888,224 18,142,224 13,008,630
FIRE DEPARTMENT
General Fund 47,958,375 52,264,357 54,549,009
FIRE DEPARTMENT TOTAL EXPENDITURES 47,958,375 52,264,357 54,549,009
HUMAN RESOURCES
General Fund 3,722,111 4,659,300 5,059,723
Insurance & Risk Mgmt. Internal Svc. Fund 46,899,399 58,673,569 60,012,462
Increase Fund Balance/Cash Reserves 2,802,212 — —
HUMAN RESOURCES TOTAL EXPENDITURES 50,621,510 63,332,869 65,072,185
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
ANNUAL FISCAL PERIOD 2024-25
MAYORS
ADOPTED RECOMMENDED
ACTUALS BUDGET BUDGET
FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
48 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES
Information Management Service Fund 22,615,429 32,772,984 40,526,282
Increase Fund Balance/Cash Reserves — — —
INFO. MGMT. SERVICES INTERNAL SERVICES FUND TOTAL EXPENDITURES 22,615,429 32,772,984 40,526,282
JUSTICE COURT
General Fund 4,928,511 5,489,720 5,958,110
JUSTICE COURT TOTAL EXPENDITURES 4,928,511 5,489,720 5,958,110
POLICE DEPARTMENT
General Fund 103,019,294 110,976,812 120,001,456
POLICE DEPARTMENT TOTAL EXPENDITURES 103,019,294 110,976,812 120,001,456
PUBLIC LANDS
General Fund 24,468,048 27,295,271 29,716,013
Golf Enterprise Fund 10,163,906 17,938,984 20,460,948
Increase Fund Balance/Cash Reserves 3,391,970 — —
PUBLIC LANDS TOTAL EXPENDITURES 34,631,954 45,234,255 50,176,960
PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT
General Fund 37,330,130 43,449,292 46,261,468
Fleet Management Internal Service Fund 21,787,416 32,498,750 27,947,665
Increase Fund Balance/Cash Reserves 5,018,326 — —
PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT TOTAL EXPENDITURES 59,117,546 75,948,042 74,209,133
911 COMMUNICATION BUREAU
General Fund 10,109,240 11,259,756 11,610,306
911 COMMUNICATIONS BUREAU TOTAL EXPENDITURES 10,109,240 11,259,756 11,610,306
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
Sewer Utility Enterprise Fund 48,156,069 301,832,622 311,873,824
Increase Fund Balance/Cash Reserves 39,680,942 — 19,884,960
Storm Water Utility Enterprise Fund 11,019,868 22,947,474 28,159,596
Increase Fund Balance/Cash Reserves 8,632,023 — —
Water Utility Enterprise Fund 82,224,402 177,953,787 206,304,772
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
ANNUAL FISCAL PERIOD 2024-25
MAYORS
ADOPTED RECOMMENDED
ACTUALS BUDGET BUDGET
FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
49 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Increase Fund Balance/Cash Reserves 19,743,089 — 62,106,926
Street Lighting Enterprise Funds 5,054,978 6,044,149 6,776,763
Increase Fund Balance/Cash Reserves — — —
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT TOTAL EXPENDITURES 146,455,317 508,778,032 553,114,955
SUSTAINABILITY DEPARTMENT
Refuse Fund 16,142,599 28,263,792 26,037,893
Increase Fund Balance/Cash Reserves 2,582,356 — —
SUSTAINABILITY DEPARTMENT TOTAL EXPENDITURES 16,142,599 28,263,792 26,037,893
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Redevelopment Agency Fund 68,238,864 80,803,841 84,656,884
Increase Fund Balance/Cash Reserves 13,007,799 — —
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TOTAL EXPENDITURES 68,238,864 80,803,841 84,656,884
NON DEPARTMENTAL
General Fund 133,576,286 120,112,701 123,069,522
Curb/Gutter Special Assessment Fund 82 3,000 3,000
Increase Fund Balance/Cash Reserves 425,568 — —
CDBG Operating Special Revenue Fund 4,056,150 5,597,763 5,485,515
Increase Fund Balance/Cash Reserves 18,375 — —
Emergency 911 Dispatch Special Rev. Fund 3,800,385 3,800,385 3,913,585
Increase Fund Balance/Cash Reserves 1,416,614 124,615 11,415
Housing Loans & Trust Special Rev. Fund 1,048,561 10,212,043 5,419,000
Increase Fund Balance/Cash Reserves 1,886,287 4,447,000 —
Misc. Grants Operating Special Rev. Fund 58,621,665 8,919,917 6,644,210
Increase Fund Balance/Cash Reserves 1,530,460 — —
Misc. Spec. Svc. Districts Special Rev. Fund 1,668,631 1,700,000 1,700,000
Increase Fund Balance/Cash Reserves — — —
Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Transportation 9,549,374 9,700,000 9,758,312
Increase Fund Balance/Cash Reserves — — —
Other Special Revenue Funds 325,173 400,000 400,000
Increase Fund Balance/Cash Reserves 341,896 — —
Salt Lake City Donation Fund 3,780,293 500,000 500,000
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
ANNUAL FISCAL PERIOD 2024-25
MAYORS
ADOPTED RECOMMENDED
ACTUALS BUDGET BUDGET
FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
50 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Increase Fund Balance/Cash Reserves 1,364,510 — —
Debt Service Funds 30,343,954 34,894,979 31,556,034
Increase Fund Balance/Cash Reserves 3,632,659 — —
Capital Projects Fund 56,759,529 29,708,286 32,322,843
Increase Fund Balance/Cash Reserves 112,579,778 491,470 —
NON DEPARTMENTAL TOTAL EXPENDITURES 303,530,083 225,549,074 220,772,021
GEN FUND BAL/CASH RESERVES
TOTAL EXPENSE BUDGET 1,403,328,052 1,848,320,524 1,971,131,177
TOTAL INC TO FUND BALANCE 220,131,904 5,581,654 91,105,919
GRAND TOTAL OF USES 1,623,459,956 1,853,902,178 2,062,237,097
NET CHANGE TO FUND BALANCE 199,842,399 (183,192,218) 32,555,800
(USE OF) OR INCREASE TO FUND BALANCE
TOTAL EXPENSES BY FUND TYPE:
Governmental Fund Type:
TOTAL GENERAL FUND: 427,834,464 448,514,918 475,245,078
CITY COUNCIL OFFICE 4,725,478 5,960,249 6,289,340
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 5,119,790 6,820,067 7,366,396
SALT LAKE CITY ATTORNEY 8,683,237 10,490,844 12,881,528
COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOODS 30,935,445 33,143,161 34,709,138
DEPT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 3,220,049 4,425,091 4,809,183
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE 10,038,470 12,168,296 12,963,889
FIRE DEPARTMENT 47,958,375 52,264,357 54,549,009
HUMAN RESOURCES 3,722,111 4,659,300 5,059,723
JUSTICE COURTS 4,928,511 5,489,720 5,958,110
POLICE DEPARTMENT 103,019,294 110,976,812 120,001,456
PUBLIC LANDS 24,468,048 27,295,271 29,716,013
PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT 37,330,130 43,449,292 46,261,468
911 COMMUNICATIONS BUREAU 10,109,240 11,259,756 11,610,306
NON DEPARTMENTAL 133,576,286 120,112,701 123,069,522
TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS 81,801,671 30,618,065 28,401,622
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUNDS 30,344,036 34,897,979 31,559,034
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
ANNUAL FISCAL PERIOD 2024-25
MAYORS
ADOPTED RECOMMENDED
ACTUALS BUDGET BUDGET
FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
51 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS 56,759,529 29,708,286 32,322,843
Proprietary Fund Type:
TOTAL INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS 103,884,248 138,145,588 137,517,819
TOTAL ENTERPRISE FUNDS 702,704,104 1,166,435,689 1,266,084,780
TOTAL EXPENSE BUDGET 1,403,328,052 1,848,320,525 1,971,131,180
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
ANNUAL FISCAL PERIOD 2024-25
MAYORS
ADOPTED RECOMMENDED
ACTUALS BUDGET BUDGET
FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
52 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Prior Year Adopted Budget 395,022,799 53,492,119 448,514,918
Taxes
Property Tax
New Growth 1,000,000 1,000,000
Property Tax Stabilization 1,000,000 1,000,000
Judgment Levy (1,289,025) (1,289,025)
RDA Tax Increment 3,675,752 3,675,752
Inland Port Increment 209,967 209,967
Other anticipated changes (interest, board letters) (300,000) (300,000)
PILOT 167,694 167,694
Sales Tax
General Fund 3,787,200 7,400,000 11,187,200
Franchise Taxes 2,101,873 2,101,873
Licenses and Permits
Licenses 1,744,771 1,744,771
Permits (3,634,854) (3,634,854)
Intergovernmental Revenue 819,396 819,396
Charges for Services (includes CPI increase) 1,100,282 1,100,282
Rental and Other Income 358,785 358,785
Fines 383,488 383,488
Parking Meter Collections (99,758) (99,758)
Interest Income
Miscellaneous Revenue 340,565 340,565
Interfund Reimbursement 4,438,444 4,438,444
Administrative Fees 1,558,810 1,558,810
Other
Transfers (1,139,178) (1,139,178)
Change in One-Time Revenue
FY2025 One-Time Revenues
Use of Fund Balance 36,834,582 662,906 37,497,488
Recapture of REP Funding 1,781,192 1,781,192
Remove FY2024 One-Time Revenues
One Time Use of General Fund Balance (25,867,308) (3,657,641) (29,524,949)
Transfer - Health Insurance Premium Holiday (2 periods) (2,152,284) (2,152,284)
Transfer - ARPA Salary Restoration Removal (792,195) (792,195)
Transfer - Fleet (359,454) (359,454)
Recapture of REP Funding (1,781,192) (1,781,192)
GENERAL FUND REVENUE KEY CHANGES
FY2025
General Fund Funding Our Future TOTAL
Revenue Changes
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
53 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Recapture of Downtown Summer 2023 Street Activation One-time Funding (500,000) (500,000)
Recapture of City Hall Security Improvements One-time Funding (379,450) (379,450)
Recapture of Downtown Central Precinct Lease and Tenant Improvements One-time Funding (643,208) (643,208)
Recapture of Black Water Tank Disposal Voucher Program One-time Funding (10,000) (10,000)
Recapture of Historic Signs/Markers (one time funding) (30,000) (30,000)
Proposed Revenue 421,343,716 57,897,384 475,245,078
GENERAL FUND REVENUE KEY CHANGES
FY2025
General Fund Funding Our Future TOTAL
Revenue Changes
Department
City Council 5,610,149 39.00
Base to Base (296,864) — — — (296,864) —
Salary Proposal 405,271 — — — 405,271 —
Health Insurance (3.66%) 48,524 — — — 48,524 —
Pension/401k 44,840 — — — 44,840 —
Health Savings Account 19,750 — — — 19,750 —
CCAC Salary Adjustments — — — — — —
Council Member Salary Adjustments 57,570 — — — 57,570 —
Executive Security 50,000 50,000
TOTAL City Council 5,939,240 39.00 — — 5,939,240 39.00
Legislative Non Departmental 350,100
No New Proposals — —
TOTAL Legislative Non Departmental 350,100 — — — 350,100 —
Mayor's Office 6,820,067 34.00
Base to Base 26,915 — — — 26,915 —
Salary Proposal 57,200 — — — 57,200 —
Health Insurance (3.66%) 15,021 — — — 15,021 —
Pension/401k (24,548) — — — (24,548) —
Health Savings Account 17,250 — — — 17,250 —
CCAC Salary Adjustments 53,821 — — — 53,821 —
Budget Amendment #2: Love Your Block 62,250 — — 62,250 —
Office Reconfiguration (25,000) (25,000)
SLC Volunteer Corps expansion (Consultant +OpEx) (Ongoing) 63,000 — — 63,000 —
Love Your Block Program - tools & expansion (One-time) 69,000 — — 69,000 —
GENERAL FUND DEPARTMENTAL KEY CHANGES
FY2025
General Fund FTE Funding Our Future FTE TOTAL FTE
Expense Changes
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
54 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Senior Advisor to the Mayor (39) - 12 months (Ongoing) 216,420 1.00 — — 216,420 1.00
Community cultural events (supplies) (Ongoing) 15,000 — — — 15,000 —
TOTAL Mayor's Office 7,366,396 35.00 — — 7,366,396 35.00
Attorney's Office 10,490,844 60.50
Base to Base 82,365 — — — 82,365 —
Salary Proposal 1,333,860 — — — 1,333,860 —
Health Insurance (3.66%) 120,416 — — — 120,416 —
Pension/401k 151,306 — — — 151,306 —
Health Savings Account 39,500 — — — 39,500 —
CCAC Salary Adjustments 13,977 — — — 13,977 —
Office Reconfiguration (55,000) (55,000)
Budget Amendment #4: Legislative Affairs Division 250,000 4.00 250,000 4.00
Operating Costs - Leg Affairs (Ongoing) 80,000 — — — 80,000 —
Professional Development (One-time) 49,000 — — 49,000 —
Personnel Adjustments - Leg Affairs (Adjust grade from N21 to E35) (Ongoing) 85,287 85,287
Personnel Adjustments - Recorders (Deputy Recorders from E26 to E31) (Ongoing) 89,710 — — 89,710 —
Special Projects Analyst - Boards Compensation Analyst (E26) - 10 months 89,640 1.00 — — 89,640 1.00
Prosecutors Office - City Prosecutor Assistant (10 months) 60,623 1.00 60,623 1.00
TOTAL Attorney's Office 12,881,528 65.50 — — 12,881,528 66.50
Community and Neighborhoods 28,682,472 187.00 4,460,689 8.00 33,143,161 195.00
Base to Base 1,024,588 — — 1,024,588 —
Salary Proposal 1,312,270 — 64,088 — 1,376,358 —
Health Insurance (3.66%) 262,450 — 36,292 — 298,742 —
Pension/401k 157,347 — 8,514 — 165,861 —
Health Savings Account 95,250 — 5,750 — 101,000 —
CCAC Salary Adjustments 213,920 — — — 213,920 —
Youth & Family 4 FTE - Typically Grant Funded (447,136) (4.00) — — (447,136) (4.00)
Train Crossing Safety Signage — (150,000) — (150,000) —
Budget Amendment: PD Substation TI moved to PS (513,208) — — — (513,208) —
Planning Study (100,000) — — — (100,000) —
Youth & Family Strategic Plan (100,000) — — — (100,000) —
Homeless - Ambassador Expansion Area Increase 197,399 — — — 197,399 —
Homeless - Black Water Tank Disposal Voucher Program (10,000) — — — (10,000) —
Homeless - RV Repairs (100,000) — (100,000)
Homeless - Winter Shelter Overflow (60,000) (60,000)
GENERAL FUND DEPARTMENTAL KEY CHANGES
FY2025
General Fund FTE Funding Our Future FTE TOTAL FTE
Expense Changes
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
55 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Homeless - United Site Portable Toilet Rental (27,399) (27,399)
Communications & Engagement Manager (Grade 34) (10 Mths) 139,715 1.00 — — 139,715 1.00
Building Inspector III (E27) - (10 Mths) 104,580 1.00 — — 104,580 1.00
Vehicle —
Fleet Fuel Increase 11,557 — — 11,557 —
Consolidation of City Lease Budgets - CIP (560,000) — — (560,000) —
TOTAL Community and Neighborhoods 30,283,806 185.00 4,425,332 8.00 34,709,138 193.00
Economic Development 4,425,091 22.00
Base to Base 55,113 — — — 55,113 —
Salary Proposal 292,414 — — — 292,414 —
Health Insurance (3.66%) 81,596 — — — 81,596 —
Pension/401k 41,718 — — — 41,718 —
Health Savings Account 17,500 — — — 17,500 —
CCAC Salary Adjustments 3,751 — — — 3,751 —
Budget Amendment #2 - Project Manager 1.00 1.00
Construction Mitigation Funding — — — — — —
DED Strategic Plan (One-time) (80,000) (80,000)
Partnerships w./ Nonprofits Servicing Local Small Business (30,000) (30,000)
Granary District Special Assessment Area Study (60,000) — — — (60,000) —
Main Street Promenade Economic Analysis 115,000 — — — 115,000 —
Construction Mitigation Funding (100,000) — — (100,000) —
Sister Cities PT Employee 47,000 0.50 47,000 0.50
TOTAL Economic Development 4,809,183 22.50 — — 4,809,183 23.50
Finance Department 12,168,296 81.70
Base to Base 154,466 — — — 154,466 —
Salary Proposal 276,966 — — — 276,966 —
Health Insurance (3.66%) 66,413 — — — 66,413 —
Pension/401k 18,428 — — — 18,428 —
Health Savings Account 37,600 — — — 37,600 —
CCAC Salary Adjustments — — — — — —
ResourceX Program Based Budgeting 60,000 — — — 60,000 —
Business Systems Analyst (10 Mths) - 2 FTE 126,437 2.00 — — 126,437 2.00
Grant Analyst - PT to FT 55,284 1.00 — — 55,284 1.00
TOTAL Finance Department 12,963,889 84.70 — — 12,963,889 84.70
Fire Department 50,863,404 388.00 1,400,953 14.00
Base to Base 163,859 — — 163,859 —
Salary Proposal 1,660,499 — 69,304 — 1,729,802 —
Health Insurance (3.66%) 488,220 — (15,141) — 473,079 —
GENERAL FUND DEPARTMENTAL KEY CHANGES
FY2025
General Fund FTE Funding Our Future FTE TOTAL FTE
Expense Changes
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
56 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Pension/401k (414,766) — 9,585 — (405,181) —
Health Savings Account 205,750 — 5,000 — 210,750 —
CCAC Salary Adjustments — — — — —
Chat Program One-time Program Costs — — (2,000) (2,000) —
Fire Captain - Medical Division One-time Program Costs — — (2,500) (2,500) —
SCBA Compressor & Hydrostatic Testing One-time Costs (114,000) — — — (114,000) —
BA3#: Medical Response Paramedics 2.00 — 2.00
Medical Response Paramedics (MRPs) — — 163,727 2.00 163,727 2.00
Contracts/Inflationary Increases 243,365 — — — 243,365 —
Narcotics Tracking System 65,000 — — — 65,000 —
Light Fleet Vehicles — — — — — —
Transfer to Non-Departmental for Fire Hydrant (241,250) — — — (241,250) —
TOTAL Fire 52,920,080 390.00 1,628,928 16.00 54,549,009 406.00
Human Resources Department 4,659,300 33.40
Base to Base 139,302 — — — 139,302 —
Salary Proposal 177,135 — — — 177,135 —
Health Insurance (3.66%) 43,715 — — — 43,715 —
Pension/401k 15,821 — — — 15,821 —
Health Savings Account 24,450 — — — 24,450 —
CCAC Salary Adjustments — — — — — —
TOTAL Human Resources 5,059,723 33.40 — — 5,059,723 33.40
Justice Court 5,489,720 42.00
Base to Base 15,375 — — — 15,375 —
Salary Proposal 251,987 — — — 251,987 —
Health Insurance (3.66%) 90,540 — — — 90,540 —
Pension/401k (3,125) — — — (3,125) —
Health Savings Account 25,250 — — — 25,250 —
CCAC Salary Adjustments — — — — — —
GENERAL FUND DEPARTMENTAL KEY CHANGES
FY2025
General Fund FTE Funding Our Future FTE TOTAL FTE
Expense Changes
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
57 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Community Outreach Case Manager (Grade 19) (12 Mos) — — 88,363 1.00 1.00
Community Outreach Van — — — — — —
TOTAL Justice Court 5,869,747 42.00 88,363 1.00 5,958,110 43.00
Police Department 97,959,909 672.00 665 13,016,903 89.00
Base to Base (289,598) — — (289,598) —
Non Dept Social Works Transfer
Salary Proposal 824,336 — 2,109,141 — 2,933,477 —
Health Insurance (3.66%) (146,652) — 350,523 — 203,871 —
Pension/401k (1,684,750) — 187,183 — (1,497,567) —
Health Savings Account 292,500 — 67,250 — 359,750 —
CCAC Salary Adjustments 48,464 — — 48,464 —
BA #4: Police Clean Neighborhoods — — 1,829,000 — 1,829,000 —
Increased Airport Operations One-time Expenses (106,680) — — (106,680) —
Increased Civilian Response One-time Equipment Costs — — (74,056) — (74,056) —
Calls for Service: Overtime Staffing — — 0 1,363,461 — 1,363,461 —
Inflationary Costs 199,145 — — — 199,145 —
Inflationary Costs: Fleet 232,399 — — — 232,399 —
Evidence Drying Locker Replacement 60,000 — — — 60,000 —
Contract, Event, Task Force Overtime (Revenue Offset) 1,434,295 — — — 1,434,295 —
Airport Staffing and Equipment (Revenue Offset) 2,328,683 6.00 — — 2,328,683 6.00
TOTAL Police Department 101,152,051 678.00 18,849,405 89.00 120,001,456 767.00
Public Lands 25,446,600 138.35 1,848,671 19.50
Base to Base 126,350 — — 126,350 —
Salary Proposal 298,883 — 278,046 — 576,929 —
Health Insurance (3.66%) 62,939 — 161,011 — 223,950 —
Pension/401k (28,461) — 104,267 — 75,806 —
Health Savings Account 63,175 — 25,250 — 88,425 —
CCAC Salary Adjustments 87,117 — — 87,117 —
T&NL New Properties & Growth and Use Impacts One-time Operational Expenses — — (50,000) — (50,000) —
BA #4: Ongoing Needs at Liberty Park 31,250 — — 31,250 —
BA #2: Planning & Design Division 4.00 4.00
BA #2: Operating Costs - Engineering Staff 12,000 — — 12,000 —
Contractual Increases 796,800 796,800 —
Glendale Park Phase I — — 106,800 106,800 —
Glendale Park Phase I: Maintenance Tech III (Grade 119 Union) (10 Mnths) — — 76,700 1.00 76,700 1.00
Public Lands Project Coordinator (Grade 26) (10 Mnths) — — — 1.00 — 1.00
GENERAL FUND DEPARTMENTAL KEY CHANGES
FY2025
General Fund FTE Funding Our Future FTE TOTAL FTE
Expense Changes
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
58 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Senior Public Lands Planner (Grade 31) (10 Mnths) 121,979 1.00 — — 121,979 1.00
FTE Operational Budget 4,000 4,000
Senior Landscape Architect (Grade 34) (10 Mnths) 138,636 1.00 — 138,636 1.00
FTE Operational Budget 4,000 4,000
TOTAL Public Lands 27,165,268 144.35 2,550,745 21.50 29,716,013 165.85
Public Services 39,909,574 247.00 3,539,718 26.00
Base to Base 92,358 — — 92,358 —
Salary Proposal 212,849 — — 212,849 —
Health Insurance (3.66%) 145,217 — (10,333) — 134,884 —
Pension/401k (19,122) — 52,203 — 33,080 —
Health Savings Account 117,000 — (3,528) — 113,472 —
CCAC Salary Adjustments 126,436 — 15,500 — 141,936 —
Budget Amendment #3: Road Marking Maintenance (Moved to CIP Maint.) — — 200,000 — 200,000 —
BA #2: Planning & Design Division (4.00) (4.00)
Mill and Overlay Pilot Program — — (130,000) — (130,000) —
Environmental Engineer One-time Expenses (18,000) — — — (18,000) —
Building Administrator One-time Expenses (2,750) — — — (2,750) —
Contractual Increases 603,308 — — — 603,308 —
Inflationary Increases 340,109 — — — 340,109 —
Internal Security Program - Consultant Costs 75,000 — — — 75,000 —
Incentive for RV Removal and Disposal — — 100,000 — 100,000 —
Project Delivery Support for Parks Projects 249,694 2.00 — — 249,694 2.00
Rapid Intervention Team (Following Pilot) — — 253,026 3.00 253,026 3.00
Rapid Intervention Team Vehicles (2) — —
Mill and Overlay Increase — — 296,000 — 296,000 —
Engineer IV (E31) - 10 Months 117,210 1.00 117,210 1.00
Reclass Seasonal to Sign and Markings Technicians — 2.00 — — — 2.00
TOTAL Public Services 41,948,882 248.00 4,312,585 29.00 46,261,468 277.00
911 Dispatch 10,412,910 92.00 846,846 8.00 100.00
Base to Base (113,642) — — (113,642) —
Salary Proposal 171,575 — 35,401 — 206,976 —
Health Insurance (3.66%) 128,127 — 51,935 — 180,061 —
Pension/401k 8,412 — 6,492 — 14,904 —
Health Savings Account 54,000 — 8,250 — 62,250 —
CCAC Salary Adjustments — — — — — —
TOTAL 911 Dispatch 10,661,382 92.00 948,924 8.00 11,610,306 100.00
Departmental Totals 319,371,274 2,059.45 32,804,283 172.50 352,175,556 2,233.95
GENERAL FUND DEPARTMENTAL KEY CHANGES
FY2025
General Fund FTE Funding Our Future FTE TOTAL FTE
Expense Changes
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
59 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
rtar Apprenticeship Program 630,000 (500,000) — — 130,000
Employee Appreciation / CEAB Budget 150,000 — — — 150,000
City Hall Security Improvements (Remove One-Time) 379,450 (379,450) — — —
City Hall Police Presence (Ongoing) 280,350 — — 62,400 342,750
City Hall Security: City Hall Public Order Security (Ongoing) — — — 99,840 99,840
City Hall Security: Protective Detail (Ongoing) — 120,000 — — 120,000
Fire SCBAArt 197,400 — — — 197,400
Police Body Cameras and Vehicle Integration 687,422 — 512,578 — 1,200,000
Axon Body Camera Services Enhancement 349,692 — — 143,280 492,972
City Resident Bus Pass (HIVE) 350,000 — — — 350,000
Free Bus Passes for School Children,Parents,Guardian,Faculty 100,000 — 114,648 214,648
Contract for Animal Services 1,970,648 98,532 — — 2,069,180
Demographic Contract 50,000 — — — 50,000
Jordan River Commission (Membership) 16,000 — — — 16,000
Municipal Elections 20,000 — — —
Election Cost - FY 2025 — 50,000 — — 50,000
Election Cost 294,551 (294,551) — — —
Ranked Choice Voting Awareness 40,000 (40,000) — — —
Oath of Office Event 30,000 (30,000) — — —
Outgoing Elected Official Event 20,000 (20,000) — — —
Retirement Payouts 696,000 — — — 696,000
Sorenson Center with County 1,014,800 — — — 1,014,800
Transportation Utility Fee Consultant [One-Time] 50,000 (50,000) — — —
Tuition Aid program 320,000 — — — 320,000
GENERAL FUND NON-DEPARTMENTAL KEY CHANGES
FY2025
General Fund Change Funding Our Future Change TOTAL
Expense Changes
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
60 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Capital Improvement Fund:
Debt Service Fund
Debt Service on Bonds 9,540,526 (815,049) — — 8,725,477
Debt Service on ESCO 761,000 162,600 — — 923,600
Debt Service on LBA
Ongoing Commitments
Transfer to CIP for ongoing commitments 600,000 560,000 — — 1,160,000
Facilities Capital Replacement 350,000 — — — 350,000
Parks Capital Replacement 250,000 — — — 250,000
Planning and Design 350,000 350,000
Public Lands Transfer back to CIP for Maintenance — — — 683,152 683,152
Vacant Building Maintenance
CIP Percent for art 167,378 — — 167,378
CIP Contingency 223,171 — — 223,171
New Projects
Capital Improvement Projects Fund 7,300,000 — 3,100,000 54,490 10,454,490
Westside New Project (Art) — 150,000 (150,000) —
Historic Signs/Markers [One Time] 30,000 (30,000) — — —
Historic Signs/Markers [One Time] — 30,000 — — 30,000
Fleet Fund:
Fleet - Replacement Fund 5,000,000 — — — 5,000,000
Streets Fleet Equipment Replacement — — 1,700,000 (1,700,000) —
Public Safety Apparatus/Vehicle Replacement — — 4,000,000 (4,000,000) —
Remove FY2024 Vehicles for New Positions 135,000 908,350 (908,350) —
Vehicles for New Positions in FY2025 — 112,000 — 545,993 657,993
Fleet - Centralized Fleet Maintenance
Parts/Equipment/Labor 717,954 — — — 717,954
Golf Fund:
Golf (Living Wage and CCAC Salary Adjustments Transfer) 370,100 — — — 370,100
Golf ESCO Payment Transfer [One-Time] Prior Year 510,427 (510,427) — — —
Golf ESCO Payment Transfer [One-Time] Current Year — 528,213 — — 528,213
Golf Admin Fee Transfer 356,302 — — — 356,302
Golf IMS Fee Transfer 350,000 — — — 350,000
Rosepark Infrastructure renewal 500,000 — — — 500,000
Information Management Services Fund:
IMS Services 18,881,573 — 430,054 — 19,311,627
IMS Personnel Costs — — — — —
GENERAL FUND NON-DEPARTMENTAL KEY CHANGES
FY2025
General Fund Change Funding Our Future Change TOTAL
Expense Changes
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
61 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
IMS New Personnel 108,000 — — — 108,000
IMS Contractual and Other Increases 1,395,354 — — — 1,395,354
Contractual Increases - Increased Cost of Software 1,018,399 1,018,399
Inflationary Increases (Ongoing) 450,641 — 450,641
Audio Visual Technology (Ongoing) — 127,648 — — 127,648
Reduction Strategy - Legacy Systems and Consulting due to Implementation of Workday — (650,000) — — (650,000)
Spidr Tech Post 911 Call Text (FY 2024 One-time) — (10,000) — — (10,000)
Versaterm (Fire, Police, Attorneys Office) — — 578,975 578,975
Budget Amendment increase 397,688 397,688
Radio System Transfer to IMS from General Fund (Fire, Police, E911, Public Services) 241,645 — — — 241,645
Radio Replacement Program (One-time) — 250,000 — — 250,000
PSB Printer Maintenance Transfer to IMS from General Fund (Police) 55,000 — — — 55,000
New CAP Software ($350,000 one-time) $250,000 on going — 350,000 (100,000) 250,000
AutoCAD 22,000 — — — 22,000
Zoom Enterprise Software 25,000 — — — 25,000
Budget for New Positions — 32,500 — 11,000 43,500
Budget for Prior Year New Positions Remove [One-Time]? 127,750 (127,750) 59,164 (59,164) —
Insurance and Risk Management Fund
Salary Adjustments — — — —
Insurance Premium Increases — 468,171 — — 468,171
Life Savings Account 500,000 (500,000) — — —
Public Utilities Funds:
Public Utilities - HIVE : Pass through expense 61,000 — — — 61,000
Public Utilities - Land Swap payment 200,000 (200,000) — — —
Public Utilities - Assistance 100,000 — — — 100,000
Transfer from Fire for Fire Hydrant Fee — — 241,250 — 241,250
Fire Hydrant Fee (Ongoing) — — — 293,219 293,219
Water Usage Study - Transfer to Public Utilities [One-Time] 100,000 (100,000) — — —
Street Lighting
Street lighting (GF owned properties) 50,000 — — — 50,000
Street Lighting in Enhanced Service Areas (GF owned properties) 54,420 — — — 54,420
SAA Street Lighting 80,000 — — — 80,000
Redevelopment Agency Fund
RDA Tax Increment 15,985,753 3,675,752 — — 19,661,505
GENERAL FUND NON-DEPARTMENTAL KEY CHANGES
FY2025
General Fund Change Funding Our Future Change TOTAL
Expense Changes
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
62 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Housing Plan - Land Discounts and Financing (transfer to RDA) — — 1,840,000 750,000 2,590,000
Gap Financing for Switchpoints Project on N. Temple (One-time) — 250,000 (250,000) —
Switchpoint and Catalytic Grant Program — 750,000 (750,000) —
Sanctioned Camping Catalytic Grant Prog Holding Account (One-time) — 500,000 (500,000) —
Special Revenue Fund
Environmental Assessment Fund 100,000 — — — 100,000
Sustainability Fund —
GF E&E Operation Funding 1,170,900 — — — 1,170,900
E&E Food Program Funding Reinstatement (One-time) — — — —
Air Quality Incentives Program Expansion 230,000 (230,000)
Misc Program Efficiency Reductions (One-time) — — — —
Police Department and Racial Equity In Policing Funding
Police Officer Training (One-Time) 55,000 (55,000) — — —
Social Worker Program — — 706,553 — 706,553
Increased Mental Health Responders 562,500 — 571,074 — 1,133,574
Commission of Racial Equity & Policing 120,000 — — — 120,000
REP Commission Peer Court Support 20,000 (20,000) — — —
Arbinger Leadership Cohort (REP-C) (Ongoing) — — 74,688 74,688
Leadership in Police Organization (REP-C) (Ongoing) — — 52,500 52,500
School Resource Training (REP-C) (Ongoing) — — 22,775 22,775
Culturally Responsive Therapy for Negative Police Interactions (REP-C) (Ongoing) — — 99,840 99,840
REP FY2021 Holding Account [FY2021 REP Fund Balance] — — 1,531,389 — 1,531,389
Sales Tax Option - Transit Plan —
Transit Plan - Service for Key Routes — — 7,000,000
Transit Plan - On Demand Ride Services (Smaller Service Area) — — 3,000,000 307,807 3,307,807
Transit Plan - UTA Outreach — 100,000 100,000
Municipal Contributions & Civic Support
Mayor - Receptions/Employee Appreciation 20,000 — — — 20,000
ACE Fund 200,000 100,000 — — 300,000
Board and Commissions Honoraria (One-time) 26,000 (26,000) — — —
Diversity Outreach (CoCs, etc.) 3,000 — — — 3,000
Healthcare Innovation - Biohive 100,000 — — — 100,000
Downtown Street Activation One-time for Summer and Fall 2023 (One-time) 500,000 (500,000) — — —
GENERAL FUND NON-DEPARTMENTAL KEY CHANGES
FY2025
General Fund Change Funding Our Future Change TOTAL
Expense Changes
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
63 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Open Streets-Continuation of Downtown Streets (One-time) — 400,000 — 400,000
Housing Authority Transitional Housing 85,000 — — — 85,000
Legal Defenders 1,645,067 79,750 — 1,724,817
Local Business Marketing Grants 20,000 — — — 20,000
Music Licensing Fees - Moving to IMS 9,000 (9,000) — — —
National League of Cities and Towns 12,797 — 12,797
Rape Recovery Center 30,000 — — — 30,000
Sister Cities 10,000 20,000 — 30,000
Salary Contingency 760,000 (760,000) — — —
Salt Lake City Arts Council 800,000 — 200,000 — 1,000,000
Salt Lake City Foundation 3,000 — — — 3,000
SL Area Chamber of Commerce 55,000 — — — 55,000
Suazo Membership 45,000 — —— 45,000
Sugar House Park Authority 270,251 (33,654) —— 236,597
Tracy Aviary 763,526 50,647 — 814,173
US Conference of Mayors Membership 12,242 2,000 — — 14,242
Utah Economic Development Corporation 108,000 — — — 108,000
Utah League of Cities and Towns Membership 233,474 9,873 — 243,347
Wasatch Community Gardens - Apprentice Gardner (from Apprentice Funding) 50,000 —— 50,000
World Trade Center Membership 50,000 — —— 50,000
PD Expungements 300,000 300,000
VOA-Detox 1,000,000
Salary Contingency 2,131,513
YWCA - FJC Wrap around services 45,000 — — — 45,000
— — — — —
TOTAL Non-Departmental 92,017,346 5,959,074 29,730,657 (4,637,555) 123,069,522
GENERAL FUND NON-DEPARTMENTAL KEY CHANGES
FY2025
General Fund Change Funding Our Future Change TOTAL
Expense Changes
CIP Fund (FC 300)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY24 Beginning Balance 30,199,756
Eliminate FY2024 GF Funding (Including Funding Our Future, less Debt Service)-13478136
Eliminate FY2024 Class C Funding (3,500,000)
Eliminate FY2024 Impact Fees Funding (2,968,850)
OTHER FUND KEY CHANGES
Fiscal Year 2025
ISSUE FY2024 Adopted Budget
Full Time Equivalent
Changes from FY2024 Budget
FY2025 Budget
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
64 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Eliminate FY2024 funding from ¼¢ Sales Tax (8,191,470)
Eliminate FY2024 Funding from additional sources (2,061,300)
FY2025 GF Funding (Excluding transfer directly to Debt Service) 21,355,753
FY2025 General Fund Funding our Future 4,520,794
FY 2025 Less amount transferred directly to debt service (10,825,204)
FY2025 Class C Funding (Excluding transfer directly to Debt Service) 4,250,000
FY2025 Impact Fee Funding 3,146,200
FY2025 ¼¢ Sales Tax Funding 8,200,000
FY2025 Funding from additional sources 175,300
FY2025 Landfill 1,500,000
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 2,123,087 32,322,843
Expenses and Other Uses
FY24 Beginning Balance
30,199,756
Eliminate FY2024 Ongoing Commitment Funding (2,100,000)
Eliminate FY2024 Capital Projects Funding (11,169,047)
Eliminate FY2024 ¼¢ Sales Tax Funding (8,191,470)
Eliminate FY2024 General Fund One Time Sources [Historic Signs/Markers] (30,000)
Eliminate FY2024 Class C Funding (3,500,000)
Eliminate FY2024 Streets Impact Fee Funding (240,000)
Eliminate FY2024 Parks Impact Fee Funding (2,728,850)
Eliminate FY2024 Transfer to LBA Fire Stations #3 & #14 (1,180,800)
Eliminate FY2024 Cost Overrun and Percent for Art (409,089)
Eliminate FY2024 Transfer to Debt Service GF (150,500)
Eliminate FY2024 Funding from additional resources (500,000)
FY2025 Ongoing Commitment Funding 3,513,152
FY2025 Capital Projects Funding 11,137,642
FY2025 Class C Funding (Excluding transfer directly to Debt Service) 4,250,000
FY2025 Parks Impact Fees Funding 3,146,200
FY2025 ¼¢ Sales Tax Funding 8,200,000
Cost Overrun and Percent for art 390,549
Transfer to Debt Service - General Fund 155,300
FY25 Ongoing Landfill 1,500,000
Transfer In for Historic Signs/Markers [One-time] 30,000
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 2,123,087 32,322,843
Budgeted revenues and other sources over — —
(under) expenditures and other uses
OTHER FUND KEY CHANGES
Fiscal Year 2025
ISSUE FY2024 Adopted Budget
Full Time Equivalent
Changes from FY2024 Budget
FY2025 Budget
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
65 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Curb and Gutter (FC 150)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY2024 Beginning Balance 3,000
No Changes —
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget — 3,000
Expenses and Other Uses
FY2024 Beginning Balance 3,000
No Changes
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget — 3,000
Budgeted revenues and other sources over —
(under) expenditures and other uses
Misc. Special Service Districts (FC 760)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY2024 Beginning Balance 1,700,000
Change in revenue from New Assessment
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget — 1,700,000
Expenses and Other Uses
FY2024 Beginning Balance 1,700,000
Change in expense from New Assessment
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget — 1,700,000
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses —
Street Lighting Enterprise Fund (FC 430)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY2024 Beginning Balance-base lighting 4,681,185
Street lighting fees 459,209
Change in interest income (1,406)
Grants (25,000)
Transfer from the General Fund —
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 432,803 5,113,988
Expenses and Other Uses
FY2024 Beginning Balance-base lighting 6,044,149 2.57
Personnel services -0.22 35,020
Charges for service 447,628
Capital outlay 1,250,000
OTHER FUND KEY CHANGES
Fiscal Year 2025
ISSUE FY2024 Adopted Budget
Full Time Equivalent
Changes from FY2024 Budget
FY2025 Budget
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
66 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Capital improvements (1,000,000)
Debt services -34
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 2.35 732,614 6,776,763
Budgeted revenues and other sources over (1,662,775)
(under) expenditures and other uses
Water Utility (FC 400)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY2024 Beginning Balance 176,637,288
Change in Metered Water Sales 26,609,260
Change in Interest Income 7,487
Other Revenue 1,180,663
Grants 25,865,000
Impact Fees —
Sale of Equipment —
Transfer from General Fund (100,000)
Bond proceeds 38,212,000
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 91,774,410 268,411,698
Expenses and Other Uses
FY2024 Beginning Balance 177,953,787 298.21
Personnel services -2.22 2,718,363
Operating & maintenance 1,208,981
Charges for service 8,695,906
Capital outlay 1,930,477
Capital improvements 11,618,000
Cost of bond issuance 212,000
Debt services 1,967,258
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 295.99 28,350,985 206,304,772
Budgeted revenues and other sources over 62,106,926
(under) expenditures and other uses
Sewer (FC 410)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY2024 Beginning Balance 289,941,178
Change in Sewer Utility Service Revenue 11,612,632
Other Revenues 961,002
Change in Interest Income (64,798)
OTHER FUND KEY CHANGES
Fiscal Year 2025
ISSUE FY2024 Adopted Budget
Full Time Equivalent
Changes from FY2024 Budget
FY2025 Budget
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
67 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Other sources (898,230)
WIFIA Loan (18,061,000)
Bond Proceeds 48,268,000
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 41,817,606 331,758,784
Expenses and Other Uses
FY2024 Beginning Balance 301,832,622 130.8
Personnel Services 0.08 1,261,872
Operating & Maintenance 759,172
Charges for Service 1,652,111
Capital Outlay (647,366)
Capital Improvements 3,033,560
Cost of bond issuance 268,000
Debt Service 3,713,853
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 130.88 10,041,202 311,873,824
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses 19,884,960
Storm Water Utility (FC 420)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY2024 Beginning Balance 19,865,892
Change in Stormwater Utility Service Revenue 1,355,391
Change in Interest Income 147,915
Other Operating Revenues 1,648,000
Impact Fees —
Bond Proceeds —
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 3,151,306 23,017,198
Expenses and Other Uses
FY2024 Beginning Balance 22,947,474 43.42
Personnel Services 2.36 434,598
Operating & Maintenance 279,400
Charges for Service 510,502
Capital Outlay (699,500)
Capital Improvements 4,749,000
Cost of Bond Issuance —
Debt Service (61,878)
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 45.78 5,212,122 28,159,596
OTHER FUND KEY CHANGES
Fiscal Year 2025
ISSUE FY2024 Adopted Budget
Full Time Equivalent
Changes from FY2024 Budget
FY2025 Budget
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
68 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses (5,142,398)
Airport Fund (FC 540)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY 23 Beginning Balance 403,513,000
Increase in operating revenues 132,417,500
Increase in passenger facility charges —
Increase in grants and reimbursements 51,645,600
Increase in customer facility charges 248,000
Increase in airport general revenue bonds —
Increase in interest income (2,520,200)
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 181,790,900 585,303,900
Expenses and Other Uses
FY 23 Beginning Balance 520,438,997 639.3
Increase in operating expenses 25.00 23,178,400
Decrease in Passenger Incentive Rebate 7,140,400
Decrease in interest expense 45,595,000
Decrease in bond expense 665,100
Increase in capital equipment 6,892,800
Decrease in capital improvements projects (27,515,600)
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 664.3 (553,060,700) 576,395,097
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses 8,908,803
Waste and Recycling Fund (FC 670)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY2024 Beginning Balance 23,607,733
Residential Service Fee Increase 1,619,837
Glass Recycling Fee Increase 18,780
Decrease in Debt Financing Proceeds and Misc Revenue (4,251,433)
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget (2,612,816) 20,994,917
Expenses and Other Uses
FY2024 Beginning Balance 25,617,162 57.00
Salary Changes 323,906
Capital Purchase Decrease (4,013,500)
PUBS Allocation 889,104
OTHER FUND KEY CHANGES
Fiscal Year 2025
ISSUE FY2024 Adopted Budget
Full Time Equivalent
Changes from FY2024 Budget
FY2025 Budget
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
69 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Fleet Fuel and CNG Decrease (44,700)
Tipping Fee Increase 258,000
Fleet Maintenance Increase 221,524
Lease Debt Payment Decrease (30,838)
Increase in Operating and Admin Expense 107,968 1,380,896
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 57.00 (2,288,536) 23,328,626
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses (2,009,429)
Environment and Energy Fund (FC670)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY2024 Beginning Balance 1,632,726
Misc Revenue 34,751
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 34,751 1,667,477
Expenses and Other Uses
FY2024 Beginning Balance 2,646,630 8.00
Salary Changes 62,637
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 8.00 62,637 2,709,267
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses (1,041,790)
Golf Fund - Operations (FC 680)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY2024 Beginning Balance 10,960,213
Green Fees 631,236
Driving Range 81,416
Cart Rental (18,928)
Retail Sales 36,700
Other 136,636
General Fund Transfer (IMS, Admin Fees) —
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 867,060 11,827,273
Expenses and Other Uses
FY2024 Beginning Balance 10,818,337 34.15
Personnel Changes 432,841
Retail Merchandise 36,275
Operating Supplies 63,156
Increase for Utilities 194,767
OTHER FUND KEY CHANGES
Fiscal Year 2025
ISSUE FY2024 Adopted Budget
Full Time Equivalent
Changes from FY2024 Budget
FY2025 Budget
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
70 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Charges and Services 438,670
Operating Equipment Cash Purchases 239,688
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 34.15 1,405,397 12,223,734
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses (396,461)
Golf Fund - CIP Dedicated (FC 680)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY2024 Beginning Balance 1,749,854
Green Fees 38,903
Other (15,000)
Transfer from GF for ESCO 17,786
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 41,689 1,791,543
Expenses and Other Uses
FY2024 Beginning Balance 7,120,647
Debt Service Payments (ESCO) 17,786
Capital Expenditures 1,098,780
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 0 1,116,566 8,237,213
Budgeted revenues and other sources over 2,521,963
(under) expenditures and other uses 20,460,947 (6,445,670)
Emergency 911 (FC 750)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY2024 Beginning Balance 3,925,000
No Change —
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget — 3,925,000
Expenses and Other Uses
FY2024 Beginning Balance 3,800,385
VESTA Analytics Enterprize Contract (Revenue Offset) 113,200
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 113,200 3,913,585
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses 11,415
Fleet Management (FC 610) - Maintenance
Revenue and Other Sources
FY2024 Beginning Balance 18,073,651
Fuel revenue impact (546,400)
OTHER FUND KEY CHANGES
Fiscal Year 2025
ISSUE FY2024 Adopted Budget
Full Time Equivalent
Changes from FY2024 Budget
FY2025 Budget
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
71 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Work Order billings 1,773,794
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 1,227,394 19,301,045
Expenses and Other Uses
FY2024 Beginning Balance 18,428,983 46.00
Personnel Changes 311,845
Annualized BA4 FY24 added 3.0 FTE salary 3.00 286,200
On-going BA4 FY24 Fleet Mechanics 3.0 FTE costs 40,800
Fuel impact (533,770)
Combined inflationary factor 1,277,298
Air-time for 500 on-going GPS units 108,000
Life Style Savings Account —
Car wash debris clean out decreased (28,500)
Misc. internal Fleet efficiencies (233,828)
Replacement vehicle prep, parts, outsourced labor & admin (77,647)
Transfer to GF from Fund Class 61 for Non Departmental 1,407,038
Total Expenses and Other Uses Budget 49.00 2,557,436 20,986,419
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses (1,685,374)
Fleet Management (FC 610) - Replacement
Revenue and Other Sources
FY2024 Beginning Balance 14,035,318
Transfer from GF for vehicles for new positions 657,993
Reduction of GF for vehicles for new positions (FY 24) (1,043,350)
Reduction of FOF funding (5,700,000)
Reduction of vehicle lease proceeds (1,000,000)
Increase in sale of vehicles (FY 25) 11,285
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget (7,074,072) 6,961,246
Expenses and Other Uses
FY2024 Beginning Balance 14,069,767
Decrease in debt service (719,170)
Remove one-time funding for cash purchases (FY 24) (1,043,350)
Increase in cash purchases for vehicles 696,006
Reduction of vehicle leases (1,000,000)
New cash purchases for vehicles (5,700,000)
New GF cash purchases for vehicles for new positions 657,993
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 0 (7,108,521) 6,961,246
OTHER FUND KEY CHANGES
Fiscal Year 2025
ISSUE FY2024 Adopted Budget
Full Time Equivalent
Changes from FY2024 Budget
FY2025 Budget
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
72 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses —
Information Management Services (FC 650)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY2024 Beginning Balance 36,254,357
Change in Transfer from General Fund 4,271,925
Appropriation of Fund Balance —
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 4,271,925 40,526,282
Expenses and Other Uses
FY2024 Beginning Balance 38,702,171 100.00
Personnel Changes (Base to Base) — 261,823
Insurance Rate Changes 252,321
Pension Changes 63,923
Annual Salary Proposal (COLA) 528,926
CCAC Study 154,675
One Time Funding from FY23 (2,060,000)
FY24 Ongoing Budget Amendments 397,688
Reduction Strategy (1,000,000)
Contractual Changes 1,566,767
Inflationary Changes 783,293
PSB Improvements 196,382
Radio Replacement 500,000
Computers and Software for New FTE with other departments 43,500
New Positions
Privacy Officer (Grade 34) (10 Months) 1.00 134,813
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 101.00 1,824,111 40,526,282
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses 0
County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Transportation (FC 785)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY2024 Beginning Balance 9,700,000
Remove FY2021 State Initiated County Local Option Sales Tax —
Revenue —
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget — 9,700,000
Expenses and Other Uses
FY2024 Beginning Balance 9,700,000 0
OTHER FUND KEY CHANGES
Fiscal Year 2025
ISSUE FY2024 Adopted Budget
Full Time Equivalent
Changes from FY2024 Budget
FY2025 Budget
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
73 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Transfer to General Fund for Personnel 49,782
Remove FY2023 Transfer to CIP (8,191,470)
Remove FY2023 Transfer to Debt Services (1,100,000)
Transfer to CIP - Projects 8,200,000
Transfer to Debt Services 1,100,000
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 0 58,312 9,758,312
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses (58,312)
CDBG Operating (FC 710)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY2024 Beginning Balance 5,597,763
Change in Federal Funds (112,248)
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget (112,248) 5,485,515
Expenses and Other Uses
FY2024 Beginning Balance 5,597,763
Change in Federal Funds (112,248)
Change in Transfer to Housing —
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget (112,248) 5,485,515
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses 0
Misc. Grants Operating (FC 720)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY2024 Beginning Balance 8,919,917
Change in Federal Grant Revenue —
Change in Program Income —
Change in Appropriation of Cash —
Change in ARPA Funding (4,025,707)
State transportation (HB488) Green Bike 1,750,000
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget (2,275,707) 6,644,210
Expenses and Other Uses
FY2024 Beginning Balance 8,919,917
Change in Salary and Benefits 0
American Rescue Plan Grant
- Revenue Replacement [Transfer to General Fund] 0
- Salary Restoration 0
OTHER FUND KEY CHANGES
Fiscal Year 2025
ISSUE FY2024 Adopted Budget
Full Time Equivalent
Changes from FY2024 Budget
FY2025 Budget
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
74 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
- Other (4,025,707)
Appropriation of HOME Program Income —
State transportation (HB488) Green Bike 1,750,000
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget (2,275,707) 6,644,210
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses —
Other Special Revenue Fund (FC730)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY2024 Beginning Balance 400,000
Transfer from GF - Environmental Assessment Fund 100,000
Transfer from GF - Emergency Demolition Revolving Fund (100,000)
Weed Abatement FY2024 Appropriation of Cash
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget — 400,000
Expenses and Other Uses
FY2024 Beginning Balance 400,000
Environmental Assessment Fund 100,000
Emergency Demolition Revolving Fund [One-Time] (100,000)
Add FY2024 Weed Abatement
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget — 400,000
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses —
Donation Fund (FC 770)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY2024 Beginning Balance 500,000
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget — 500,000
Expenses and Other Uses
FY2024 Beginning Balance 500,000
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget — 500,000
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses 0
OTHER FUND KEY CHANGES
Fiscal Year 2025
ISSUE FY2024 Adopted Budget
Full Time Equivalent
Changes from FY2024 Budget
FY2025 Budget
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
75 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Housing (FC 690)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY2024 Beginning Balance 14,659,043
Change in Transfer from CDBG —
Change in Program Income —
Change in Interest Income 4,000
Change in Miscellaneous Income/Sale of Property —
Change in Appropriation of Cash (8,217,432)
Change in Loan Principal and Escrow Payments 13,000
Change in Transfer to General Fund (1,039,611)
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget (9,240,043) 5,419,000
Expenses and Other Uses
FY2024 Beginning Balance 10,212,043
Change in Loan Disbursements and Associated Expenses —
Change in Funding Our Futures Expenses —
Change in Other Expenses (3,828,432)
Change in Interest Expense 5,000
Change in Note Payable & T&I Payments 70,000
Change in Transfer to General Fund —
Change in Transfer to RDA Fund —
Change in Transfer to CDBG Fund (1,039,611)
Appropriation from Program Income —
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget (4,793,043) 5,419,000
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses 0
Debt Service (FC 101)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY2024 Beginning Balance 32,341,586
Change in G.O. Property Tax (745,852)
Change in State Reimbursement —
Change in Debt Service from RDA (9,138)
Change in Transfer from Transportation —
Change in Transfer from General Fund (1,435,351)
Change in Transfer from CIP —
Change in Lease Payments 336,154
Change in Transfer from Refuse 272,413
Change in Transfer from Fleet 291,272
OTHER FUND KEY CHANGES
Fiscal Year 2025
ISSUE FY2024 Adopted Budget
Full Time Equivalent
Changes from FY2024 Budget
FY2025 Budget
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
76 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget (1,290,501) 31,051,085
Expenses and Other Uses
FY2024 Beginning Balance 34,894,979
Change in Debt Service Payments and related expenses (536,945)
Remove One-Time Transfer Out from North Temple Viaduct Bond RDA Reimbursement to North Temple Project Area —
Lease Payments (1,102,000)
One-time transfer out from North Temple to Housing (1,700,000)
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget (3,338,945) 31,556,034
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses (504,949)
Governmental Immunity (FC 630)
Revenue and Other Sources 3,888,581
New Revenue Options
Revenues from other funds 200,000
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 200,000 4,088,581
Expenses and Other Uses
FY2023 Beginning Balance 3,370,012 9.00
Salary Changes 476,751
Professional Development 48,000
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 9.00 524,751 3,894,763
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses 193,818
Insurance and Risk Fund (FC 620)
Revenue and Other Sources 60,932,137
New Revenue Options
Change in amount from GF 468,171
Change in Amount from Other Funds 3,748,801
Insurance Changes
One-time Health Premiums (3,457,033)
Remove One-Time
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 759,939 65,149,109
Expenses and Other Uses
FY2023 Beginning Balance 63,574,655 7.70
Salary Changes 235,194
Personnel Adjustments 25,015
Remove Transfer out of Fund Balance for Premium Holiday FY2024 (3,457,033)
OTHER FUND KEY CHANGES
Fiscal Year 2025
ISSUE FY2024 Adopted Budget
Full Time Equivalent
Changes from FY2024 Budget
FY2025 Budget
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
77 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Vehicle Purchase 55,000
Fuel 3,500
Insurance Increase 3,212,778
Workers Compensation Change 1,500,000
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 7.70 1,574,454 65,149,109
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses —
OTHER FUND KEY CHANGES
Fiscal Year 2025
ISSUE FY2024 Adopted Budget
Full Time Equivalent
Changes from FY2024 Budget
FY2025 Budget
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
78 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
LBA KEY CHANGES
ISSUE FY2024 Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2024 Budget FY2025 Budget
Local Building Authority (FC660)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY2024 Beginning Balance 1,517,400
Change in Building Lease Revenue (336,600)
Change in Transfers from General Fund (4,675)
Change in Transfer from CIP Impact Fee
Appropriation of Cash —
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget (341,275) 1,176,125
Expenses and Other Uses
FY2024 Beginning Balance 1,517,400
Change in Debt Service (341,275)
Change in Project Costs —
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget (341,275) 1,176,125
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses — —
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
79 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Central Business District
Revenue and Other Sources
Tax Increment 24,644,694 2,621,013 27,265,707
Interest Income — 1,841,006 1,841,006
Prior Year Transition Holding Account — 786,303 786,303
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 24,644,694 5,248,322 29,893,016
Expenses and Other Uses
Taxing Entity Payment 9,621,707 1,572,608 11,194,315
Eccles Debt Service 5,165,109 — 5,165,109
Eccles Debt Service Block 70 RDA Match 3,311,921 — 3,311,921
Transfer to Administration 2,464,469 262,101 2,726,570
TI Reimbursements (Jazz Arena, 222 Main) 1,300,000 — 1,300,000
Property Maintenance & Management 1,000,000 127,250 1,127,250
Gallivan Maintenance 573,975 17,832 591,807
Gallivan Administration 372,775 12,672 385,447
Gallivan Programming 250,000 — 250,000 Parking Ramp Leases (included in Misc Prop Exp) 75,000 (75,000) — Capital Reserves - Strategic Intervention Fund — 2,540,597 2,540,597
PRJ-NEW Capital Project - Gallivan Playground — 500,000 500,000
PRJ-NEW Capital Project - Japantown Art — 300,000 300,000
PRJ-000057 Capital Project - Maintenance & Repairs — 250,000 250,000
PRJ-NEW Capital Project - CBD Public Art — 150,000 150,000
PRJ-NEW Capital Project - Japantown Construction Docs — 100,000 100,000
PRJ-000061 Capital Project - Gallivan Master Planning 509,738 (509,738) —
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 24,644,694 5,248,322 29,893,016
Budgeted revenues and other sources
over/ (under) expenses and other uses — 0
West Capitol Hill
Revenue and Other Sources
Interest Income — 384,332 384,332
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget — 384,332 384,332
Expenses and Other Uses
PRJ-000015 Capital Project - Arctic Court Infill Home Construction — 384,332 384,332
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY KEY CHANGES
FUND FY2024 Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2024 Budget
FY2025
Recommended
Budget
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
80 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget — 384,332 384,332
Budgeted revenues and other sources
over/ (under) expenses and other uses — —
West Temple Gateway
Revenue and Other Sources
Interest Income — — —
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget — — —
Expenses and Other Uses
Transfer to Administration — — —
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget — — —
Budgeted revenues and other sources
over/ (under) expenses and other uses — —
Depot District
Revenue and Other Sources
Tax Increment 5,422,435 770,663 6,193,098
Interest Income — 480,304 480,304
Prior Year Transition Holding Account 1,805,473 (1,383,474) 421,999
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 7,227,908 (132,507) 7,095,401
Expenses and Other Uses
Transfer to Primary Housing Fund 1,084,487 154,133 1,238,620
Transfer to Administration 813,365 115,600 928,965
Property Maintenance & Management 150,000 22,500 172,500
Charges & Services — 50,000 50,000
TI Reimbursement Gateway — — —
Transfer to Secondary Housing 1,000,000 (1,000,000) —
Capital Reserve - Infrastructure Improvements 3,680,056 25,260 3,705,316
Capital Reserve - Commercial Assistance Program 500,000 — 500,000
PRJ-000064 Capital Project - Home Inn Rio Grande Maintenance — 500,000 500,000
and
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 7,227,908 (132,507) 7,095,401
Budgeted revenues and other sources
over/ (under) expenses and other uses — 0
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY KEY CHANGES
FUND FY2024 Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2024 Budget
FY2025
Recommended
Budget
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
81 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Granary District
Revenue and Other Sources
Tax Increment 1,103,309 281,124 1,384,433
Interest Income — 198,730 198,730
Prior Year Transition Holding Account 291,284 (126,198) 165,086
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 1,394,593 353,656 1,748,249
Expenses and Other Uses
Capital Reserve - Commercial Assistance Program 1,003,435 260,262 1,263,697
Transfer to Primary Housing Fund 220,662 56,224 276,886
Transfer to Administration 165,496 42,170 207,666
Property Maintenance & Management 5,000 (5,000) —
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 1,394,593 353,656 1,748,249
Budgeted revenues and other sources
over/ (under) expenses and other uses — 0
North Temple
Revenue and Other Sources
Tax Increment 1,008,715 535,030 1,543,745
Prior Year Transition Holding Account 343,277 (93,385) 249,892
Interest Income — 158,829 158,829
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 1,351,992 600,474 1,952,466
Expenses and Other Uses
Transfer to Primary Housing Fund 201,743 107,006 308,749
Transfer to Administration 100,872 130,689 231,561
Charges & Services — 50,000 50,000
Property Maintenance & Management — 50,000 50,000
Capital Reserve - Strategic Intervention 285,490 576,322 861,812
PRJ-NEW Capital Project - NT Property Reuse Planning — 300,000 300,000
PRJ-000086 Capital Project - School Construction Fund 70,610 29,734 100,344
PRJ-000022 Capital Project - City Creek Daylighting 50,000 — 50,000
Capital Reserve - Commercial Assistance Program 543,277 (543,277) —
Capital Reserve - Infrastructure Improvements 100,000 (100,000) —
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 1,351,992 600,474 1,952,466
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY KEY CHANGES
FUND FY2024 Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2024 Budget
FY2025
Recommended
Budget
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
82 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Budgeted revenues and other sources
over/ (under) expenses and other uses — 0
Block 70
Revenue and Other Sources
Transfer From CBD Taxing Entity Payments 5,165,109 — 5,165,109
Transfer From CBD Eccles Debt Service RDA match 3,311,921 — 3,311,921
Tax Increment 1,829,228 304,764 2,133,992
Reserve for Eccles Debt 747,501 (293,359) 454,142
Interest Income — — —
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 11,053,759 11,405 11,065,164
Expenses and Other Uses
Regent Street Bond Debt Service 8,071,024 (1,495) 8,069,529
Eccles Theater Debt Service 1,528,967 46,172 1,575,139
Taxing Entity Payments 548,768 11,405 560,173
Regent Street Maintenance 80,000 — 80,000
PRJ-000083 Capital Reserve - Eccles Theater Ancillary Spaces Ops 475,000 — 475,000
PRJ-000082 Capital Reserve - Eccles Fundraising Fulfillment 125,000 — 125,000
PRJ-000084 Capital Reserve - Regent Street Parking Structure 100,000 — 100,000
PRJ-NEW Capital Project - Reinstallation of "The Gulls" — 55,323 55,323
PRJ-000085 Capital Reserve - Regent Street Event Programming 25,000 — 25,000
PRJ-000022 Capital Project - Bennion Jewelers Relocation 100,000 (100,000) —
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 11,053,759 11,405 11,065,164
Budgeted revenues and other sources
over/ (under) expenses and other uses — —
\North Temple Viaduct
Revenue and Other Sources
Tax Increment 2,774,419 345,371 3,119,790
Interest Income — 35,975 35,975
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 2,774,419 381,346 3,155,765
Expenses and Other Uses
Debt Service Payment to Salt Lake City 2,732,803 376,166 3,108,969
Transfer to Admin 41,616 5,180 46,796
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY KEY CHANGES
FUND FY2024 Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2024 Budget
FY2025
Recommended
Budget
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
83 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 2,774,419 381,346 3,155,765
Budgeted revenues and other sources
over/ (under) expenses and other uses — —
Northwest Quadrant
Revenue and Other Sources
Tax Increment 1,398,548 1,101,561 2,500,109
Interest Income — 103,889 103,889
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 1,398,548 1,205,450 2,603,998
Expenses and Other Uses
TI Reimbursement NWQ Phase I 978,984 771,092 1,750,076
Transfer to Admin 139,855 110,156 250,011
Transfer to Primary Housing 139,855 110,156 250,011
PRJ-000087 Capital Reserve - NWQ Shared Costs 139,854 214,046 353,900
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 1,398,548 1,205,450 2,603,998
Budgeted revenues and other sources
over/ (under) expenses and other uses — —
Stadler Rail
Revenue and Other Sources
Tax Increment 141,297 19,854 161,151
Interest Income — 7,593 7,593
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 141,297 27,447 168,744
Expenses and Other Uses
TI Reimbursement 120,102 24,469 144,571
Transfer to Primary Housing 14,130 1,985 16,115
Transfer to Admin 7,065 993 8,058
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 141,297 27,447 168,744
Budgeted revenues and other sources
over/ (under) expenses and other uses — 0
State Street
Revenue and Other Sources
Tax Increment 4,423,811 1,445,048 5,868,859
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY KEY CHANGES
FUND FY2024 Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2024 Budget
FY2025
Recommended
Budget
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
84 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Prior Year Transition Holding Account 1,364,709 (715,732) 648,977
Interest Income — — —
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 5,788,520 729,316 6,517,836
Expenses and Other Uses
Transfer to Secondary Housing — 1,000,000 1,000,000
Transfer to Admin 442,381 43,379 485,760
Taxing Entity Payments — 341,296 341,296
Transfer to Primary Housing 182,405 129,237 311,642
Transfer to Primary Housing - SLCSD HSG 259,976 15,268 275,244
Charges & Services — 50,000 50,000
Property Maintenance & Management — 50,000 50,000
Capital Reserve - Strategic Intervention 3,364,709 639,185 4,003,894
Capital Reserve - Commercial Assistance Programs 1,239,049 (1,239,049) —
PRJ-000051 Capital Project - Ballpark Next Planning 300,000 (300,000) —
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 5,788,520 729,316 6,517,836
Budgeted revenues and other sources
over/ (under) expenses and other uses — 0
9 Line
Revenue and Other Sources
Tax Increment 2,653,781 376,934 3,030,715
Prior Year Transition Holding Account 802,208 (525,705) 276,503
Interest Income — — —
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 3,455,989 (148,771) 3,307,218
Expenses and Other Uses
Taxing Entity Payments (SLCo.) 295,882 50,086 345,968
Transfer to Admin (City & SLCSD only) 253,543 10,363 263,906
Transfer to Primary Housing 144,592 16,342 160,934
Transfer to Primary Housing - SLCSD HSG 120,786 21,352 142,138
Charges & Services — 50,000 50,000
Property Maintenance & Management — 50,000 50,000
County Administration (now included in Taxing Entity Payments) 35,506 (35,506) —
Capital Reserve - Strategic Intervention 500,000 1,494,272 1,994,272
PRJ-New Capital Project - 9-Line Public Art 150,000 150,000 300,000
Capital Reserve - Commercial Assistance Programs 500,000 (500,000) —
Capital Program - Accessory Dwelling Units 1,455,680 (1,455,680) —
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY KEY CHANGES
FUND FY2024 Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2024 Budget
FY2025
Recommended
Budget
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
85 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 3,455,989 (148,771) 3,307,218
Budgeted revenues and other sources
over/ (under) expenses and other uses — —
Block 67 North CRA
Revenue and Other Sources
Tax Increment — 365,771 365,771
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget — 365,771 365,771
Expenses and Other UsesOperational ExpensesTI Reimbursements — 274,329 274,329
Transfer to Primary Housing — 36,577 36,577
Transfer to Admin — 18,288 18,288
PRJ-New Capital Reserves Project - Japantown Art — 36,577 36,577
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget — 365,771 365,771
Budgeted revenues and other sources
over/ (under) expenses and other uses — —
Revolving Loan Fund
Revenue and Other Sources
Principal Payments 196,750 55,250 252,000
Interest on Loans 30,000 50,400 80,400
Interest on Investment — — —
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 226,750 105,650 332,400
Expenses and Other Uses
Additional Funds Available to Lend 226,750 105,650 332,400
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 226,750 105,650 332,400
Budgeted revenues and other sources
over/ (under) expenses and other uses — —
Program Income Fund
Revenue and Other Sources
Parking Structure Income 1,242,336 47,848 1,290,184
Rents 161,264 68,185 229,449
Loan Repayments 38,640 (5,040) 33,600
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY KEY CHANGES
FUND FY2024 Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2024 Budget
FY2025
Recommended
Budget
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
86 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Interest on Loans 7,452 (1,452) 6,000
Interest Income — — —
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 1,449,692 109,541 1,559,233
Expenses and Other Uses
Charges & Services 330,000 127,500 457,500
Operating & Maintenance 330,000 33,000 363,000
Marketing and Sales (now included in O & M) 25,000 (25,000) —
PRJ-000078 Capital Reserve - Sugarhouse DI Demolition 550,000 (50,000) 500,000
PRJ-000057 Capital Reserve - Gallivan Maintenance & Repairs 214,692 24,041 238,733
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 1,449,692 109,541 1,559,233
Budgeted revenues and other sources
over/ (under) expenses and other uses — —
Secondary Housing Fund
Revenue and Other Sources
Transfer In from State Street — 1,000,000 1,000,000
Transfer from Depot District 1,000,000 (1,000,000) 0
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 1,000,000 — 1,000,000
Expenses and Other Uses
Capital Reserve - Competitive Housing Development (CHD) Loan Pool — 1,000,000 1,000,000
Capital Reserve - Partnership with SLCo. Sunday-Andersron Senior Center Housing Project [One-time] 1,000,000 (1,000,000) 0
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 1,000,000 — 1,000,000
Budgeted revenues and other sources
over/ (under) expenses and other uses — 0
9245 Primary Housing Dev/Loan Fund
Revenue and Other Sources
Loan Payments - Interest 2,379 3,441 5,820
Loan Payments - Principal 23,567 48,433 72,000
Transfer In from 9-Line 265,378 37,694 303,072
Transfer In from Block 67 North — 36,577 36,577
Transfer In from Block 70 — — —
Transfer In from Central Business District — — —
Transfer In from Depot District 1,084,487 154,133 1,238,620
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY KEY CHANGES
FUND FY2024 Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2024 Budget
FY2025
Recommended
Budget
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
87 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Transfer In from Granary District 220,662 56,224 276,886
Transfer In from North Temple 201,743 107,006 308,749
Transfer In from Northwest Quadrant 139,855 110,156 250,011
Transfer In from Stadler Rail 14,130 1,985 16,115
Transfer In from State Street 442,381 144,505 586,886
Transition Holding Account — 507,505 507,505
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 2,394,582 1,207,659 3,602,241
Expenses and Other Uses
Capital Reserves Programs & Projects
Capital Reserves Program: HDLP - Competitive - {Holding Account}- 1,000,000 1,684,859 2,684,859
Capital Reserves Program: School District Required Family & Workforce Housing - {Holding Account}- 380,762 36,620 417,382
Captial Reserves Project - Housing Construction & Rehabilitation Program - {PRJ-000015 RDA - Arctic Court Infill Home Construction} -
— 500,000 500,000
Captial Reserves Project - Other Housing Program - {PRJ-000088 Sunday-Anderson Senior Center - SLCO Partnership} - 1,013,820 (1,013,820) —
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 2,394,582 1,207,659 3,602,241
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses — —
9248 Westside Community Initative
Revenue and Other Sources
Inland Port Housing 1,401,589 433,880 1,835,469
Transition Holding Account 433,880 (433,880) —
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 1,835,469 — 1,835,469
Expenses and Other Uses
Capital Reserves Programs & Projects
Capital Reserves Program: Strategic Intervention - {Holding Account}- — 1,000,000 1,000,000
Capital Reserves Program: Wealth Building Housing Opportunities - {Holding Account}- 1,135,469 (300,000) 835,469
Captial Reserves Project - Wealth Building Housing Opportunities Program - {PRJ-000089 Neighborworks for Shared Equity Workforce} -
700,000 (700,000) —
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY KEY CHANGES
FUND FY2024 Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2024 Budget
FY2025
Recommended
Budget
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
88 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 1,835,469 — 1,835,469
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses — —
9236 Housing Development Fund
Revenue and Other Sources — — —
Funding Our Future 1,840,000 750,000 2,590,000
Interest from Investments — — —
Loan Payments - Interest 76,563 31,437 108,000
Loan Payments - Principal 144,390 59,610 204,000
Transfer In from North Temple Viaduct 1,700,000 (1,700,000) —
Transfer In HOME Dormant Program Income Funds 6,476,014 (6,476,014) —
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 10,236,967 (7,334,967) 2,902,000
Expenses and Other Uses
Capital Reserves Programs & Projects
Capital Reserves Program: Accessory Dwelling Unit Program - {Holding Account}- 1,000,000 (1,000,000) —
Capital Reserves Program: HDLP - Competitive - {Holding Account}- 7,836,967 (6,934,967) 902,000
Capital Reserves Program: Wealth Building Housing Opportunities - {Holding Account}- — 2,000,000 2,000,000
Captial Reserves Project - Wealth Building Housing Opportunities Program - {PRJ-000089 Neighborworks for Shared Equity Workforce} -
1,400,000 (1,400,000) —
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 10,236,967 (7,334,967) 2,902,000
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses 0 —
9201 Redevelopment Agency Operations
Revenue and Other Sources
Transfer In from 9-Line 253,543 10,363 263,906
Transfer In from Block 67 North — 18,288 18,288
Transfer In from Block 70 — — —
Transfer In from Central Business District 2,464,469 262,101 2,726,570
Transfer In from Depot District 813,365 115,600 928,965
Transfer In from Granary District 165,496 42,170 207,666
Transfer In from North Temple 100,872 130,689 231,561
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY KEY CHANGES
FUND FY2024 Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2024 Budget
FY2025
Recommended
Budget
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
89 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Transfer In from North Temple Viaduct 41,616 5,180 46,796
Transfer In from Northwest Quadrant 139,855 110,156 250,011
Transfer In from Stadler Rail 7,065 993 8,058
Transfer In from State Street 442,381 43,379 485,760
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 4,428,662 738,919 5,167,581
Expenses and Other Uses
Operations Programs 35.00
RDA Personnel 2,756,779 413,517 3,170,296
Administrative Fees 1,000,000 — 1,000,000
Charges & Services 296,883 153,117 450,000
Operating & Maintenance 375,000 75,000 450,000
Allocation to Fund Balance — 97,285 97,285
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 4,428,662 35.00 641,634 5,167,581
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses — —
GRAND TOTALS
TOTAL Revenue 80,803,841 84,656,884
TOTAL Expense 80,803,841 84,656,884
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY KEY CHANGES
FUND FY2024 Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2024 Budget
FY2025
Recommended
Budget
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
90 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
MULTI-AGENCY DRUG TASK FORCE KEY CHANGES
ISSUE FY2024 Adopted Budget Full Time Equivalent Changes from FY2024 Budget FY2025 Budget
Multi-Agency Drug Task Force (FC901)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY2024 Beginning Balance 1,397,355
Remove FY2024 Funding (1,397,335)
Appropriation of Cash Balance from Forfeiture 36,852
Appropriation of Cash Balance from Restitution 1,037,361
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget (323,122) 1,074,233
Expenses and Other Uses
FY2024 Beginning Balance 1,397,355
Remove FY2023 Expense (1,397,355)
Change in Operating Expense (1,074,233)
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget (323,102) 1,074,253
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses 0
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Recommended Budget
91 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
This page intentionally left blank
Financial
Policies
This page intentionally left blank
Debt Policies
The City's debt policy is defined by State statute with the goal of maintaining the
City's “Aaa/AAA” general obligation bond ratings, as rated by Moody's and Fitch
respectively, or other rating agencies. Accordingly, the City will continually monitor
all outstanding debt issues, as well as trends in key economic, demographic and
financial data, including a periodic review of important debt ratios and debt
indicators. The City will make all debt service payments in a timely and accurate
manner. The City will fully comply with all IRS arbitrage rebate requirements and
the bonds’ post issuance compliance regulations. In the preparation of official
statements or other bond related documents, the City will follow a policy of full and
complete disclosure of its financial and legal conditions.
The City's practice is to also adhere to the following guidelines:
1.State law limits general obligation bonded debt use for general
purposes to 4 percent of the adjusted fair market value of the City's
taxable property.
2.State law also limits general obligation bonded debt for water, sewer
and lighting purposes to 4 percent of the adjusted fair market value of
the property plus any unused portion of the amount available for
general purposes.
3.The City combines a pay-as-you-go strategy with long-term financing to
keep the debt burden sufficiently low to merit the “Aaa/AAA” general
obligation bond ratings and to provide sufficient available debt capacity
in an emergency.
4.The City limits debt to projects that cannot be reasonably funded in a
single year and to terms that are consistent with the useful life of the
project being undertaken.
5.The City seeks the least costly financing available. All debt commitments
are reviewed centrally by the City Treasurer who looks for opportunities
to combine issues or for alternative methods that will achieve the lowest
possible interest rates and other borrowing costs.
6.The City will continually analyze whether it would be advantageous to
refund bond issues based on market and budgetary conditions.
7.The City will issue Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes only for the
purpose of meeting short-term cash flow liquidity needs. In order to
exempt the notes from arbitrage rebate, the sizing of the notes and the
timing of cash flows will meet the “safe harbor” provisions of Federal
Tax Code.
8.The City will invest bond and note proceeds as well as all funds that are
pledged or dedicated to the payment of debt service on those bonds or
notes either in accordance with the terms of the borrowing instruments,
or if silent or less restrictive, then according to the terms and conditions
Salt Lake City Financial Policies
95 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
of the Utah State Money Management Act and Rules of the State Money
Management Council.
9.The City will maintain outstanding debt at a level such that revenues are
equal to or greater than 200% of the maximum annual debt service.
10.The City currently has $136,340,000 of outstanding general obligation
debt. This is well below the 4 percent (of fair market value) statutory
limits, which places the City’s general obligation borrowing limit at
$2,461,971,515. The City currently does not use general obligation debt
for water, sewer or lighting purposes. However, the full 8% may be used
for water, sewer and electric purposes but if it is so used, then no general
obligation bonds may be issued in excess of 8% for any purpose.
Legal Debt Margin:General Purposes
4%
Water, sewer, and
lighting
4%
Total
8%
General Obligation
Debt Limit $ 2,461,971,515 $ 2,461,971,515 $ 4,923,943,031
Less Outstanding
General Obligation
Bonds
$ (136,340,000) $ — $ (136,340,000)
Legal Debt Margin $ 2,325,631,515 $ 2,461,971,515 $ 4,787,603,031
2022 Fair market value of property -- $61,549,287,882
Source: Utah State Property Tax Division
SIGNIFICANT FUTURE DEBT PLANS Lease Revenue
Bonds, Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds
The City administration continuously evaluates the City’s funding of its Capital
Improvement Program, and proceeds of sales and excise tax revenue bonds will
be considered as one of the sources for funding the City’s capital infrastructure.
Currently, the City has no short-term plans to issue lease revenue bonds nor sales
and excise tax revenue bonds.
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AREA (SAA)
The City has no short-term plans to issue assessment area bonds.
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
Currently, the City has no plans to hold a special bond election.
Salt Lake City Financial Policies
96 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
MAJOR PROGRAMS AND FUTURE
DEBT CONSIDERATIONS
The City plans to issue an RFP for an interim credit facility not to exceed $300
million in calendar year 2024 related to the $5.13 billion “New SLC” formerly known
as the Airport Redevelopment Program. The interim credit facility is planned to be
refunded with a future general airport revenue bond issuance in the subsequent
year. The program is currently expected to be completed by 2026.
Public Utilities revenue bonds of up to $204 million are expected to be issued in
FY2025 to fund the Department of Public Utilities capital improvement program. A
major focus of the Department’s budget is the rehabilitation and replacement of
aging infrastructure. The largest planned projects are the continued work on the
new water reclamation facility to meet regulatory requirements, capital
construction and improvements to three water treatment plants, improvements
for storage reservoirs, phased construction of a new water conveyance line to
expand service and provide redundancy, and water, sewer, and storm water utility
infrastructure work. The Department will also be utilizing proceeds from a
$348,635,000 Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) loan secured
to finance the construction of the water reclamation facility. The loan will be
drawn through 2026. The current outlook includes issuance of approximately $254
million in Public Utilities revenue bonds from FY 2026 through FY 2029 to fund
planned capital construction.
Salt Lake City Financial Policies
97 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
DEBT STRUCTURE
Salt Lake City Outstanding Debt Issues
(RDA bond information has been excluded from this list)
(as of June 30, 2024)
Amount of Final Principal
Original Issue Maturity Date Outstanding
GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT
Series 2010B (Public Safety Facilities)$ 100,000,000 6/15/2031 $ 39,915,000
Series 2013A (Refunded a portion of Series 2004A) 6,395,000 6/15/2024 —
Series 2015A (Refund 2013B Sports Complex) 14,615,000 6/15/2028 4,655,000
Series 2017B (Refund Portion of 2010A) 12,920,000 6/15/2030 8,410,000
Series 2019 (Streets) (Refund Series 2017A) 22,840,000 6/15/2039 13,475,000
Series 2020 (Streets) 17,745,000 6/15/2040 11,700,000
Series 2021 (Streets) 20,660,000 6/15/2041 15,620,000
Series 2022 (Streets) 21,785,000 6/15/2042 18,715,000
Series 2023 (Parks, Trails & Open Space) 24,765,000 6/15/2043 23,850,000
TOTAL:$ 136,340,000
PUBLIC UTILITIES REVENUE BONDS
Series 2009 (Taxable) 6,300,000 2/1/2031 2,205,000
Series 2010 Revenue Bonds 12,000,000 2/1/2031 4,760,000
Series 2011 Revenue Bonds 8,000,000 2/1/2027 1,705,000
Series 2012 Improvement and Refunding '04 Bonds 28,565,000 2/1/2027 1,745,000
Series 2017 Public Utilities Revenue and Refunding (2008) 72,185,000 2/1/2037 54,445,000
Series 2020 Revenue Bonds 157,390,000 2/1/2050 157,390,000
Series 2020B Improvement Bonds (WIFIA loan) Revenue Bonds 348,635,000 8/1/2058 13,112,998.85
Series 2022 Revenue Bonds 329,025,000 2/1/2052 329,025,000
TOTAL:$ 564,387,998.85
SALES AND EXCISE TAX REVENUE BONDS
Series 2014B (CIP Projects) 10,935,000 10/1/2034 6,945,000
Series 2016A (Refund 2009A) 21,715,000 10/1/2028 11,755,000
Series 2019A (Refund 2007A) 2,620,000 4/1/2027 975,000
Series 2019B (Refund 2013A) (Federally Taxable) 58,540,000 4/1/2038 56,300,000
Series 2021 (Refund 2013B, LBA 2013A & 2014A) 15,045,000 10/1/2034 14,305,000
Series 2022A (Refunding 2012A) 8,900,000 10/1/2032 7,705,000
Series 2022 B 40,015,000 10/1/2042 40,015,000
Series 2022 C (Federally Taxable) 24,240,000 10/1/2032 22,315,000
TOTAL:$ 160,315,000
LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY LEASE REVENUE BONDS
Series 2016A (Fire Station #14) 6,755,000 4/15/2037 4,940,000
Series 2017A (Fire Station #3) 8,115,000 4/15/2038 6,630,000
TOTAL:$ 11,570,000
AIRPORT REVENUE BONDS
Series 2017A 826,210,000 7/1/2047 808,925,000
Series 2017B 173,790,000 7/1/2047 169,590,000
Series 2018A 753,855,000 7/1/2048 729,855,000
Series 2018B $ 96,695,000 7/1/2048 $ 96,695,000
Series 2021A 776,925,000 7/1/2051 773,900,000
Series 2021B 127,645,000 7/1/2051 127,280,000
Series 2023 600,000,000 7/1/2053 600,000,000
TOTAL:$ 3,306,245,000
Salt Lake City Financial Policies
98 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
FY 2024-25 Revenue
This section includes a general discussion of Salt Lake City's major revenue
sources. The City has eight major funds: General Fund, Golf Fund, Refuse Fund,
Water Fund, Sewer Fund, Storm Water Fund, Street Lighting Fund, Airport Fund,
and the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) Fund. These funds and their major revenue
sources are discussed below.
REVENUE POLICIES
1.The City projects its annual revenue through analytical processes and adopts
its budget using conservative estimates and long-term forecasting.
2.The City minimizes using one-time revenue to fund programs incurring
ongoing costs.
3.Once taxes and fees are assessed, the City aggressively collects all revenues
due.
4.The City pursues abatement programs and other ways to reduce the effect of
taxes and fees on those least able to pay.
5.To the extent that the City’s revenue base is insufficient to fund current
services, the City will explore all potential options to reduce the cost of
government services; examine the effect of reducing the level of government
services; and finally, consider new user fees or increases in existing fees.
Should these three alternatives fail to offer a suitable solution, the City may
increase tax rates as a last resort.
6.The City reviews the budget for those programs that user fees can
reasonably fund. This review results in a policy that defines cost, specifies a
percentage of the cost to be offset by a fee, and establishes a rationale for
the percentage. When establishing these programs, the City considers the
following:
a.Market pricing;
b.Increased costs associated with rate changes;
c.The ability of users to pay;
d.The ability of individuals to make choices between using the service
and paying the fee or not using the service;
e.Other policy considerations. (For example, setting fines high enough to
serve as a deterrent; or pricing fees to even out demand for services.)
7.The City adjusts user fee rates annually based on an analysis of the criteria
established in policy six above. The City pursues frequent small increases as
opposed to infrequent large increases.
8.The City considers revenue initiatives consistent with the following:
a.Finding alternatives that address service demands created by the City's
large daytime population;
b.Finding alternatives that allocate an equitable portion of service costs
to tax-exempt institutions;
Salt Lake City Financial Policies
99 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
c.Finding alternatives to formulas that use residential population to
distribute key revenues such as sales tax and gasoline tax; and
d.Pursuing opportunities for citizen volunteerism and public/private
partnerships.
FORECASTING METHODOLOGY
Salt Lake City revenue forecasts are compiled using historical, time-series, trend,
and simulation models. These models focus primarily on past experiences and
trends, but modifications are made based on simulations reflecting anticipated
economic activities and proposed initiatives. The projected revenues using these
models are based upon anticipated economic growth, anticipated fee or tax
increases, as well as any new initiatives being proposed.
The City has several financial analysts that regularly track and report on revenue
collections and projections. Projections are monitored for precision, and revisions
are made throughout the year. This information is used to help forecast the
upcoming year’s revenue.
As part of the City’s modeling efforts, year-to-date cumulative revenue collections
are monitored and compared to previous years to identify changes in revenue
streams that may indicate areas of concern.
GENERAL FUND
The General Fund is the principal fund of the City and is used to account for
resources traditionally associated with governments that are not required to be
accounted for in another fund. The General Fund accounts for the normal activities
of the City, such as Police, Fire, Public Works, Parks and Community Development.
These activities are funded through taxes, fees, fines, and charges for services.
The majority of the City’s General Fund revenue comes from three sources - sales
taxes $177,400,679 (37.33%), property taxes $116,996,349 (24.62%), and licenses
and permits $38,989,245 (8.2%). These sources are impacted by local and national
economic trends and activities. Major increases or decreases in any one of these
three taxes can have a significant impact on City operations.
SALES TAX
Sales tax revenue is a principal source of Salt Lake City's General Fund revenue,
providing 37.33% of total projected revenue in FY 24-25. Sales tax revenue is
projected to increase in FY 24-25 as a result of healthy retail spending and an
increase in accommodations and food services spending. Sales tax revenue is
forecast using time series and trend analysis in conjunction with various modeling
scenarios which anticipate economic events that may impact the City. The forecast
Salt Lake City Financial Policies
100 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
includes comparing the State of Utah’s projections with the City’s projections to
determine if the City’s projections are reasonable.
PROPERTY TAX
Property tax revenue is a significant source of Salt Lake City’s General Fund
revenue, providing 24.62% of total projected revenue in FY 24-25. Property tax
revenue is projected to increase slightly in FY 24-25.
Salt Lake County calculates the Certified Tax Rate and expected revenue for each
taxing entity. State Tax Code requires taxing entities to adopt the county’s property
tax revenue forecast as their own unless they go through the truth-in-taxation
process and raise the rate above the certified rate.
LICENSES AND PERMITS
License and Permit revenue is another major source of General Fund revenue,
comprising 8.2% of projected General Fund revenue in FY 24-25. This revenue is
forecast using time series and trend analysis, as well as input from business and
construction representatives. License revenue includes various business taxes,
such as airport parking and transient room taxes, that are projected to increase
over the previous year. Permit revenue is expected to decrease in FY 24-25 due to
the slow trend of construction activity in the City.
OTHER GENERAL FUND REVENUE
The remaining General Fund revenues make up 30.16% of the total and are
comprised of the following:
a.Franchise Taxes
b.Intergovernmental Revenue
c.Charges, Fees, and Rentals
d.Fines
e.Parking Meter Collections
f.Interest Income
g.Miscellaneous Revenue, Transfers and Interfund Reimbursements.
Salt Lake City Financial Policies
101 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
The following table summarizes total General Fund Revenue by major category.
GENERAL FUND REVENUE SUMMARY
ActualFY18-19 ActualFY19-20 ActualFY20-21 ActualFY21-22 ActualFY22-23 BudgetFY23-24 Budget FY24-25
Property Taxes 94,654,243 99,342,715 99,474,985 103,862,288 113,256,864 114,514,375 116,996,349
Sales and Use Taxes 99,599,360 116,199,002 122,654,953 160,262,167 172,197,395 166,213,479 177,400,679
Franchise Taxes 27,042,921 26,863,146 23,952,168 11,750,309 12,756,596 12,348,127 14,450,000
Licenses and Permits 36,960,240 32,637,293 36,428,067 43,313,623 43,946,412 40,878,104 38,989,245
Intergovernmental Revenue 6,006,496 5,086,254 4,781,753 5,960,591 5,936,546 5,134,621 5,954,017
Charges, Fees, and Rentals 5,573,679 4,283,760 4,842,902 5,840,601 5,811,594 4,881,922 6,886,113
Fines 5,140,777 3,753,706 3,539,471 3,717,871 3,519,427 4,063,548 4,435,035
Parking Meter Collections 3,509,898 2,771,331 1,915,888 2,997,333 2,616,322 2,801,089 2,701,331
Interest Income 3,904,270 2,910,778 821,887 1,346,160 12,352,554 8,000,000 8,000,000
Miscellaneous Revenue 5,256,974 4,521,107 2,834,061 7,871,697 4,680,506 3,502,359 3,298,277
Interfund Reimbursement 16,363,850 20,574,064 20,971,348 21,717,361 25,857,508 26,131,213 32,128,467
General Fund Revenue 304,012,708 318,943,156 322,217,484 368,640,001 402,931,724 402,931,724 411,239,513
Other Financing Sources:
Transfers 7,564,418 6,800,493 8,447,676 19,920,935 51,822,650 9,938,944 5,495,833
Proceeds from Sale of Property — — — 25,554 10,300
Revenue and Financing Sources 311,577,126 325,743,648 330,665,160 388,560,936 454,779,928 398,407,781 416,745,646
Property Tax for RDA*10,284,464 13,245,339 14,020,140 15,456,918 15,445,980 15,545,000 19,220,752
Available Fund Balance/Cash Reserves 380,025 1,510,094 4,885,620 25,527,005 25,135,631 30,552,142 39,278,680
Total General Fund 322,241,615 340,499,081 349,570,920 429,544,859 495,361,539 444,504,923 475,245,078
Salt Lake City Financial Policies
102 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Period Ending
$
(
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
)
GENERAL FUND REVENUE SOURCES
Available Fund Balance/Cash Reserves Property Tax for RDA*
Proceeds from Sale of Property Transfers
Interfund Reimbursement Miscellaneous Revenue
Interest Income Parking Meter Collections
Fines Charges, Fees, and Rentals
Intergovernmental Revenue Licenses and Permits
Franchise Taxes Sales and Use Taxes
Property Taxes
Act
u
a
l
FY1
8
-
1
9
Act
u
a
l
FY1
9
-
2
0
Act
u
a
l
FY2
0
-
2
1
Act
u
a
l
FY2
1
-
2
2
Act
u
a
l
FY2
2
-
2
3
Bu
d
g
e
t
FY2
3
-
2
4
Bu
d
g
e
t
F
Y
2
4
-
2
5
0
50,000,000
100,000,000
150,000,000
200,000,000
250,000,000
300,000,000
350,000,000
400,000,000
450,000,000
500,000,000
Salt Lake City Financial Policies
103 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
GOLF ENTERPRISE FUND
The Golf Enterprise Fund accounts for the operations at six public golf course
locations; Bonneville, Forest Dale, Glendale, Mountain Dell, Nibley Park, and
Rose Park.
The City’s golf courses are operated as an enterprise fund where revenue
collected at the golf course through user fees supports operational and
maintenance expenses, capital improvement costs, and any debt that the golf
courses may incur.
Revenue in this fund is generated by user fees, including green fees, CIP $2 fees,
cart rental fees, range ball fees, merchandise purchases, lessons, concessionaire
rental fees, etc. Revenue is projected based on historical patterns and forecasts of
trends in the local market area.
The FY 24-25 Golf Fund budget for revenue and expense follows closely with 5-year
historical averages and recent demand for golf rounds and merchandise. In
addition, strategic price increases are being implemented that will have an impact
on revenues for FY 24-25. Driving Range revenue increases will coincide with new
range building for winter use at Glendale.
Salt Lake City Financial Policies
104 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
GOLF FUND REVENUE SUMMARY
ActualFY 18-19 ActualFY 19-20 ActualFY 20-21 ActualFY 21-22 ActualFY 22-23 BudgetFY 23-24 Budget FY 24-25
Golf Revenue
Green Fees 3,569,078 4,259,235 5,525,522 5,495,684 5,459,247 5,033,052 5,664,288
Golf Car Rental 1,461,066 1,471,019 2,225,396 1,982,077 2,158,346 2,258,224 2,239,296
Driving Range Fees 322,722 223,848 472,678 460,253 486,405 652,620 734,036
Retail Merchandise Sales 781,478 646,749 827,626 981,853 1,062,790 1,024,000 1,060,700
CIP Fee on rounds, passes 298,724 324,383 395,791 568,048 763,447 724,427 763,330
Miscellaneous 1,038,407 1,417,090 2,235,387 2,807,165 3,625,855 3,017,744 3,157,166
Total Golf Fund 7,471,475 8,342,324 11,682,400 12,295,080 13,556,090 12,710,067 13,618,816
Period Ending
$
(
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
)
GOLF FUND REVENUE SUMMARY
Miscellaneous
CIP Fee on rounds, passes
Retail Merchandise Sales
Driving Range Fees
Golf Car Rental
Green Fees
Act
u
a
l
FY
1
8
-
1
9
Act
u
a
l
FY
1
9
-
2
0
Act
u
a
l
FY
2
0
-
2
1
Act
u
a
l
FY
2
1
-
2
2
Act
u
a
l
FY
2
2
-
2
3
Bu
d
g
e
t
FY
2
3
-
2
4
Bu
d
g
e
t
F
Y
2
4
-
2
5
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
Salt Lake City Financial Policies
105 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
REFUSE ENTERPRISE FUND
The Refuse Enterprise Fund Class consists of two funds:
•Operations Fund
•Environmental & Energy Fund
Revenue for the Operations Fund comes from refuse collection fees, inter-fund
reimbursements, and miscellaneous revenue. City households that receive these
services include most single-family, duplex, and triplex homes. They are charged
refuse collection fees based on the size of their refuse can(s). These fees are
calculated to recover the fund’s operational costs when combined with the other
sources of revenue described above. The Operations Fund revenue is forecasted
based on known factors such as the number of refuse cans in service, along with
scheduled events such as equipment replacement and changes in contractual
agreements.
Voluntary residential curbside glass recycling service, introduced in FY 2012-13,
continues to be offered. Those using this service are charged a separate
monthly fee.
The Environmental & Energy (E&E) Fund receives an owner’s distribution from the
Landfill (Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Facility / SLVSWMF) on an
ongoing basis. This is the primary source of revenue for this fund. As the Landfill
garbage tonnage has decreased in recent years, so has the related dividend to its
partners. Revenues from recycling proceeds have been another source of revenue
in the past for this fund. Recycling proceeds have not been budgeted in FY 2024-25
due to the volatility of global recycling markets. Current, ongoing initiatives and
operational expenses are partially funded by landfill revenue and E&E cash
balance. Beginning in FY 2021-22, the E&E Division also began receiving revenue
from the General Fund. This amount has increased each year with the goal of fully
supporting the E&E Division through the General Fund in FY 2025-26.
In prior years, E&E Fund projects have been funded by one-time distributions from
the landfill. A distribution of $5,500,000 was put into the E&E Division in FY 2010-11
and funded projects on air quality, energy efficiency, sustainable food, and other
projects. In FY 2016-17, $1,500,000 of landfill distribution funds were transferred
from the Waste & Recycling Operations Division to the E&E Division to continue to
fund projects. In FY 2017-18, another one-time landfill distribution of $1,200,000
was received. No other one-time funding distributions from the landfill are
expected.
Salt Lake City Financial Policies
106 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Refuse Fund Revenue Summary
ActualFY18-19 ActualFY19-20 ActualFY20-21 ActualFY21-22 ActualFY22-23 BudgetFY23-24 Budget FY24-25
Refuse Revenue
Landfill / SLVSWMF Dividends 681,152 557,041 558,398 449,013 468,335 450,000 480,000
Refuse Collection Fees 11,397,708 11,223,400 11,209,725 12,580,305 14,445,610 15,809,733 17,448,349
Interfund Reimb. & Misc 1,766,089 1,235,243 639,909 1,711,293 2,877,789 2,210,726 2,087,477
Total Refuse Fund 13,844,949 13,015,684 12,408,032 14,740,611 17,791,734 18,470,459 20,015,826
Period Ending
$
(
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
)
REFUSE FUND REVENUE
Interfund Reimb & Misc
Refuse Collection Fees
Landfill / SLVSWMF Dividends
Act
u
a
l
FY1
8
-
1
9
Act
u
a
l
FY1
9
-
2
0
Act
u
a
l
FY2
0
-
2
1
Act
u
a
l
FY2
1
-
2
2
Act
u
a
l
FY2
2
-
2
3
Bud
g
e
t
FY2
3
-
2
4
Bud
g
e
t
F
Y
2
4
-
2
5
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
16,000,000
18,000,000
20,000,000
22,000,000
Salt Lake City Financial Policies
107 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
WATER UTILITY FUND
The Water Utility Fund operates as an enterprise fund. The Water Utility exists to
provide treated water to current city residents, maintain the City’s water
infrastructure, and to engage in conservation activities related to the City’s water
supply for future generations. The service area of the fund covers a total of 141
square miles and includes more than 360,000 residents. The service area includes
the geographic area within the Salt Lake City boundaries, as well as the east bench
of the Salt Lake Valley outside Salt Lake City boundaries, including to portions of
the cities of Millcreek, Holladay, Cottonwood Heights, South Salt Lake, Murray, and
Midvale. The Water Utility also has jurisdictional responsibilities to protect about
190 square miles of source water area in the headwaters of the Wasatch
Mountains. The Water Utility provides administrative utility billing services for the
Sewer Utility, the Stormwater Utility, the Street Lighting Utility, the Refuse Fund,
and the Hive Program.
Revenues are forecast by anticipating the necessary billing rates needed to
generate enough revenue to fund the operations of the utility. Independent rate
studies are conducted every several years to gather public input and to structure
rates in accordance with industry standards and community values. Budgeted FY
2024-25 revenues reflect a proposed rate increase of 4% and water use is
anticipated to be similar to the current year. The rate increase is applied to the
current minimum charge and four-tiered, inclining block rate structure. The
proposed budget includes a rate stabilization fee based on meter size.
Revenue received from metered water usage is the Water Utility’s main source of
operating revenue (95%). Other revenue categories include interest income,
miscellaneous revenue, impact fees, and inter-fund reimbursements.
Salt Lake City Financial Policies
108 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
WATER FUND REVENUE SUMMARY
ActualFY18-19 ActualFY19-20 ActualFY20-21 ActualFY21-22 ActualFY22-23 BudgetFY23-24 Budget FY24-25
Water Revenue
Water Sales and Service 75,103,958 81,995,776 84,073,083 74,116,952 84,618,018 94,343,390 121,710,205
Interest Income 1,424,203 970,343 658,820 (340,275) 4,073,479 456,502 463,989
Permits, Fines & Other 523,688 480,673 953,791 423,530 1,124,724 271,000 271,000
Interfund Billing Services 2,394,985 2,370,157 2,921,829 2,972,142 3,177,284 4,215,396 4,638,504
Total Water Fund 79,446,834 85,816,949 88,607,523 77,172,349 92,993,506 99,286,288 127,083,698
Period Ending
$
(
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
)
WATER FUND REVENUE SUMMARY
Interfund Billing Services
Permits, Fines & Other
Interest Income
Water Sales and Service
Act
u
a
l
FY1
8
-
1
9
Act
u
a
l
FY1
9
-
2
0
Act
u
a
l
FY2
0
-
2
1
Act
u
a
l
FY2
1
-
2
2
Act
u
a
l
FY2
2
-
2
3
Bud
g
e
t
FY2
3
-
2
4
Bud
g
e
t
F
Y
2
4
-
2
5
0
2
0
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
4
0
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
6
0
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
8
0
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
1
2
0
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
Salt Lake City Financial Policies
109 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
SEWER UTILITY FUND
The Sewer Utility Fund operates as an enterprise fund. The Sewer Utility exists to
manage the collection and treatment of wastewater within Salt Lake City’s
corporate boundaries. The Sewer Utility is increasing capacity and expanding the
service of the sewer collection system to meet growth requirements related to the
new State Correctional Facility, the Airport expansion, and new development
anticipated in the Northwest Quadrant of Salt Lake City. The Sewer Utility operates
the City’s sewer collection and sewer treatment infrastructure which includes 678
miles of pipeline, several pump stations, and a water reclamation facility. The water
reclamation facility is being rebuilt to meet environmental regulations, and
construction is occurring in phases to meet the regulatory compliance deadline of
January 1, 2025. Additional construction will continue past this date. The first
phase of construction began in FY 19-20, and additional construction and design
work for future phases is ongoing.
Revenues are forecast by anticipating the necessary billing rates needed to
generate enough revenue to fund the operations of the utility. The Sewer Utility
charges customers based on average winter water use volume and strength of
produced waste. Independent rate studies are made every several years to gather
public input and to structure rates in accordance with industry standards and
community values. Budgeted FY 24-25 revenues reflect the anticipated impacts of
sewer flows in differing customer classes and a proposed 4% rate increase. The
rate increase is distributed within a seven-tiered block rate structure. The budget
also proposes a rate stabilization fee based on water meter size.
In FY 24-25, the main source of operating revenue for the sewer utility fund will be
charges for sewer services (97%). Other revenue categories include fines, interest
income, survey permits, and miscellaneous revenue.
Salt Lake City Financial Policies
110 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
SEWER FUND REVENUE SUMMARY
ActualFY18-19 ActualFY19-20 ActualFY20-21 ActualFY21-22 ActualFY22-23 BudgetFY23-24 Budget FY24-25
Sewer Revenue
Sewer Services 39,687,904 45,142,610 50,823,100 57,803,567 70,158,295 76,387,000 77,638,369
Interest Income 2,161,835 1,035,061 438,896 (40,179) 7,652,458 849,448 784,650
Permits, Fines, and Other 298,228 285,917 504,477 840,246 920,179 354,500 1,315,502
Total Sewer Fund 42,147,967 46,463,588 51,766,473 58,603,634 78,730,932 77,590,948 79,738,521
$
(
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
)
SEWER FUND REVENUE
Permits, Fines, and Other
Interest Income
Sewer Services
Act
u
a
l
FY1
8
-
1
9
Act
u
a
l
FY1
9
-
2
0
Act
u
a
l
FY2
0
-
2
1
Act
u
a
l
FY2
1
-
2
2
Act
u
a
l
FY2
2
-
2
3
Bud
g
e
t
FY2
3
-
2
4
Bud
g
e
t
F
Y
2
4
-
2
5
0
10,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
20,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
30,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
40,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
50,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
60,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
70,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
80,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
Salt Lake City Financial Policies
111 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
STORM WATER UTILITY FUND
The Stormwater Utility operates as an enterprise fund. It exists to convey runoff
and stormwater and to maintain the quality of stormwater discharge within Salt
Lake City boundaries. It is also responsible for mitigating flooding caused by
stormwater runoff. The Stormwater Utility operates stormwater collection
infrastructure system which includes 350 miles of drainage pipe and 27 lift
stations.
Revenues are forecast by anticipating the necessary fees needed to generate
enough revenue to fund the operations of the utility. The Utility charges
customers for these services based on units calculated as equivalent residential
units (ERU), or ¼ acre determined by area of the customer’s property that is
impervious. The FY 2024-25 budget includes the 10% rate increase or
approximately $0.76 per equivalent residential (ERU) per month.
Revenues received from stormwater fees are the Utility’s main source of operating
revenue (98%). Other revenue categories include interest income and
miscellaneous revenue.
Salt Lake City Financial Policies
112 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
STORM WATER FUND REVENUE SUMMARY
ActualFY18-19 ActualFY19-20 ActualFY20-21 ActualFY21-22 ActualFY22-23 BudgetFY23-24 Budget FY24-25
Storm Water Revenue
Storm Water Services 9,555,773 10,720,158 10,703,273 11,944,768 13,904,739 13,563,906 14,919,297
Interest Income 184,128 129,047 105,061 32,158 799,872 118,986 266,901
Permits, Fines, & Other 50,687 85,397 94,137 163,559 72,997 53,000 53,000
Total Storm Water Fund 9,790,589 10,934,602 10,902,471 12,140,485 14,777,608 13,735,892 15,239,198
Period Ending
$
(
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
)
STORM WATER FUND REVENUE
Permits, Fines, & Other
Interest Income
Storm Water Services
Act
u
a
l
FY1
8
-
1
9
Act
u
a
l
FY1
9
-
2
0
Act
u
a
l
FY2
0
-
2
1
Act
u
a
l
FY2
1
-
2
2
Act
u
a
l
FY2
2
-
2
3
Bud
g
e
t
FY2
3
-
2
4
Bud
g
e
t
F
Y
2
4
-
2
5
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
16,000,000
Salt Lake City Financial Policies
113 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
STREET LIGHTING FUND
The Street Lighting Utility operates as an enterprise fund. It exists to manage the
City’s street lighting infrastructure facilitating safer vehicle and pedestrian travel at
night. Streetlights are provided at each intersection on long blocks and as needed
on mid-blocks. SLCDPU provides base-level street lighting service on a city-wide
basis and enhanced street lighting services for decorative lighting to two
residential neighborhoods and to one commercial area. Total system conversion to
high-efficiency lighting remains a high priority of this utility.
Revenues are forecast by anticipating the necessary fees needed to generate
enough revenue to fund the utilities operations. Street lighting fees are based on
units calculated as an equivalent residential unit (ERU) which is determined by
front footage of a property. The base lighting rates were established in 2013 at
$3.73 per month per ERU. The average Salt Lake City residence is one ERU, while
commercial, institutional, and industrial properties vary. (ERU). Rates were also
established in 2015 for each enhanced lighting service area. Street Light Fees
proposed in the FY 2024-25 budget include a rate increase of 10% or $0.41 per
equivalent residential (ERU) per month for the base fee.
Revenue received from street lighting fees are the Utility’s main source of
revenue (99%). Other revenue categories include interest income and
miscellaneous revenue.
Salt Lake City Financial Policies
114 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
STREET LIGHTING FUND REVENUE SUMMARY
ActualFY18-19 ActualFY19-20 ActualFY20-21 ActualFY21-22 ActualFY22-23 BudgetFY23-24 Budget FY24-25
Street Lighting Services 4,207,007 4,301,424 4,230,395 4,264,579 4,361,582 4,592,085 5,051,294
Interest Income 88,339 147,727 38,047 30,215 171,632 44,000 42,594
Other 180,558 300 200 204,751 1,111 100 100
Total Street Lighting Fund 4,475,905 4,449,450 4,268,642 4,499,545 4,534,325 4,636,185 5,093,988
Period Ending
$
(
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
)
STREET LIGHTING FUND REVENUE
Other
Interest Income
Street Lighting Services
Act
u
a
l
FY1
8
-
1
9
Act
u
a
l
FY1
9
-
2
0
Act
u
a
l
FY2
0
-
2
1
Act
u
a
l
FY2
1
-
2
2
Act
u
a
l
FY2
2
-
2
3
Bud
g
e
t
FY2
3
-
2
4
Bud
g
e
t
F
Y
2
4
-
2
5
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
Salt Lake City Financial Policies
115 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
AIRPORT ENTERPRISE FUND
The Salt Lake City Department of Airports manages Salt Lake City International
Airport (SLCIA), Tooele Valley Airport, and South Valley Regional Airport (SRVA).
Salt Lake City International Airport (the Airport) serves a multi-state region and
consists of three air carrier runways and a general aviation runway and is classified
as a large hub airport. The Airport’s extensive route network served over 26.4
million passengers in FY 2022-23. The Airport provides 321 daily departures and
arrivals to 92 non-stop destinations. The New SLC completed phase II of the new
airport with the opening of 22 new gates on Concourse A East in October of 2023.
Phase III will bring an initial 5 gates on Concourse B East in October of 2024 as well
as the opening of the much anticipated Central Tunnel.
Tooele Valley Airport is a general aviation reliever airport to SLCIA. It has one
runway, and support services are on-demand only. South Valley Regional Airport is
also a general aviation reliever airport. It also has one runway and is a base for a
Utah National Guard military helicopter unit.
The Department of Airports is an enterprise fund. It is not supported by property
taxes, general funds of local governments, or special district taxes. Capital funding
requirements for FY 2024-25 are met from non-aeronautical revenues, passenger
facility charges, customer facility charges, general airport revenue bonds (GARBs),
Federal Aviation Administration grants under the Airport Improvement Program,
and State grants.
Major Sources of Airport Fund Revenue
Revenues are forecast by reviewing and analyzing lease agreements, capital
projects, CPI adjustments and passenger levels. The FY 2024-25 budget continues
to see growth in enplanements, revenues, as well as expenditures. Airport non-
aeronautical revenues for FY 2024-25 are projected to increase by 6.4% compared
to the FY 2023-24 budget as more passengers are traveling and spending money at
the Airport.
A major source of revenue (63%) is generated by the airlines. Air carriers pay on a
cost-of- service basis for the services they receive. Rates are set annually based on
direct operating cost, cost of capital, and amortization on asset investment. The
formula used for this system is considered a hybrid structure in the aviation
industry and is based on the ten-year airline use agreement (AUA) that will be
effective on July 1, 2024. In addition, the new AUA will provide more revenues in
the terminal cost center to help pay for construction costs of the new Airport.
Delta, Southwest, and Alaska have signed an extension through June 30, 2044 while
all other carriers have signed agreements through June 30, 2034. The new AUA
provides $1.40 per enplaned passenger revenue sharing, not to exceed 40% of net
remaining revenue, and is credited to the air carriers monthly. Enplaned
Salt Lake City Financial Policies
116 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
passengers are projected to increase by 2.9% to 14.5 million enplanements over
the FY 23-24 budget of 14.1 million enplanements.
The second major source of revenue (31%) is generated from the Airport
concessions. This includes revenue from food and retail concessions as well as car
rental and parking fees. For FY 2024-25, retail concessions, food and beverage,
rental cars, and parking are all projected to increase because of the increase in
passengers as well as an increase in the overall amount spent per passenger
traveling through the Airport. Remaining revenues are generated through cost
recovery of ground transportation costs, lease contracts on buildings, office space,
and hangars. The Airport also receives a portion of the State aviation fuel tax.
In FY 2011-12, the Airport began collecting customer facility charges (CFC) to fund a
new rental car facility. These charges increased from $4 to $5 in FY 12-13 and will
remain at $5 for FY 2024-25. The customer facility charges will meet the financial
requirements to build the rental car service and quick turnaround facilities, plus
the portion of the garage related to rental cars as well as any future rental car
capital improvement projects. The Airport was fully reimbursed in FY 2023-24 for
all the construction costs associated with the facilities mentioned above and will
continue to collect CFC's for future rental car projects.
Salt Lake City Financial Policies
117 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
OPERATING REVENUE COMPARISON
Actual FY 18-19 Actual FY 19-20 Actual FY 20-21 Actual FY 21-22 Actual FY 22-23 Budget FY 23-24 Budget FY FY24-25
Operating Revenue:
Concession 92,910,800 75,372,300 63,478,800 113,311,500 119,152,900 134,212,000 149,310,100
Airline 75,636,600 77,312,400 109,691,200 136,820,000 135,439,500 181,942,100 298,434,400
Other Rental 18,992,400 18,738,500 19,224,200 22,379,500 42,579,000 22,869,000 23,696,100
Total Operating Revenue 187,539,800 171,423,200 192,394,200 272,511,000 297,171,400 339,023,100 471,440,600
Period Ending
$
(
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
)
AIRPORT OPERATING REVENUE
Other Rental
Airline
Concession
Actua
l
F
Y
1
6
-
1
7
Actua
l
F
Y
1
7
-
1
8
Actua
l
F
Y
1
8
-
1
9
Actua
l
F
Y
1
9
-
2
0
Actua
l
F
Y
2
0
-
2
1
Budg
e
t
F
Y
2
1
-
2
2
Budg
e
t
F
Y
2
2
-
2
3
0
50,000,000
100,000,000
150,000,000
200,000,000
250,000,000
300,000,000
Salt Lake City Financial Policies
118 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
RDA FUND
The primary revenue source for the RDA’s redevelopment efforts is tax increment.
Tax increment is the increase (or “increment”) in the property taxes generated
within a project area over and above the baseline value of property taxes that were
in place at the time a project area was established. Property values increase as an
area is revitalized through investment, thereby creating tax increment. When an
RDA project area is established, the RDA and the participating taxing entities enter
into agreements that determine the amount of tax increment that will continue to
flow to the taxing entities, and the portion that will be reinvested by the RDA into
the project area for a defined period of time. The participating taxing entities
continue to receive the baseline property tax during the life of a project area.
The establishment of a project area and the collection of tax increment funds must
be approved by the RDA Board of Directors and any participating local taxing
entities (e.g., Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Salt Lake City School District, Metro
Water District, Central Utah Water Project, Salt Lake Mosquito Abatement, and Salt
Lake City Library). Not all taxing entities participate in every project area.
Per Utah State Statute, tax increment proceeds must be spent within the project
area where they originated or be found by the RDA Board of Directors to directly
impact that project area.
In addition to tax increment revenues from its various project areas, the RDA also
has the following revenue sources:
1.Interest Income. The RDA receives interest on cash balances.
2.Property Lease Income. The RDA receives lease revenues from various
owned properties, including parking garages in the Central Business
District Project Area.
3.RDA Loan Interest Income. The RDA receives interest generated from loans
it administers. The amount of interest received varies depending on the
number of outstanding loans at any given time.
4.Land Sale Proceeds. The RDA routinely sells property as part of its
redevelopment efforts.
RDA revenues are forecast for each project area by analyzing previous years’ tax
increments received and adjusting conservatively based on current real estate
market conditions. Other income from interest, lease revenues, and RDA loan
interest is also considered.
The FY 2024-25 forecasted RDA Fund revenue budget is $63,484,950.
Salt Lake City Financial Policies
119 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REVENUE SUMMARY
ActualFY18-19 ActualFY19-20 ActualFY20-21 ActualFY21-22 ActualFY22-23 BudgetFY23-24 Budget FY24-25
Redevelopment Agency Revenue*
Block 70 2,159,178 1,629,755 803,534 2,846,637 1,958,881 1,829,228 2,133,992
Central Business District 25,461,421 32,565,335 31,251,766 28,369,709 28,323,535 24,644,694 29,106,713
West Capitol Hill 1,547,706 40,318 711,967 106,173 525,969 — 384,332
West Temple Gateway 60,753 (1,670,316) 17,246 6,448 10,479 — —
Depot District 3,895,569 5,533,602 5,525,331 5,238,774 5,686,316 5,422,435 6,673,402
Granary District 625,878 781,648 944,077 995,615 1,229,161 1,103,309 1,583,163
Housing Development Trust Fund — 2,590,000 2,583,445 20,629 4,115,745 4,776,563 2,902,000
North Temple 425,243 543,258 640,558 685,381 1,099,822 1,008,715 1,702,574
North Temple Viaduct 1,123,104 1,558,258 2,103,730 2,579,427 2,745,502 2,774,419 3,155,765
9-Line — — — 1,871,603 2,601,746 2,653,781 3,030,715
State Street — — — 3,289,619 4,337,070 4,423,811 5,868,859
Block 67 North — — — — — — 365,771
Sugar House 1,126 1,106 190,038 289 1,457 — —
Program Income 2,441,059 1,690,964 1,440,529 1,951,066 6,250,368 1,411,052 1,559,233
Northwest Quadrant — 198 1,688,689 1,044,303 1,445,384 1,398,548 2,603,998
Stadler Rail — 70,419 102,594 109,392 144,088 141,297 168,744
Westside Community Initiative — — 409,031 512,241 1,674,276 1,401,589 1,835,469
Primary Housing Fund 350,096 315,971 81,125 78,632 398,809 2,379 77,820
Secondary Housing Fund 45,303 43,617 13,227 11,491 68,669 — —
Revolving Loan 761,162 583,574 1,144,760 63,436 358,972 226,750 332,400
Total Redevelopment Agency Revenue 38,897,598 46,277,707 49,651,647 49,780,865 62,976,249 53,218,570 63,484,950
*Interfund transfers are excluded for reporting purposes.
Salt Lake City Financial Policies
120 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Period Ending
$
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REVENUE SUMMARY
Revolving Loan
Secondary Housing Fund
State Street
9-Line
North Temple Viaduct
North Temple
Housing Development Trust Fund
Granary District
Depot District
West Temple Gateway
West Capitol Hill
Central Business District
Block 70
Act
u
a
l
FY
1
8
-
1
9
Act
u
a
l
FY
1
9
-
2
0
Act
u
a
l
FY
2
0
-
2
1
Act
u
a
l
FY
2
1
-
2
2
Act
u
a
l
FY
2
2
-
2
3
Bu
d
g
e
t
FY
2
3
-
2
4
Bu
d
g
e
t
FY
2
4
-
2
5
0
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
30,000,000
35,000,000
40,000,000
45,000,000
50,000,000
55,000,000
60,000,000
65,000,000
Salt Lake City Financial Policies
121 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
New and Outstanding
Legislative Intents
Updated April 10, 2024
AIRPORT
FY 2024 - Air Quality and Transit Investment – The City Council formally
requests that the Airport submit a written plan (and funding proposal if needed) to
the Council regarding plans to encourage and facilitate transit, ride sharing and
other transportation options which do not rely on single-passenger vehicles. The
Council requests that the plan include milestones and metrics to measure progress
on the Airport's investment in mitigating the air quality impact of private vehicle
trips to the airport, the environmental impact of the addition of parking lot
impervious surface to accommodate those vehicle trips, and shared advocacy.
Efforts to support and encourage transit opportunities for the traveling public are
also encouraged by the Council. In making this request the City Council recognizes
that the Airport makes strong environmental investments in its construction and
operations.
FY 2024 Administration Response - The Department of Airports is continuing to
pursue the projects presented in its briefing to Council last October. An informal
transmittal is attached, with updates to specific projects in red font.
See Attachment A.
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
FY 2024 - Department Role Clarity in Ordinance – It is the intent of the Council
to ask the Attorney’s Office to propose updates to the City’s code that define and
discuss the respective roles of City departments. This review should include, but
not be limited to, the Sustainability, Economic Development, and Public Lands
Departments. Per Council discussion, Sustainability is the priority.
FY 2024 Administration Response - The City Attorney’s Office submitted to the
Council proposed ordinance revisions/a transmittal memo on changes to Title 2
related to the Sustainability Department. The Office is currently working on
recommendations for other departments, including the Economic Development
Department and the Department of Public Lands.
FY 2024 - Pay Parity among Attorneys - It is the intent of the Council that the
Administration evaluate pay parity among the City Attorney’s Office, Salt Lake Legal
Defenders, the City prosecutors, and the County prosecutors. Because this may be
a longer-term issue, the Council could ask that the Human Resources Department
conduct a more thorough evaluation on this topic and recommend strategies to
achieve pay parity over the longer term. First priority is that attorneys on both
Salt Lake City Financial Policies
122 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
sides of a courtroom have pay parity; second would be parity among agencies
(County, State, Municipal).
FY 2024 Administration Response – The Salt Lake City Prosecutor’s Office supports
a review process and is willing to participate in any discussions and efforts. This effort
addresses two priorities.
“The first priority is that attorneys on both sides of a courtroom have pay parity”:
Discussion requires definition of terms so that those examining the issue have a base
for understanding, and a review of the various factors that may impact parity such as
– constitutional mandates, statutory obligations; other legal mandates, rules and
requirements; funding sources and budgetary stability, caseloads, case types,
workloads, experience levels, trial duties, administrative duties, respective attorney
and support staffing levels, physical offices, proximity to courthouses, etc.
“Second would be parity among agencies (County, State, Municipal)”: The same
factors above that are relevant side-to-side in a courtroom will be relevant to the
different levels of government and courts: justice courts, district courts, state appeal
courts. For example, recent salary adjustments that began at the state AG level have
created improvements in attracting interest and commitments to work for the Salt
Lake City Prosecutor’s Office.
FY 2023 - Boarded Building Fee – It is the intent of the Council to ask the
Administration for a timeframe when the Council can consider an updated
boarded-building fee, or request that the Attorney’s Office provide a draft directly
to the Council Office.
FY 2024 Administration Response – The updated boarded building fee structure
proposal received a unanimous positive recommendation from the Planning
Commission. The associated changes will be transmitted to the City Council near
the end of this April.
Prior Year’s Response - A transmittal will soon be submitted by the department with
the requested fee and details regarding the program associated with the fee.
FY 2023 - Open and Public Meetings Act (OPMA) – It is the intent of the Council
to ask the Administration to ensure that any City loan or grant processes comply
with the Open and Public Meetings Act (OPMA). The Council could request that the
City Attorney’s Office develop an ordinance more specifically codifying this
understanding.
FY 2024 Administration Response – Response forthcoming.
FY2021 - Decriminalization Review of City Code - It is the intent of the Council
that an in-depth review be conducted of the City Code to consider items that could
be de-criminalized. Council staff could work with Council Members and the City
Attorney’s Office to draft a scope and come back with a report on the timeline.
Salt Lake City Financial Policies
123 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
FY 2024 Administration Response – The Salt Lake City Prosecutor’s Office supports
a review process for decriminalization efforts and is willing to participate in any
discussions and efforts, noting that there are specific city ordinances that are
frequently used and some of great utility that should be retained. Examples of city
ordinances that should be retained include: city adoption of the Uniform Fire Code
(18.44.010), city adoption of county health ordinances (9.02.010); negligent collision
(12.52.340), negligent collision causing serious bodily injury or death (12.52.355),
improper lookout (12.52.020), failure to supervise a child (11.60.020), battery
(11.08.020), incapable driver (12.24.050), incompetent driver (12.24.030), permitting
incompetent driver (12.24.040), targeted residential picketing (11.12.120),
expectoration and spitting in public places (11.36.150), one arm driving (12.52.060),
opening vehicle doors in traffic (12.52.100), backing of vehicles (12.52.120), allowing
unlicensed persons to drive (12.52.200), all ordinances related to animal cruelty and
animal attacks (Title 8 Animals Chapter 8.04 Animal Control). The charging level of
some offenses might be reviewed (city health violations as MC where county are set as
MB). Some city offenses may be compared to state offenses for redundancy and
necessity (targeted residential picketing as city code 11.12.120 and state code
76-9-109, reckless driving as city code 12.52.360 and state code 41-6a-528 ).
Prior Year’s Response - The initial review of City code, which included a law student
clerk and the Prosecutor’s Office, revealed that more attention and expertise will be
needed to complete this review, including involvement of the Prosecutor’s Office. The
project will be continued in the coming fiscal year.
COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOODS DEPARTMENT (CAN)
FY 2024 - Options for Citywide Zoning Re-evaluation – It is the intent of the
Council that the Administration prepare a work plan that outlines options for
potential Citywide zoning improvements.
FY 2024 Administration Response - FY24 zoning - The Planning Division is
preparing a proposal to consolidate all of the existing mixed use and commercial
zoning districts (as many as 24 existing zoning districts) into a series of 6 or 7 form
based districts. The form-based districts would establish a scale of development,
ranging from the smaller neighborhood business districts up to the most intense
commercial districts that allow buildings up to 125 feet in height. This would
establish code language between districts and add clarity to applying the zoning code.
This work plan, which would identify the process, resource needs, and tentative
timeline is anticipated to be completed by end of February.
Simultaneously, the Planning Division is working on options for the City Council to
consider related to consolidating the single-family zoning districts. The options include
a list of potential modifications related to minimum lot areas and widths, allowed
housing types, lot coverage, building height, and flag lot provisions. This report is
expected to be completed by the end of January.
Salt Lake City Financial Policies
124 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
The Planning Division will also start code amendments to update the RMF-35 and
RMF-45 zoning districts to mirror the changes to RMF-30 that were adopted by the city
council in 2023. The RMF-75 zoning district will be included in the proposal to
consolidate the mixed use and commercial districts.
In addition, each of the above will result in simplifying the chapters of the zoning code
that are applicable to all zoning districts, including the land use tables in chapter
21A.33, 21A.36 General Provisions, 21A.37 Design Standards, 21A.44 Off street
parking, 21A.46 Signs, and 21A.48 Landscaping and buffers. This proposed work plan
is anticipated to be completed by the end
of February.
Lastly, the division is working with public utilities to update Plan Salt Lake to address a
state code requirement to integrate water use, consumption, and conservation with
land use planning. State code requires that this be adopted by December 31, 2025.
This proposal will include consistent definitions of future land use designations found
within the community plans and align those designations with zoning districts based
on development potential. The purpose is to improve and simplify forecasting long
term water needs and methods to promote water conservation.
It is anticipated that these actions will extend into the following year and will likely
require some budget allocation to cover the associated costs of completing these
tasks, including noticing and potentially an on-call consultant to help with some
aspects of the proposal, such as public engagement.
FY 2023 - Youth and Family Program Streamlining – It is the intent of the
Council to ask the Administration to evaluate whether to consolidate all City youth
and family programs into the Youth & Family Division. The purpose would be to
increase efficiency and propose options for future budget discussions. Additionally,
the Council would like the Administration to evaluate the City’s role in youth and
family programming in relation to other community organizations to identify
efficiencies and reduce duplication, factoring in overall community demand for
those services. Step 1 of this multi-step process was completed in FY23. Other
steps involve evaluating potential staffing redundancies and reviewing Fire
Department and Police Department programs for potential changes.
FY 2024 Administration Response - CAN has coordinated with Procurement on an
RFP to obtain a consultant to complete a strategic plan for the Youth and Family
Division, utilizing the $100,000 allocated in the FY 2024 budget. The strategic planning
process will include analysis of Youth and Family’s programming in consideration of
the availability of resources and needs within the community. The RFP will be issued
in Q1 of calendar year 2024.
Prior Year’s Response - Evaluate whether to consolidate all City youth and family
programs into the Youth & Family Division, purpose is to increase efficiency and
purpose options for future budget discussions).
Salt Lake City Financial Policies
125 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Some factors to consider:
•YouthCity provides seamless out of school time programs for youth ages 6-18.
Several factors distinguish YC programs from other City, nonprofit and school-
based programs and services.
•YouthCity is offered at a reduced cost to all City residents. This is possible based
on our braided funding stream of general fund dollars, grants, foundation
dollars, and parent fees while building upon existing City infrastructure in
parks and the Sorenson Campus.
•YouthCity is designed to support and augment school day learning using
evidence-based curriculums. All programs undergo a rigorous assessment
4 times per year.
•There are three additional youth programs offered by the Salt Lake City Police
Department and a vocational program offered by the Salt Lake Fire Department.
Each of the programs exist under the direction of staff who are experts in
their field.
What is the City’s role in Youth and Family programs in relation to other community
providers.
•Since inception, YouthCity has actively partnered with other service groups and
out of school time providers. In 2005, YouthCity, Salt Lake City School District, and
the Utah State Department of Workforce Services jointly submitted and was
awarded a Mott Foundation grant to establish the Utah Afterschool Network. UAN
sets the standard for quality, staff training requirements and networking for
providers locally, regionally, and statewide. All programs receiving federal and
state funding participate in a quality out of school time evaluation. Youth and
Family staff have maintained an active leadership role in UAN. The most recent
data indicates that there are 3 out of school time slots for every 5 youth needing
support and or care.
FY 2022 - Trips-to-Transit Expansion Evaluation - It is the intent of the Council
that the Administration provide their strategy for evaluating whether to expand the
Trips-to-Transit program, which began to serve Westside neighborhoods in late
2021, to other areas of the City.
FY 2024 Administration Response - Additional funding in the fiscal year 2024
budget for the UTA On-Demand program has allowed for the restoration of service to
levels that meet the high demand in the Westside service area. Expansion of the
current service area and/or the creation of new service areas in other parts of the City
can be evaluated in partnership with UTA and the on-demand service provider to
determine potential budget implications. Transportation recommends one more year
before developing expansion cost estimates to allow for additional data collection
and for the ridership trends to stabilize in the current service area.
Salt Lake City Financial Policies
126 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Prior Year’s Response - This program has far exceeded expectations for usage in its
first year. While we are pleased with the overwhelming success of the program, there
has been some degradation in service as a result of its popularity. We recommend
allowing another 1-3 years to figure out the proper funding/service levels for the
current service area so that we have a better idea of what it would take to expand to
other areas.
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
FY 2015 - Maintenance of Business Districts – See description under Public
Services Department.
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
FY 2024 - Legal Defenders Association – It is the intent of the Council to request
the Administration.
•shift funding for the Legal Defenders contract to Funding Our Future, under the
policy umbrella of Public Safety, with the rationale that these attorneys are an
integral piece of the criminal justice system and often connect clients to resources
and services to help them recover from an addiction or otherwise help them get
back on their feet
•discuss with Salt Lake County whether it would be more efficient for the County
to manage the full contract, with the City contributing funding towards it.
FY 2024 Administration Response - The funding for Legal Defenders will be
discussed during the Administration’s budget deliberations. Any changes to the
funding source will be addressed at that times.
FY 2023 - Consolidated Fee Schedule Holistic Review – It is the intent of the
Council to complete a holistic evaluation of the City’s Consolidated Fee Schedule
in conjunction with the Finance Department. This evaluation would include equity
considerations and evaluate whether to increase, reduce, or in some cases
eliminate, City fees.
FY 2024 Administration Response - Finance is ready and available to take any
council recommendations for an evaluation of the CFS. Desired changes can
potentially be submitted with the FY25 Budget.
FY 2023 - Grants and Ongoing Programs – It is the intent of the Council to ask
the Administration to evaluate the extent to which new City programs have been
created through grants whose costs have continued beyond the life of the grant.
The Council will use this information to inform a policy or system for evaluating
when and whether it is appropriate for the City to create new programs with
grants.
Salt Lake City Financial Policies
127 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
FY 2024 Administration Response - Response will be forthcoming.
FY 2015 - Maintenance of Business Districts – See description under Public
Services Department.
MAYOR'S OFFICE
FY 2024 - Apprenticeship Program Incentives – It is the intent of the Council to
ask the Administration to recommend strategies to incentivize an employee who
works through the City Apprenticeship program to remain with the City once they
are certified.
FY 2024 Administration Response - There are several strategies the
Administration, departments and Human Resources have recommended and
utilized to have apprentices stay with the City. These are summarized below:
1.The Mayor proposed, and the Council approved, funding of about $1 million
to advance the apprenticeship program. This funding has been used in two ways.
The funding has been used to pay the salary of thirty-five apprentices this last
year while they are working and learning with us. Secondly, the funding has been
used to "offset" the cost of four positions in Public Services. In addition to paying
the salary of the apprentices while they were learning, funding was transferred
to Public Services to help pay the cost of employing them full-time. On the
strength of that funding, Public Services requested two new positions in the
last budget year.
2.Departments have indicated apprentices are very incentivized by the prospect
of becoming full-time employees and receiving City benefits. Many are working
to further their education and ok forward to tuition benefits. Many have not had
healthcare insurance options which is a significant incentive.
3.The biggest incentive to apprentices is the opportunity to continue to work in a
workgroup they know and in which they feel comfortable. They have relationships
with their mentors and colleagues. They have developed a sense of friendship and
loyalty to them. Additionally, remaining with the City is a known, as opposed to
the uncertainty of a new workplace.
4.Department supervisors and mentors have been very flexible with the
apprentices. As mentioned, many of them are in school. Departments work
with them to adjust schedules and work duties. Apprentices say they appreciate
the work-life balance at the City, as opposed to sixteen-hour days in the
private sector.
FY 2024 - Evaluating Efficiencies of All Diversified Response Teams – It is the
intent of the Council to ask the Administration to evaluate all response teams that
may be considered part of a diversified response to public safety, establish
common metrics, and evaluate whether there are opportunities for efficiencies or
streamlining, including clarity on dispatch and whether/if the public is intended to
Salt Lake City Financial Policies
128 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
contact any teams directly and how resources are deployed. In addition, to clarify
roles of each team and how a call for service is routed from one team to another,
and how calls from the public are routed.
FY 2024 Administration Response - Response Forthcoming.
POLICE DEPARTMENT
FY 2021 - Police Department Role – It is the intent of the Council to re-evaluate
the role the City asks the Police Department to play, and the budget to fulfill that
role, and ask the Administration to evaluate moving certain programs out of the
Police Department, like park rangers and social workers, and potentially add a
function to the Human Resources Department to enhance the independence of
the Internal Affairs unit.
a.Social Workers.
FY 2023 - Administration Response – The Community Connections Team is fully
staffed with 3 current vacancies that are in the hiring process. They continue to
provide referrals, resources and co-response throughout the city.
Prior Year’s Response:
Social Workers - This years’ response- Hiring processes are ongoing to fill vacant
positions. The police department is looking into hiring part time social workers to help
facilitate shift coverage on evenings and weekends using attrition savings from the
vacant positions.
b.Internal Affairs Unit.
FY 2024 - Administration Response – The Department hired a civilian director for
the Internal Affairs Unit, which is now part of the Chief’s Office. The director works
closely with the City’s Human Resources Department, the independent Civilian Review
Board, and the public. This director is not a sworn officer, which allows for continuity
and steady leadership since the position is not subject to rotating assignments.
Prior Year’s Response:
Internal Affairs Unit - The Department hired a civilian director for the Internal
Affairs Unit, which is now part of the Chief’s Office. The director works closely with the
City’s Human Resources Department, the independent Civilian Review Board, and the
public. This director is not a sworn officer, which allows for increased objectivity, as
well as for continuity and steady leadership since the position is not subject to
rotating assignments.
c.Police Civilian Response Team.
Salt Lake City Financial Policies
129 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
FY 2024 - Administration Response – This team is now termed the Police
Community Response Team. This team is comprised of 16 FTE’s and 1 Lieutenant. All
positions are filled and the one-year anniversary of the team is 1/9/2023 and have
responded to approximately 3,000 calls for service to date.
Prior Year’s Response:
Police Civilian Response Team - Twelve PCRT (Police Community Response Team)
positions and 1 supervisor were funded for 6 months in the FY 2023 budget process.
The Police Department steering committee has worked to establish the job
descriptions, recruitment process, and address the training needs for these positions.
A hiring process was completed in December of 2022 and 10 qualified applicants will
fill positions as of 1/8/2023. An additional hiring process will be completed to hire the
remaining 2 positions when the program is established, and time allows. The training
program is anticipated to take 14 weeks to complete. The PCRT program will go into
service when the equipment and training needs have
been satisfied.
PUBLIC LANDS DEPARTMENT
FY 2024 - Golf Fee Structure – It is the intent of the Council to ask the
Administration to evaluate developing a program for the Golf Division that could
provide discounted rates to reduce financial barriers for City residents, especially
those with limited financial resources.
FY 2024 Administration Response – As part of the annual budget process, Golf
analyzes its fee structure compared to the projected revenue and operational
expenses. This includes revisiting its current programs and offerings. Golf also reviews
its course inventory and pricing structure through an affordability lens as requested
by the council via the most recent legislative intent. Additionally, Golf will be
researching and interviewing other municipalities that may have programs that
align with what the council has requested. Recommendations for the Council are
anticipated by the end of June 2024.
PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT
FY 2024 - Building Security - It is the intent of the Council that the Administration
prioritize hiring the new Safety and Security Manager FTE proposed for the Public
Services Department and return to the Council by the end of 2023 with
recommendations for how the building security funds could be used.
FY 2024 Administration Response - At the end of July 2023, this position was filled.
Since then, this position has been working on developing a security program for our
City facilities, including a vulnerability assessment tool that will ultimately provide an
outlook of what is needed to enhance security for our employees at our buildings. As
these security needs are identified, the capital needs will be incorporated in a plan for
funding consideration.
Salt Lake City Financial Policies
130 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
A breakdown of the spending of the initial $1.2 million one-time funding has previously
been shared with Council staff.
FY 2015 - Maintenance of Business Districts - It is the intent of the Council to
hold a briefing regarding the costs of enhanced services provided to the Central
Business District, in order to consider: a) revising how City services are provided
and paid for, b) services that may be offered to other established or developing
Business Districts in the City, and c) maintenance of amenity upgrades (such as
lighting and benches). It is also the intent of the Council that this discussion
happen in time to incorporate any changes into the renewal of the Central
Business District agreement and Sugar House Business District. This Intent
includes SAAs. The work should involve the Department of Economic Development
and the Finance Department.
FY 2024 Administration Response - The topic of funding enhanced services in
business districts has been an ongoing discussion for many years. The current funding
for Facilities’ CBD and SBD maintenance is provided by the general fund and covers a
variety of maintenance items at a basic level of service. Funding for the maintenance
of Regent Street improvements is still being subsidized by the RDA and has not been
absorbed by the general fund. Additional amenities that have been added over time
have increased costs, yet operational budget has not reflected an increase other than
inflationary.
Currently, the Public Services Department does not have any mechanisms in place
that allow for funding of any additional services from sources outside the general
fund. The department does respond to demand and new requests as they are added
through increased budget asks, but no additional expansion of programs are in place
at this time.
The Central Business Improvement Assessment Area Management Agreement was
renewed in 2022 with Downtown Alliance and the Department of Economic
Development, and it does not cover CBD maintenance. The SBD has no agreements
in place or an officially defined area.
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
FY 2023 - Water Usage by the City – It is the intent of the Council to ask the
Administration to evaluate water usage by the City and make recommendations
for water conservation. This includes evaluation of water savings opportunities for
CIP projects.
FY 2024 Administration Response – The report on water usage is in final draft
form. Once the report is completed it will be presented to the Administration for
review and to inform the upcoming budget. The approximate date for Council
transmittal is currently unknown. See Attachment B.
Salt Lake City Financial Policies
131 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
COUNCIL-LED INTENTS
FY 2023 - Rotating Outside Auditing of Each City Department – It is the intent
of the City Council to re-establish its practice of conducting management and
performance audits of City departments, divisions, and functions on a rotating
basis in the coming years. These audits are in addition to the financial audit that
the City Council oversees annually. The audits are intended to bring consultants in
for an independent look at existing City services to identify opportunities for
improved efficiencies. In addition to a focus on identifying potential efficiencies,
the Council intends to ask the auditors to identify or evaluate professional best
practices, definitions of success for each program, metrics associated with key
functions, and any duplication that exists with other City departments and/or other
levels of government. The Council intends for the audits to inform evaluations of
how City services are meeting residents’ needs while being fiscally responsible with
the taxpayer dollars.
FY 2021 - Police Department Reporting Ordinance – The Council intends to
work with the Attorney’s Office to create an ordinance that establishes reporting
requirements for internal information collected by and related to the Police
Department. The Council adopted a body worn camera ordinance in 2020, but
not broader reporting metrics.
Initially, the Council also intended to create an ordinance that establishes
reporting requirements for internal information collected by and related to
the PD.
The Council’s operational audit of the PD (Matrix Consulting) recommended
expanding public reporting, such as metrics related to:
•internal affairs,
•external complaints,
•workforce demographics and vacancies,
•body worn cameras (new software to facilitate review was funded), and use
of force.
Salt Lake City Financial Policies
132 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Capital
Improvement
Program
This page intentionally left blank
Capital Improvement
Program
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
Salt Lake City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is a multi-year planning
program of capital expenditures needed to replace or expand the City’s public
infrastructure. The principal element that guides the City in determining the annual
infrastructure improvements and budget schedule is the current fiscal year capital
budget.
The City CIP Budget Process includes a review by the Community Development &
Capital Improvement Program (CDCIP) Board, consisting of community residents
from each district. The CDCIP Board scores projects on a variety of criteria and
provides funding recommendations to the Mayor.
The Mayor considers the CDCIP recommendations as the Administration prepares
its funding recommendations for the City Council as part of the Annual
Recommended Budget. The City Council reviews the recommendations of the
Mayor and the CDCIP Board and carefully analyzes each of the proposed projects
before allocating funding and adopting the final CIP budget. The details of the
recommended FY2024-25 CIP Budget are included in this book.
In considering major capital projects, the City looks at the potential operating
impact of each project. New capital improvements often entail ongoing expenses
for routine operations. Upon completion or acquisition, the repair and
maintenance of new facilities often require additional positions to maintain the
new infrastructure. Conversely, a positive contribution, such as a reduction in
ongoing repairs and maintenance of a capital project, is factored into the decision-
making process.
Each project includes a section for estimated future maintenance and/or
operations expenses, where the departments have included projections of any
increases to future operating costs.
The City also reviews all CIP projects to determine the progress. All projects older
than three years that do not show significant progress are then considered for
recapture, allowing those funds to be used on more shovel-ready projects. The
Administration continuously evaluates the City’s funding of its Capital
Improvement Program. Because the proceeds from debt financing are considered
a source for funding the City’s capital improvement projects, the City analyzes the
effect that issuance of additional debt would have on its debt capacity and current
debt ratio.
Salt Lake City Capital Improvement Program
135 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Salt Lake City Resolution No. 29 of 2017 / Salt Lake City Council Capital and
Debt Management Policies
Resolution No. 29 of 2017 provides the framework for project funding
recommendations. Its guidance helps clarify the expectations of the City’s Capital
Improvement Program and the steps the Administration should take in
determining how to best address the City’s deferred and long-term maintenance
needs.
Some of the policies guiding the CDCIP Board and the Administration include:
•A definition of a capital improvement as having a useful life of five or more
years and cannot have a recurring capital outlay such as a motor vehicle or a
fire engine. It also clarifies that a capital outlay does not include maintenance
expenses such as fixing a leaking roof or painting park benches.
•A capital improvement must be a City asset and have a cost of $50,000 or
more, with few exceptions.
•Salt Lake City aims to maintain its physical assets at a level adequate to protect
its capital investments and minimize maintenance and replacement costs.
•Priorities are given to projects that preserve and protect the health and safety
of the community; are mandated by the state and/or federal government; and
provide for the renovation of existing facilities resulting in the preservation of
the community’s prior investment.
•The recapture of Capital Improvement Program funds during the first budget
amendment of each year if an existing balance remains on a completed
project.
•Debt Service (excluding G.O. Bonding).
FY 2024-25 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ALLOCATIONS
Salt Lake City’s FY2024-25 adopted CIP budget appropriates $541,401,048 for CIP,
utilizing General Funds, Class “C” Funds, Impact Fee Funds, Quarter Cent Tax
Funds, Redevelopment Agency Funds, Enterprise Funds, and other public and
private funds.
The City’s General Fund accounts for all debt service on outstanding Sales and
Excise Tax Revenue bonds through a payment from the City CIP contribution,
except for the Eccles Theater project. The Library Fund covers the Local Building
Authority Lease Revenue bonds for Glendale and Marmalade Libraries while debt
associated with the construction of two fire stations is funded through CIP. Motor
Fuel Excise Tax Revenue bonds are funded through the City’s Class C Road fund.
Funds to pay debt service, equaling $10,825,204, are included in the adopted
annual budget.
Salt Lake City Capital Improvement Program
136 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Outstanding Sales and Excise Tax Revenue bonds financed a variety of the City’s
capital improvement projects. Motor Fuel Excise Tax Revenue bonds funded the
reconstruction of Class C roads throughout the City.
A total of $2,750,000 was recommended for Transportation projects. Of this
amount, the budget appropriates $1,500,000 of Funding our Future funds, and
$1,250,000 in ¼ Cent Tax funding. Programs funded include Transit Capital, Safer
Crossings, Neighborhood Byways, and Traffic Signal Replacement.
The recommended budget for Parks, Trails, and Open Space capital improvement
projects includes a total appropriation of $5,875,540 from the General Fund, Parks
Impact Fee funds, and Funding our Future funds. Projects funded include Liberty
Park Greenhouse, Sugar House Park Pavilions, Transitioning to Regionally
Appropriate Landscapes, Adapting Irrigation Systems, and Reducing Water Use,
Citywide Park Restroom Planning Study, Courts and Playgrounds, Jordan River
Revitalization, Riverside Park Pathway Loop, Street Futsal Courts, Playground
Shade, Pocket Park Community Space, Calisthenics Fitness Area, and Conversation
Centers.
Public Services capital improvement recommended budget includes a total
appropriation of $17,225,150. Of this amount, the budget appropriates $4,866,350
from the General Fund, $4,250,000 of Class C funding, $1,358,800 of Funding our
Future funds, $6,750,000 in ¼ Cent Tax funding. Programs funded include 400
South Jordan River Bridge Reconstruction, Complete Streets Reconstruction and
Overlay, Public Way Concrete, Concrete Replacement, Stabilizing the Fire Training
Tower, Facilities Replacement and Renewal Plan, Plaza 349 HVAC Improvements,
and HVAC Control Replacement at the Public Safety Building.
An additional $30,000 in one-time funding for Historic Signs/Markers was also
recommended.
Capital Projects
The CIP pages include details for each recommended project for the FY2024-25
Budget. These pages provide a breakout of the funding recommendations and
future costs associated with each project. The total for capital projects in the
FY2024-25 budget is $25,880,690.
ENTERPRISE FUND PROJECTS
The City’s enterprise functions; Airport, Water, Sewer, Storm Water,
Redevelopment, Refuse Collection and Golf – are by nature, very capital intensive.
The budgets for these activities reflect the need to maintain the integrity and
capacity of the current capital infrastructure and its functionality.
Salt Lake City Capital Improvement Program
137 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Airport Fund – The Department of Airports is an enterprise fund of Salt Lake City
Corporation and does not receive any general fund revenues to support the
operation of the City’s system of airports. The Department of Airports (the Airport)
has 664 employee budgeted positions and is responsible for managing,
developing, and promoting airports that provide quality transportation facilities
and services, and a convenient travel experience.
The Fiscal Year 2025 budget continues to see growth in enplanements, revenues,
as well as expenditures. The budget no longer contains Covid-19 relief grants that
were used to recover lost revenue as well as subsidize the rates and charges for
commercial and cargo carriers. The Salt Lake City International Airport (SLCIA)
continues to benefit from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) grants awarded
for FY2025. The BIL grants will continue to provide much needed and critical
funding for airport capital infrastructure projects that are moving from design into
actual construction. The Airport will be bringing on five gates located on Concourse
B as well as the opening of the much anticipated central tunnel in October 2024.
These openings bring additional staffing and maintenance staff requirements while
seeing the complete elimination of the remaining hardstand operations.
The developed FY25 budget continues to provide positive financial benefits with
increased passengers and revenues that help offset increased operating expenses.
The Airport will continue to fund important capital projects. These projects include
the Phase III and Phase IV of construction of gates on Concourse B. In addition,
critical projects found in the airfield, landside, and auxiliary airports will continue to
be funded to ensure that all Airport’s owned facilities keep up with critical
infrastructure to support the growth we are currently experiencing as well as the
growth we are projecting into future years.
Public Utilities Funds – Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities (SLCDPU) has
four distinct utilities: water, sewer, storm water, and street lighting. Each utility is
operated as a separate enterprise fund. Tax money is not used to fund these
services. Funding for SLCDPU capital expenditures comes from user fees, fund
reserves, revenue bonds, and occasionally a grant or state/federal government
subsidized loan. The department is utilizing a Water Infrastructure Financing
Innovation Act (WIFIA) loan to finance a portion of the water reclamation facility
construction, a Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) grant to
fund a portion of the City Creek Water Treatment Plant reconstruction, and an
American Rescue Plan Act grant to fund the Granary District Floodplain Mitigation
Re-mapping. Customers pay for the services they receive through utility rates that
have been established for each fund. The rates were developed on a cost of service
basis. Our utilities are infrastructure intensive and administration of these assets
requires long term project and financial planning.
The SLCDPU capital budget is shown by fund with subcategory cost centers under
each. In fiscal year 2025, the department has over 60 capital projects between the
Salt Lake City Capital Improvement Program
138 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
four funds as well as continuing work on existing projects. Many of the capital
projects in Public Utilities cover multiple fiscal years. It is common for projects to
be designed in one year and constructed in subsequent years. The budget includes
projects rated as a high priority in the Department’s Capital Asset Program (CAP).
The replacement of the water reclamation facility is the largest project undertaken
by SLCDPU. Other elements of our systems are also experiencing aging problems
and will require increasing attention in the future. For example, our three water
treatment plants were built in the 1950’s and early 60’s. Planning is underway for
each of the plants to determine the best approaches for their replacement, with
the City Creek re-construction proceeding towards a 2027 completion date. A
unique aspect of capital projects in SLCDPU is that Federal, State, and local
regulations affect many of our priorities. Adding to the complexity are water rights
and exchange agreement obligations.
RDA Funds – The Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (RDA) strengthens
neighborhoods and commercial districts to improve livability, create economic
opportunity, and foster authentic, equitable communities. The RDA utilizes a
powerful set of financial and planning tools to support strategic development
projects that enhance the City’s housing opportunities, commercial vitality, public
spaces, and environmental sustainability. The RDA’s primary source of funds for
the projects include property tax increment and program income revenue,
depending on the specific budget account.
The RDA often participates with Salt Lake City in the redevelopment or
construction of city owned infrastructure projects. As part of the RDA Budget
Policy, Capital Projects are defined as any project that anticipates multi-year
funding. The allocation of funds for these projects is part of the budget approval
process and is typically contingent on the RDA Board authorizing appropriation
once the specific projects' costs and details are known. Depending on the project,
the timeline for this process may not follow the City’s CIP schedule or requirements
for approval.
The RDA fiscal year 2025 budget process proposes three potential City
infrastructure projects:
•City Creek Daylighting: Allocates an additional $50,000 towards designing the
daylighting of City Creek along the Folsom Trail from 800 West to 1000 West,
supplementing the fiscal year 2024's $100,000 appropriation for final
construction drawings. The total project, aimed at improving access to nature,
water quality, and flood mitigation, is estimated to cost between $15 million
and $20 million.
◦
•Japantown Construction Documents: Designates $100,000 to produce detailed
construction documents for the Japantown Design Strategy, essential for
estimating costs and guiding redevelopment. The plans aim to revitalize the
Salt Lake City Capital Improvement Program
139 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
neighborhood while honoring its historical significance and fostering
community engagement and connectivity.
◦
•Japantown Art: Designates a total of $336,577 for enhancing the cultural
landscape through various art installations recommended in the Japantown
Design Strategy that celebrate and preserve Japantown’s heritage. The initiative
aims to beautify the neighborhood and provide an engaging artistic experience
for both residents and visitors.
Sustainability Fund - Sustainability operations enable continuing compliance
with federal, state and local regulations related to landfill gas collection, closing
portions of the landfill, and constructing a new landfill cell within the permitted
footprint included in the master plan. Sustainability proposed no capital projects
for FY 2024-25.
Golf Fund - The Golf Division operates seven full-service golf courses at six Salt
Lake City locations providing quality recreational experiences at a competitive price
for Salt Lake City residents and visitors from surrounding cities and various out of
state locations. Golf Course Capital Projects are funded, primarily, from excess
revenue generated by user fees. The Golf Division has produced excess revenue
over the past 3 years and is able to begin re-investing funds into long-overdue
projects.
In addition, for the FY22 budget the Golf Division implemented a Golf CIP Fee
increase from $1 to $2 per every 9 holes played to bring more capital into the Golf
CIP Fund to increase funding from this source for additional future projects.
The Golf Division has budgeted $7,709,000 for Capital Improvement Projects in
FY25. The Golf Division is in the middle of a multi-year project to improve tee box
hitting surfaces by re-leveling and re-sodding many of the tee box areas at each
course and has allocated $60,000 in FY25 from the Golf CIP Fund. The Golf Division
is in the middle of a multi-year project to repair existing cart paths and construct
some new carts paths and has allocated $525,000 for FY25. The Golf Division will
undergo a major project installing a new irrigation system at the Rose Park golf
course budgeted at $4,400,000. Other significant projects include replacing the
driving range fence at Bonneville and driving range hitting facility at Glendale golf
course.
As part of a multi-year plan to upgrade vital maintenance equipment at all courses,
the Golf Division will be using $663,951 in FY25 to purchase additional equipment.
that are moving from design into actual construction. The Airport will be bringing
on 22 gates located on South Concourse East (SCE) in October 2024 which brings
additional staffing and maintenance staff requirements while seeing a significant
reduction in the hardstand operations.
Salt Lake City Capital Improvement Program
140 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
De
b
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Debt Service Projects
Sales Tax Series 2014B Bond $ 744,551 $ 744,551
Sales Tax Series 2016A Bond $ 2,008,941 $ 2,008,941
Sales Tax Series 2019A Bond $ 357,351 $ 357,351
Sales Tax Series 2021 $ 518,668 $ 518,668
Sales Tax Series 2022B Bond $ 2,005,851 $ 2,005,851
Sales Tax Series 2022C Bond $ 3,090,117 $ 3,090,117
ESCO Debt Service to Bond $ 923,600 $ 923,600
Fire Station #3 $ 677,575 $ 677,575
Fire Station #14 $ 498,550 $ 498,550
Debt Service Projects Total $ 10,825,204 $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ 10,825,204
On
g
o
i
n
g
Ongoing Projects
Crime Lab $ 600,000 $ 600,000
City Leases $ 560,000 $ 560,000
Facilities Maintenance $ 350,000 $ 350,000
Urban Trail Maintenance $ 200,000 $ 200,000
Planning and Design $ 350,000 $ 350,000
Public Lands Maintenance $ 250,000 $ 683,152 $ 933,152
Community and Neighborhoods - Surplus Land RES $ 700,000 $ 700,000
Ongoing Projects Total $ 2,810,000 $ 683,152 $ — $ — $ 200,000 $ — $ 3,693,152
Ot
h
e
r
O
n
g
o
i
n
g
Other Ongoing
Public Services- ESCO County Steiner $ 155,300 $ 155,300
Public Services - Memorial House $ 20,000 $ 20,000
FY25 Landfill $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000
Other Ongoing $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ 1,675,300 $ 1,675,300
Salt Lake City
General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / 1/4 Cent Sales Tax / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary
Fiscal Year 2025
PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL
Salt Lake City Capital Improvement Program
141 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Ne
w
C
I
P
New/Maintenance Projects Total
Stabilize the Fire Training Tower Deterioration $ 858,800 $ 858,800
400 South Jordan River Bridge Reconstruction $ 4,000,000 $ 4,000,000
Liberty Park Greenhouse Restoration $ 124,000 $ 124,000
Complete Streets Reconstruction 2025 $ 3,500,000 $ 3,500,000
Liberty Park Greenhouse Design and Construction Documents
$ 804,500 $ 117,200 $ 921,700
Complete Streets Overlay 2025 $ 2,750,000 $ 2,750,000
Public Way Concrete 2025 $ 500,000 $ 500,000
Facilities Replacement and Renewal Plan $ 1,366,350 $ 1,366,350
Plaza 349 HVAC Improvements - Phase I $ 2,200,000 $ 2,200,000
Transit Capital Program / Funding Our Future Transit
$ 750,000 $ 750,000
Safer Crossings Citywide $ 300,000 $ 300,000
Sugar House Park – Two Pavilion Replacements (50/50 Cost Share)
$ 480,000 $ 480,000
Transitioning to Regionally-Appropriate Landscapes, Adapting Irrigation Systems, and Reducing Water Use
$ 500,000 $ 500,000
HVAC Control Replacement at PSB $ 1,300,000 $ 1,300,000
Salt Lake City
General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / 1/4 Cent Sales Tax / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary
Fiscal Year 2025
PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL
Salt Lake City Capital Improvement Program
142 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Ne
w
C
I
P
(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Citywide Park Restroom Planning Study/Fairmont Restroom Conceptual Design
$ 100,000 $ 100,000
Neighborhood Byways Program $ 20,000 $ 950,000 $ 970,000
Courts & Playgrounds $ 549,150 $ 54,490 $ 603,640
Traffic Signal Replacement and Upgrades Program
$ 730,000 $ 730,000
Amplifying Our Jordan River Revitalization: Doubling Bond Investment
$ 1,300,000 $ 1,300,000
Riverside Park Pathway Loop $ 530,000 $ 530,000
Street Futsal Courts $ 350,000 $ 350,000
Playground Shade $ 500,000 $ 500,000
Pocket Park Community Space - Jake Garn Way $ 330,000 $ 330,000
Equal Grounds Project (Calisthenics-Fitness Area)
$ 86,200 $ 86,200
5th West Commons Conversation Center(s)
$ 50,000 $ 50,000
Historic Signs/Markers $ 30,000 $ 30,000
Concrete Replacement $ 750,000 $ 750,000
New Projects Total $ 7,330,000 $ 3,154,490 $ 4,250,000 $ 3,146,200 $ 8,000,000 $ — $ 25,880,690
Cost Overrun $ 223,171 $ 223,171
Percent for Art $ 167,378 $ 167,378
Total General Fund/Other Fund/Class C Fund/Impact Fee Fund/Surplus Land Fund CIP Projects
$ 21,355,753 $ 3,837,642 $ 4,250,000 $ 3,146,200 $ 8,200,000 $ 1,675,300 $ 42,464,895
Salt Lake City
General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / 1/4 Cent Sales Tax / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary
Fiscal Year 2025
PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL
Salt Lake City Capital Improvement Program
143 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Airport CIP Projects
FedEx Utilities and Roadway $ 3,935,000 $ 3,935,000
Decommission R/W 14-32 & T/W Improvements $ 3,605,000 $ 3,605,000
Taxiway U & V Proper Design $ 4,725,000 $ 4,725,000
Taxiway U & V Proper Construction $ 102,320,400 $ 102,320,400
Taxiway G from E to North of Delta Ramp $ 4,000,000 $ 4,000,000
Taxiway H1 & End Runway 16L / 34R Repair $ 4,939,000 $ 4,939,000
Taxiway F Reconstruction (F1 - F2)$ 9,524,000 $ 9,524,000
Runway 16L / 34R & Taxiway Complex Ext Environment Assessment
$ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000
SVRA Randon Aviation Taxilane & Infrastructure $ 760,000 $ 760,000
SVRA Pavement Preservation & Apron Expansion $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000
Bus Plaza EV Stations $ 1,162,000 $ 1,162,000
Economy Lot Bus Lane Reconstruction $ 3,067,000 $ 3,067,000
Landside Pavement Management FY25 $ 942,000 $ 942,000
QTA Equipment Replacement $ 248,000 $ 248,000
Electrical Vehicle Charging Stations - Phase IV (FY25)$ 1,549,000 $ 1,549,000
GA Hangar Demo - Hughes & Upper Limit $ 718,000 $ 718,000
Salt Lake City
General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / 1/4 Cent Sales Tax / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary
Fiscal Year 2025
PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL
Salt Lake City Capital Improvement Program
144 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
GA Hangar Demo - Rows 6, 7, &15 and Pavement Preservation
$ 1,223,000 $ 1,223,000
State of Utah - Sky Harbour Roadway & Site Improvements
$ 3,260,000 $ 3,260,000
Total Airport CIP Projects $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ 148,477,400 $ 148,477,400
Go
l
f
Golf CIP Projects
Tee Box Leveling $ 60,000 $ 60,000
Pump Replacement $ 25,000 $ 25,000
Maintenance Equipment $ 456,538 $ 456,538
Range Fence $ 900,000 $ 900,000
Property Fencing Project $ 55,000 $ 55,000
New Construction Projects $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000
Irrigation Improvements $ 4,400,000 $ 4,400,000
Cart Path Improvements $ 525,000 $ 525,000
Bridges $ 74,000 $ 74,000
On Course Restroom $ 150,000 $ 150,000
Range Hitting Pad Extension $ 20,000 $ 20,000
Golf Carts $ 206,305 $ 206,305
Total Golf CIP Projects $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ 8,371,843 $ 8,371,843
Salt Lake City
General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / 1/4 Cent Sales Tax / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary
Fiscal Year 2025
PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL
Salt Lake City Capital Improvement Program
145 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Pu
b
l
i
c
U
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Public Utilities CIP Projects
Water Main Replacements $ 10,093,000 $ 10,093,000
Treatment Plant Improvements $ 62,850,000 $ 62,850,000
Deep Pump Wells $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000
Meter Change-Out Program $ 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000
Water Service Connections $ 3,950,000 $ 3,950,000
Storage Reservoirs $ 1,075,000 $ 1,075,000
Pumping Plants & Pump Houses $ 320,000 $ 320,000
Culverts, Flumes & Bridges $ 2,550,000 $ 2,550,000
Distribution Reservoirs (Tanks)$ 300,000 $ 300,000
Shops, Storehouse, Other Buildings (Water Utility)
$ 80,000 $ 80,000
Treatment Plants $ 214,575,333 $ 214,575,333
Collection Lines $ 24,993,000 $ 24,993,000
Lift Stations $ 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000
Pu
b
l
i
c
U
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Shops, Storehouse, Other Buildings (Sewer Utility)
$ 280,000 $ 280,000
Storm Drain Lines $ 2,155,000 $ 2,155,000
Riparian Corridor Improvements $ 450,000 $ 450,000
Landscaping $ 100,000 $ 100,000
Storm Water Lift Stations $ 5,914,000 $ 5,914,000
Detention Basins $ 3,635,000 $ 3,635,000
Shops, Storehouse, Other Buildings (Storm water Utility)
$ 40,000 $ 40,000
Street Lighting Projects $ 1,240,000 $ 1,240,000
Total Public Utilities CIP Projects $—$—$—$—$—$341,600,333 $ 341,600,333
Salt Lake City
General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / 1/4 Cent Sales Tax / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary
Fiscal Year 2025
PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL
Salt Lake City Capital Improvement Program
146 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
RD
A
Redevelopment Agency (RDA) CIP Projects
City Creek Daylighting $ 50,000 $ 50,000
Japantown Construction Documents $ 100,000 $ 100,000
Japantown Art $ 336,577 $ 336,577
Total RDA CIP Projects $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ 486,577 $ 486,577
Su
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Sustainability CIP Projects
No Projects $ —
Total Sustainability CIP Projects $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ —
Total Enterprise and Other Fund CIP $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ 498,936,153 $ 498,936,153
GRAND TOTAL $ 21,355,753 $ 3,837,642 $ 4,250,000 $ 3,146,200 $ 8,200,000 $ 500,611,453 $ 541,401,048
Salt Lake City
General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / 1/4 Cent Sales Tax / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary
Fiscal Year 2025
PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL
Salt Lake City Capital Improvement Program
147 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
This page intentionally left blank
Department
Budgets
This page intentionally left blank
OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Organizational Structure Fiscal Year 2024-25
Salt Lake City Office of the City Council
151 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Director
FY 2022-23 Actuals FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget
FY 2024-25 Recommended Budget
FY 2024-25 FTE
DEPARTMENT BUDGET
Personnel Services 3,985,002 4,977,720 5,256,811
Operating and Maintenance 18,635 58,800 58,800
Charges & Services 856,161 921,729 971,729
Capital Expenditures 14,890 2,000 2,000
Total Office of the City Council 4,874,688 5,960,249 6,289,340
DIVISION BUDGETS
Community Affairs 4,725,478 5,610,149 5,939,240 39.00
Legislative Non-Departmental 149,210 350,100 350,100
Total Office of the City Council 4,874,688 5,960,249 6,289,340
FUNDING SOURCES
General Fund 4,874,688 5,960,249 6,289,340 39.00
Total Office of the City Council 4,874,688 5,960,249 6,289,340
FTE by Fiscal Year 36.00 39.00 39.00
FY 2025 Department Budget
Personnel Services
5,256,811
Operating and Maintenance
58,800
Charges & Services
971,729
Capital Expenditures
2,000
Salt Lake City Office of the City Council
152 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Changes discussed below represent adjustments to the FY 2023-24 adopted budget.
Personal Services Base to Base Changes (296,864)
Base-to-base changes compares personal services costs adopted as part of the FY2024
budget to actual personal services costs paid during the first pay period of the calendar year
2024. Changes in this category incorporate changes in personal services at the individual
staff level, including pay adjustments, reclassifications, career ladders, and benefits changes
that happened in the first part of the current fiscal year.
Pension Changes 44,840
The budget includes changes as required for participation in the Utah state pension system.
Insurance Rate Changes 48,524
This increase reflects the cost of insurance for the City Council as described in the Budget
Summary section of the Budget Book.
Salary Proposal 405,271
This increase reflects the City Council Office portion of the salary proposal described in the
Budget Summary portion of the Mayor's Recommended Budget Book.
Health Savings Account 19,750
The Health Saving Account is increased based on the description in the Budget Summary
Policy Issues
Compensation Adjustments 57,570
Compensation increase for various employees
Executive Security 50,000
Security for City Council events and meetings.
Salt Lake City Office of the City Council
153 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
This page intentionally left blank
154 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
Organizational Structure Fiscal Year 2024-25
Salt Lake City Office of the Mayor
155 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
Erin Mendenhall, Mayor of Salt Lake City
FY 2022-23 Actuals
FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget
FY 2024-25 Recommended Budget
FY 2024-25 FTE
DEPARTMENT BUDGET
Personnel Services 4,217,383 5,238,468 5,537,026
O & M 51,515 112,953 138,473
Charges & Services 808,760 1,443,146 1,690,396
Capital Expenditures 42,132 25,500 500
Total Office of the Mayor 5,119,790 6,820,067 7,366,395
DIVISION BUDGETS
Community Outreach 448,615 1,293,505 1,557,344 9.00
Communication 4,671,175 5,526,562 525,788 3.00
Policy Advisors — — 690,083 3.00
Executive Staff — — 2,641,543 12.00
Government Relations — — 126,600
Equity Administration — — 1,825,037 8.00
Total Office of the Mayor 5,119,790 6,820,067 7,366,395
FUNDING SOURCES
General Fund 5,119,790 6,820,067 7,366,395 35.00
Total Office of the Mayor 5,119,790 6,820,067 7,366,395
FTE by Fiscal Year 32.00 34.00 35.00
Salt Lake City Office of the Mayor
156 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
FY 2025 Department Budget
Personnel Services
5,537,026
O & M
138,473
Charges & Services
1,690,396
Capital Expenditures
500
Salt Lake City Office of the Mayor
157 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
Changes discussed below represent adjustments to the FY 2023-24 adopted budget.
Personal Services Base-to-Base Changes 26,915
Base-to-Base changes compare personal services costs adopted as part of the FY2024 budget
to actual personal services costs paid during the first pay period of the calendar year 2024.
Changes in this category incorporate changes in personal services at the individual staff level,
including pay adjustments, reclassifications, career ladders, and benefits changes that
happened in the first part of the current fiscal year.
Pension Changes (24,548)
The budget includes changes as required for participation in the Utah state pension system.
Insurance Rate Changes 15,021
This increase reflects the Office of the Mayor's insurance cost as described in the Budget
Summary section of the Budget Book.
Salary Proposal 111,021
This increase reflects the Mayor's Office portion of the salary proposal described in the
Budget Summary portion of the Mayor's Recommended Budget Book.
Health Savings Account 17,250
The Health Saving Account is increased based on the description in the Budget Summary.
Budget Amendment #2: Love Your Block, Know Your Neighbor 62,250
Funding added in budget amendment #2 of FY2024 for the Know Your Neighbor Program
and the Love Your Block Program ongoing expenses.
Policy Issues
Office Reconfiguration Removal of One-time Funding (25,000)
Funding for the Mayor's Office office reconfiguration to accommodate additional employees
is being removed.
SLC Volunteer Corps Expansion (Consultant & Operating Exp) (Ongoing) 63,000
Funding of $30,000 is being included for a consulting fee to develop a volunteer service plan
and an additional $33,000 is being included for ongoing operational costs of the program.
Love Your Block Program - Tool & Expansion (One-time) 69,000
The recommended budget includes $65,000 for a truck and equipment for a trailer. An
additional $4,000 is also being included for ongoing operational costs and maintenance.
Senior Advisor to the Mayor (Grade 39) (12 Months) 216,420
The budget includes funding for a Senior Advisor to the Mayor position. This position will
oversee the execution of priority projects and public-private partnerships currently identified
and prioritized by the Mayor, including but not limited to the downtown sports &
entertainment district, Main Street pedestrian improvements, the Green Loop, and Grand
Boulevards.
Community Cultural Events Supplies (Ongoing) 15,000
The budget includes funding for supplies for the community cultural events.
Salt Lake City Office of the Mayor
158 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
Organizational Structure Fiscal Year 2024-25
Salt Lake City Department of Airports
159 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Department of Airports
AIRPORT OVERVIEW
The Salt Lake City Department of Airports manages Salt Lake City International
Airport (the Airport), Tooele Valley Airport, and South Valley Regional Airport. The
Airport serves a multi-state region and consists of three air carrier runways and a
general aviation runway and is classified as a large hub airport. The Airport's
extensive route network served over 26.4 million passengers in FY2023. The
Airport provides 321 daily departures and arrivals to 92 non-stop destinations.
Enplaned passengers are estimated to increase by approximately 2.9% from the
FY2024 budget of 14.1 million enplanements to 14.5 million enplanements for
FY2025. The NEW SLC completed phase II of the new airport with the opening of 22
new gates on Concourse A east in October of 2023. Phase III will bring an initial 5
gates on Concourse B east in October of 2024 as well as the opening of the much
anticipated Central Tunnel.
Tooele Valley Airport is a general aviation reliever airport to the Airport. It has one
runway and support services are on-demand only. South Valley Regional Airport is
also a general aviation reliever airport. It also has one runway and is a base for a
Utah National Guard military helicopter unit.
The Department of Airports is an Enterprise Fund. It is not supported by property
taxes, general funds of local governments or special district taxes. Capital funding
requirements for FY2025 are met from non-aeronautical revenues, passenger
facility charges, customer facility charges, general airport revenue bonds (GARBs),
Federal Aviation Administration grants under the Airport Improvement Program,
and State grants.
MISSION AND VISION STATEMENT
The mission of the Salt Lake City Department of Airports is to develop and
manage a system of airports, owned by Salt Lake City, which provides quality
transportation facilities and services to optimize convenience, safety, and
efficiency for aviation customers. The vision is to achieve excellence and
unprecedented customer service in making Salt Lake City among the most
convenient and efficient air transportation centers in the world.
Salt Lake City Department of Airports
160 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
Department Performance Measurements
Measure 2021 Actual 2022 Actual 2023 Actual 2024 Target 2025 Target
Pass the Transportation Security Administration's
annual security inspection, TSR 1542 Security Regulations
Passed Passed Passed Pass Pass
Pass the annual certification by the FAA per Regulation 139 Passed Passed Passed Pass Pass
Maintain airfield runway operating capacity rate of not less than 95%>95%>95%>95%>95%>95%
The Airport Enterprise Fund
will maintain adequate cash
reserves of 25% of their operating expenditures
>25%>25%>25%>25%>25%
Target cost per enplaned passenger of not greater than $20.00 11.25*8.11*8.28 9.94 17.88
*Reflects impacts of COVID-19
Salt Lake City Department of Airports
161 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
William W. Wyatt, Department Director
I
FY 2022-23 Actuals
FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget
FY 2024-25 Recommended Budget
FY 2024-25 FTE
DEPARTMENT BUDGET
Personnel Services 58,756,634 71,058,829 76,520,700
Operating and Maintenance 20,108,959 18,938,100 25,014,000
Charges & Services 93,691,677 118,528,368 137,309,375
Capital Expenditures (64) 188,100,800 167,478,025
Interest & Bond Expenditures 139,648,339 123,662,900 169,923,000
Depreciation & Amortization 148,449,312 — —
Transfers Out — 150,000 150,000
Total Airport 460,654,857 520,438,997 576,395,100
DIVISION BUDGETS
Office of the Director 1,456,325 1,890,775 1,799,252 3.00
Finance & Accounting 298,933,161 322,696,040 349,434,063 16.50
Operations 49,384,056 55,303,646 58,251,711 209.80
Commercial Services 5,041,422 6,767,575 7,274,322 17.00
Maintenance 77,415,639 98,040,783 113,942,908 325.50
Planning & Environmental 1,977,943 3,039,050 3,452,056 16.00
Design & Construction Management 1,967,836 3,799,151 4,441,529 29.50
Information Technology 12,579,207 15,316,701 21,345,708 43.00
Communications & Marketing 1,246,902 1,879,976 1,991,352 4.00
Airport Police 10,652,366 11,705,300 14,462,200
Total Airport 460,654,857 520,438,997 576,395,100
FUNDING SOURCES
Airport Fund 5,054,978 6,044,149 576,395,100 664.30
Total Airport 5,054,978 508,778,032 576,395,100
FTE by Fiscal Year 619.30 639.30 664.30
Salt Lake City Department of Airports
162 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
FY 2025 Department Budget
Personnel Services
76,520,700
Operating and Maintenance
25,014,000
Charges & Services
137,309,375
Capital Expenditures
167,478,025
Interest & Bond Expenditures
169,923,000
Salt Lake City Department of Airports
163 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
This page intentionally left blank
164 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Organizational Structure Fiscal Year 2024-25
Salt Lake City Office of the City Attorney
165 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Office of the
Salt Lake City Attorney
DEPARTMENT VISION STATEMENT
Our goal is to be valued and trusted partners, recognized and relied upon for our
expertise, creativity, and commitment to advancing the City’s goals.
DEPARTMENT MISSION STATEMENT
The City Attorney’s Office’s mission is to provide high-quality, timely legal
advice to the City and be relied upon as a trusted, productive, and positive City
team member.
DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW
The Department of the Salt Lake City Attorney includes four divisions: the Civil
Attorney's Division, the Office of the City Recorder, the Legislative Affairs Division,
and the Risk Division. In addition, the City Attorney's Office manages the
contractual relationship between the County District Attorney and the City, in
which the County District Attorney is designated as the City Prosecutor.
The Department of the City Attorney strives to supervise and coordinate efforts of
its Divisions to support departments of the City (both the Administrative and
Legislative branches) through legal advice, process, and policy development.
Administratively, the Office closely coordinates with Risk Management on litigation
matters and claims submitted against the City, works with the Prosecutor’s Office
on budgetary and administrative matters, supports the Recorder’s Office to serve
the City’s goals of transparency and compliance with the law. The recent addition
of the Legislative Affairs division aligns the responsibility for monitoring state and
federal legislation and engaging in advocacy, collaboration, and tracking of
legislative matters for the City.
Salt Lake City Office of the City Attorney
166 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Department Performance Measurements
Measure 2021 Actual 2022 Actual 2023 Actual 2024 Target 2025 Target
Maintain an hourly rate for services provided by the City Attorney's Office (CAO) to less than 50% of the average rates the City pays for outside counsel
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Maintain the number of open litigation holds to less than a 10% increase from year to year
16% increase <10%<10%
Maintain the number of open litigation cases to less than a 10% increase from year to year
51% increase <10%<10%
Maintain a disposition rate of 85% or higher.85%97%>85%>85%
Have City Council Minutes approved and available to the public within 30 days at least 95% of the time.
80%95%95%100%100%
Number of GRAMA requests received by the City annually 15,976 16,435 15,620 15,000 15,000
Annual percentage increase in GRAMA requests >1%>1%>1%>1%
Process, activate, and digitize all contracts entered into on behalf of Salt Lake City within three working days 100% of the time
95%98%98%100%100%
Number of workers’ compensation claims filed, based on date of injury TBD 570 504 504 504
Number of property damage claims filed, based on date of loss. TBD 209 307 307 307
Number of bodily injury, claims filed, based on date of loss TBD 34 58 95 95
Salt Lake City Office of the City Attorney
167 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
SALT LAKE CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
Katherine Lewis, City Attorney
FY 2022-23 Actuals
FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget
FY 2024-25 Recommended Budget
FY 2024-25 FTE
DEPARTMENT BUDGET
Personnel Services 8,603,303 10,609,631 13,713,604
Operating and Maintenance 57,605 98,841 1,506,468
Charges & Services 7,728,732 7,922,884 6,617,282
Capital Expenditures 25,847 85,844 30,844
Total Attorney's Office 16,415,487 18,717,201 21,868,197
DIVISION BUDGETS
City Attorney's Office (Civil Division) 5,349,678 7,588,241 8,165,382 23.00
City Recorder 1,119,291 1,354,287 1,664,797 12.00
Risk Management 6,409,166 4,856,345 6,077,613 3.80
Prosecutor's Office 3,537,352 4,918,328 5,508,661 36.50
Legislative Review — — 451,744 4.00
Total Attorney's Office 16,415,487 18,717,201 21,868,197
FUNDING SOURCES
General Fund 8,683,237 10,490,844 12,881,528 66.50
Governmental Immunity Fund 4,198,907 3,370,012 3,894,763 9.00
Risk Fund 3,533,343 4,856,345 5,091,906 3.80
Total Attorney's Office 16,415,487 18,717,201 21,868,197
FTE by Fiscal Year 57.5 73.30 79.30
FY 2025 Department Budget
Personal Services
13,713,603.5
O & M
1,506,467.72
Charges and Services
6,617,281.56
Capital Expenditures
30,844
Salt Lake City Office of the City Attorney
168 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
OFFICE OF THE SALT LAKE CITY ATTORNEY
Katherine Lewis, City Attorney
Changes discussed below represent adjustments to the FY 2023-24 adopted General Fund budget.
Personal Services Base-to-Base Changes 82,365
Base-to-Base changes compares personal services costs adopted as part of the FY2024 budget to
actual personal services costs paid during the first pay period of the calendar year 2024. Changes in
this category incorporate changes in personal services at the individual staff level, including pay
adjustments, reclassifications, career ladders, and benefits changes that happened in the first part of
the current fiscal year.
Pension Changes 151,306
The budget includes changes as required for participation in the Utah state pension system.
Insurance Rate Changes 120,416
This increase reflects a change in the cost of insurance for the Attorneys’ Office as described in the
Budget Summary section of the Budget Book.
Salary Proposal 1,333,860
This increase reflects the Attorney's Office portion of the salary proposal described in the Budget
Summary portion of the Mayor's Recommended Budget Book.
CCAC Salary Adjustments 13,977
The budget includes funding to bring non-represented positions in the City to fair market value in
accordance with the Citizen's Compensation Advisory Committee (CCAC).
Health Savings Account 39,500
The Health Savings account is increasing as described in the Budget Summary.
Policy Issues
Office Reconfiguration One-time Cost Reduction (55,000)
Represented as a reduction of one-time funding for the break room design on the 5th floor.
Operating Costs - Legislative Affairs (Ongoing) 80,000
The Division was created during a budget amendment, and it was an oversight to not include
operating costs. The costs will account for professional development and access to the Lobby Lounge.
Personnel Adjustments-Legislative Affairs (Adjust a position to grade E35) (Ongoing) 85,287
Adjustment of a position to provide Deputy Director support to the Legislative Affairs Director
position. This also includes a re-class to the Legislative Affairs Director.
Professional Development (One-time) 49,000
Conference attendance, annual certification requirements and a growing team aligns with the design
for collaborative partner development through professional opportunities.
Personnel Adjustments - Recorder's (Deputy Recorders from E26 to E31) (Ongoing) 89,710
Deputy Recorders have evolved in their role to include technology development and data
management in addition to paper records and operations. This adjustment is representative of the
required skill set and citywide support offered by the Recorder’s office. This also includes a re-class
for the Director of the Recorders Office.
Special Projects Analyst - Board Member Compensation (E26) (10 Months) (Ongoing) 89,640
In fulfillment of the Executive Order regarding Board & Commission Member compensation, the
Recorder’s office is handling the compensation in coordination with HR and Finance.
Salt Lake City Office of the City Attorney
169 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Prosecutors Office - City Prosecutor Assistant (10 Months) (Ongoing) 60,623
Due to the judge model adjustment, two prosecutor assistants are necessary to support a single
judge. The request supports the new model of support, improve case processing and lessen the
probability of employee burnout.
Salt Lake City Office of the City Attorney
170 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOODS
Organizational Structure Fiscal Year 2024-25
Salt Lake City Department of Community and Neighborhoods
171 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Department of Community
and Neighborhoods
DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW
1.CAN Administration
2.Building Services
3.Housing Stability
4.Planning
5.Transportation
6.Youth and Family
MISSION STATEMENT
The Department of Community and Neighborhoods creates Sustainable, Equitable,
Growing, and Opportunity-rich (“SEGO”) communities and neighborhoods through
emphases on:
1. Upward Mobility
2. Housing Affordability
3. Community Investment
4. Transportation Options
5. Neighborhood Amenities
6. Safe and Healthy Built Environments.
Department Performance Measurements
Measure 2021 Actual 2022 Actual 2023 Actual 2024 Target 2025 Target
Building Services Number of building safety and
code compliance inspections completed 46,686 46,307 57,907 46,000 46,000
Transportation Number of annual service requests (stop signs, speeding, signal timing, parking, etc.)958 1,145 1,427 1,400 1,400
Planning Number of planning applications received annually 1,191 1,202 1,045 875 875
Housing Stability Residents assisted through programs supported by Federal funds 10,723 11,950 15,149 16,350 16,350
Salt Lake City Department of Community and Neighborhoods
172 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas, Department Director
FY 2022-23 Actuals
FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget
FY 2024-25 Recommended Budget
FY 2024-25 FTE
DEPARTMENT BUDGET
Personnel Services 20,681,585 23,272,321 26,249,025
O & M 300,965 298,475 296,077
Charges & Services 9,937,576 9,572,365 8,164,036
Capital Expenditures 105,946 — —
Total Community & Neighborhoods 40,484,819 33,143,161 34,709,138
DIVISION BUDGETS
Building Services 7,000,103 7,685,416 8,994,317 65.00
Office of the Director 1,995,495 3,159,283 2,374,003 13.00
Housing Stability 10,717,062 9,106,818 9,762,459 22.00
Planning 4,941,873 5,426,157 5,888,337 42.00
Youth and Family Development 2,739,865 3,349,088 2,908,111 21.00
Transportation 13,090,421 4,416,399 4,781,912 30.00
Total Community & Neighborhoods 40,484,819 33,143,161 34,709,138
FUNDING SOURCES
General Fund 30,935,445 33,143,161 34,709,138 193.00
Transportation Fund 9,549,374 —
Total Community & Neighborhoods 40,484,819 33,143,161 34,709,138
FTE by Fiscal Year 190.00 195.00 193.00
FY 2025 Department Budget
Personal
Services
26,249,025
O & M
296,077
Charges &
Services
8,164,036
Salt Lake City Department of Community and Neighborhoods
173 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOODS
Changes discussed below represent adjustments to the FY 2023-24 adopted budget.
Personal Services Base-to-Base Changes 1,024,588
Base-to-Base changes compares personal services costs adopted as part of the FY2024 budget to
actual personal services costs paid during the first pay period of the calendar year 2024. Changes in
this category incorporate changes in personal services at the individual staff level, including pay
adjustments, reclassifications, career ladders, and benefits changes that happened in the first part of
the current fiscal year.
Pension Changes 165,861
The budget includes changes as required for participation in the Utah state pension system.
Insurance Rate Changes 298,742
This increase reflects a change in insurance cost for the Department of Community and
Neighborhoods as described in the Budget Summary section of the Budget Book.
Salary Proposal 1,590,278
This increase reflects the Department of Community and Neighborhoods' portion of the salary
proposal described in the Budget Summary portion of the Mayor's Recommended Budget Book.
CCAC Salary Adjustments 213,920
The budget includes funding to bring non-represented positions in the City to fair market value in
accordance with the Citizen's Compensation Advisory Committee (CCAC).
Health Savings Account 101,000
The Health Saving Account has increased as described in the Budget and Summary
Policy Issues
Youth & Family 4.0 FTE - Typically Grant Funded (447,136)
The FY 2024 included one time costs for 4 Youth and Family FTE's that are typically funded by a grant.
However, due to the timing and uncertainty of receiving the grant, these positions were temporarily
appropriated in the general fund.
Train Crossing Safety Signage (FOF) (150,000)
The FY 2024 budget included one time costs for a pilot program to create a system that alerts travelers
with dynamic signage at strategic railroad crossings that will allow them to take a different route.
Budget Amendment : PD Substation TI Moved to PS (513,208)
The FY 2024 budget included one time costs for the tenant improvement (TI) of the PD Substations.
The budget was transferred to Public Services as the administering entity of TI in a Budget
Amendment.
Planning Study (100,000)
The FY 2024 budget included one time costs to hire a consultant to assist with a study of
neighborhoods meeting basic core needs within walking distance.
Youth & Family Strategic Plan (100,000)
The FY 2024 budget included one time costs to draft a strategic plan to ensure the city is effectively
serving our youth and not duplicating community programs.
Homeless - Ambassador Expansion Area Increase 197,399
In order to continue to fund the ambassador coverage of Rio Grande, North Temple, Ballpark and
Central City areas, The Downtown Alliance has requested an increase in budget due to inflationary
costs in order to maintain the same level of staffing and coverage.
Salt Lake City Department of Community and Neighborhoods
174 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Homeless - Black Water Tank Disposal Voucher Program (10,000)
Th FY 2024 budget included one time costs for black water dumping of occupied RV's where needed to
protect public and environmental health.
Homeless - RV Repairs (100,000)
The FY 2024 budget included one time costs for simple repairs of RV occupied vehicles and for the
decommission of RV's that were closed to occupancy. Any future funding for this program will be
requested through Public Services.
Homeless - Winter Shelter Overflow (60,000)
In order to maintain a flat budget, this budget is being reduced to fund the Ambassador program
increase. The decrease to this program will have little to no effect on current levels of service because
other State homeless funding exists to help fill this gap.
Homeless - United Site Portable Toilet Rental (27,399)
In order to maintain a flat budget, this budget is being reduced to fund the Ambassador program
increase. The decrease to this program will have little to no effect on current levels of service because
other State homeless funding exists to help fill this gap.
Communications and Engagement Manager (Grade 34) (10 Months) 139,715
CAN has many public facing divisions. This position will help craft effective communication strategies,
ensuring consistent messaging across divisions/department, including public relations, internal
communications and monitoring media coverage. (1 FTE)
Building Inspector III (Grade 27) (10 Months) 104,580
The budget includes a new FTE in order to comply with ordinance (5.14.085) requiring apartments
being inspected for housing violations every 4 years. (1 FTE)
Fleet Fuel Increases (Ongoing) 11,557
The FY 2024 budget includes inflationary increases based on fuel usage and prices.
Housekeeping - Consolidate City Lease Budgets (CIP) (Ongoing) (560,000)
There are currently three city properties that are leased (CCC, PD Substations, and the Crime Lab).
These funds are being transferred to consolidate all city leases into a single budget for tracking and
reporting purposes.
Salt Lake City Department of Community and Neighborhoods
175 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
This page intentionally left blank
176 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Organizational Structure Fiscal Year 2024-25
Salt Lake City Department of Economic Development
177 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Department of Economic
Development
DEPARTMENT VISION STATEMENT
Salt Lake City, the Capital City of Utah, seeks to serve as a regional leader for
economic opportunities, commerce, culture and recreation, research and
innovation, sustainability, and inclusiveness.
DEPARTMENT MISSION STATEMENT
The Department of Economic Development’s (Department) mission is to build Salt
Lake City as a vibrant, beautiful, prosperous, diverse, and authentic place. We do
this as a professional organization through partnerships, business development,
arts and culture, place-making, and revitalization, while promoting the City’s
many attributes.
DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW
The Salt Lake City Department of Economic Development is working hard to make
Salt Lake City a better place to build a business and also a life. Along with
overseeing Economic Development initiatives, the Department focuses on business
development and growing the arts through the Salt Lake City Arts Council (Arts
Council). These teams have aligned resources and streamlined processes to grow
and nurture a city that fosters gainful job creation, thriving business districts and
neighborhoods, and a diverse arts and culture scene.
The Department of Economic Development has established a building services
liaison for businesses/developers to provide guidance on design review and
submittal processes throughout the City. The Department has grown partnerships
with key players in the Utah Economic Development ecosystem. Notably, the
Economic Development Corporation of Utah (EDC Utah), Governor's Office of
Economic Opportunity, Visit Salt Lake, and Salt Lake County. Also, the Department
has developed local partnerships with entities that include, Salt Lake City Arts
Council Foundation, the Downtown Alliance, Suazo Business Center, BioHive,
BioUtah, the World Trade Center Utah, the Salt Lake Chamber and the Diverse and
Ethnic Chambers of Commerce in the Salt Lake City Area.
Salt Lake City Department of Economic Development
178 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
*Business Development Division Performance Measurements
Business Development Performance Measure 2021 Actual 2022 Actual 2023 Actual 2024 Target 2025 Target
Business Recruitment and Retention Site Visits 64 165 187 ≥225 235
New Leads Generated 131 194 200 ≥220 230
New Opportunities Created from Leads 138 242 130 ≥130 137
WINs (Written Impact Narrative) co-
published investment successes
with companies
11 16 12 ≥12 13
*Note: It is important to recognize that during the COVID-19 Pandemic, it was difficult to perform some of the activities that are part of
the work of the Economic Development Team which include, but are not limited to, visits with business owners and partners. However
during the pandemic, the Department created programs to support businesses; and although, these programs brought support to
businesses, it also resulted in the metrics being impacted during this unprecedented time.
Arts Council (Division) Mission Statement
The mission of the Salt Lake City Arts Council is to promote, present, and support artists and arts organizations in
order to facilitate the development of the arts and expand awareness, access, and engagement.
Arts Council Performance Measure 2021 Actuals 2022 Actual 2023 Actual 2024 Target 2025 Target
Attendees 36,070 68,594 86,277 45,000 40,000
Artists Served 1,532 3,265 2,024 2,000 1,500
Total Grants Awarded 151 141 149 115 85
Salt Lake City Department of Economic Development
179 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Lorena Riffo-Jenson, Department Director
FY 2022-23 Actuals
FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget
FY 2024-25 Recommended Budget
FY 2024-25 FTE
DEPARTMENT BUDGET
Personnel Services 2,573,663 3,035,078 3,574,170
O & M 14,860 43,800 43,800
Charges & Services 422,948 646,213 591,213
Capital Expenditures 208,578 700,000 600,000
Total Economic Development 3,220,049 4,425,091 4,809,183
DIVISION BUDGETS
Economic Development 1,924,246 3,004,282 1,849,202 14.50
Business Development — — 1,257,139
Arts Council 1,045,803 1,170,809 1,402,842 9.00
Cultural Core 250,000 250,000 300,000
Total Economic Development 3,220,049 4,425,091 4,809,183
FUNDING SOURCES
General Fund 3,220,049 4,425,091 4,809,183 23.50
Total Economic Development 3,220,049 4,425,091 4,809,183
FTE by Fiscal Year 22.00 22.00 23.50
FY 2025 Department Budget
Personal Services
3,574,170.18
O & M
43,799.88
Charges and Services
591,212.88
Capital Expenditures
600,000
Salt Lake City Department of Economic Development
180 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Changes discussed below represent adjustments to the FY 2023-24 adopted budget.
Personal Services Base-to-Base Changes 55,113
Base-to-Base changes compares personal services costs adopted as part of the FY 2024 budget to
actual personal services costs paid during the first pay period of the calendar year 2024. Changes in
this category incorporate changes in personal services at the individual staff level, including pay
adjustments, reclassifications, career ladders, and benefits changes that happened in the first part of
the current fiscal year.
Insurance Rate Changes 81,596
This increase reflects a change in the insurance cost for the Department of Economic Development
as described in the Budget Summary section of the Budget Book.
Salary Proposal 292,414
This increase reflects the Department of Economic Development's portion of the salary proposal
described in the Budget Summary portion of the Mayor's Recommended Budget Book.
Pension Changes 41,718
The budget includes changes as required for participation in the Utah State Pension System.
CCAC Salary Adjustments 3,751
The budget includes funding to bring non-represented positions in the City to fair market value in
accordance with the Citizen's Compensation Advisory Committee (CCAC).
Health Savings Account 17,500
The budget includes an increase as described in the Budget Summary
Policy Issues
DED Strategic Plan (One-time) (80,000)
This one-time funding in FY2023/2024 was to engage a consultant to build on the work done in the
previous strategic plan and includes changes within the economic landscape in Salt Lake City since
2020 and was one-time funding. The Department has contracted with a consultant and the process is
under way. No additional funding is needed.
Partnerships with Non-profits Servicing Local Small Business (30,000)
This one-time funding in FY2023/2024 was included by City Council in FY2024 to extend our
traditional financial support to community based organizations to more, smaller organizations who
serve small businesses.
Granary District Special Assessment Area Study (60,000)
This one-time funding was for the City to contract a consultant and pay the Bond Counsel for the
City’s due diligence to create a legal assessment area in the Granary District.
Main Street Promenade Economic Analysis (One-time) 115,000
This one-time funding request is a follow up analysis to the Main Street Promenade conceptual
design study. This study will report on key economic indicators such as sales tax, property tax, etc.
that will project the return on investment. It will also identify sources of funding to construct the
Promenade.
Salt Lake City Department of Economic Development
181 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Construction Mitigation (Continuation of One-time Funding) 100,000
The budget includes additional construction mitigation funding to continue the service provided by
the City starting in FY2022. The funding will be used to provide grants to businesses affected by
construction projects that have caused loss of revenue to promote their businesses to their
customers.
Non-Departmental Sister Cities (12 Months. PT) 47,000
DED has demonstrated the value and potential for the Sister Cities Program enhancements, but the
Department is not able to sustain it with existing resources. In addition, the Olympic bid has put
more pressure on diplomatic requests and demands within the City. (.5 FTE).
Salt Lake City Department of Economic Development
182 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
Organizational Structure Fiscal Year 2024-25
Salt Lake City Department of Finance
183 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Finance Department
DEPARTMENT VISION STATEMENT
As stewards of public resources, we continually strive to excel in providing
accurate, clear, relevant, complete, and timely information through the
development and implementation of innovative programs and processes.
DEPARTMENT MISSION STATEMENT
In the spirit of service and dedication, the Finance Department develops
efficient and sustainable solutions to manage and safeguard Salt Lake City’s
financial resources.
DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW
The Finance Department consists of six divisions: the Treasurer’s Office, Purchasing
and Contracts, Accounting and Financial Reporting, Administrative Audit, Revenue
Operations, and Policy and Budget. Grants Acquisition and Management, Financial
Analytics, and Capital Asset Planning are also housed within the department. Each
division is vital to Salt Lake City’s financial health and functionality.
•Accounting and Financial Reporting is responsible overall for payments and
financial reporting required by state law.
•Policy and Budget primarily focuses on ushering anything budget-related
within the City’s financial functions through all the required steps in the
annual budget and budget amendment process.
•Purchasing and Contracts Management staff are responsible for researching,
developing, procuring, and contracting for operational supplies and services
required for each City department to function within its defined scope.
•Administrative Audit functions entail auditing internal processes, policies,
procedures and investigating allegations of fraud, waste and abuse as well as
maintaining the fraud, waste and abuse hotline.
•Revenue Operations functions entail helping all departments collect on all
past-due revenues and ensure that revenues are coming into the City in a
timely manner.
•The Treasurer’s Office has the primary responsibility of ensuring the City’s
fiduciary responsibilities relating to the collection, management, and
disbursement of public funds are handled responsibly.
Department Performance Measurements
Measure 2021 Actual 2022 Actual 2023 Actual 2024 Target 2025 Target
Maintain a General Fund Balance of
at least 15% of operating budget 21%24%38%>15%>15%
Maintain the City’s prestigious AAA
rating AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA
Salt Lake City Department of Finance
184 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer
FY 2022-23 Actuals FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget
FY 2024-25 Recommended Budget
FY 2024-25 FTE
DEPARTMENT BUDGET
Personnel Services 9,046,505 10,643,897 11,361,105
O & M 78,135 780,174 291,841
Charges & Services 5,763,584 5,573,153 1,355,684
Capital Expenditures — 1,145,000 —
Total Finance 14,888,224 18,142,224 13,008,630
DIVISION BUDGETS
Office of the Director — — 602,285 10.00
Accounting & Financial Reporting 3,206,820 2,229,781 3,345,798 14.00
Policy & Budget 855,138 3,140,673 668,218 8.00
Purchasing & Contracts 1,224,556 1,558,727 1,700,393 13.00
Revenue & Collections 1,970,345 2,073,612 3,556,024 23.00
Internal Audit 1,035,779 1,248,797 877,849 4.00
Treasurer's Office 1,781,394 1,961,447 1,994,504 9.00
Grants Administration — — 263,558 4.00
ERP Maintenance 4,814,192 5,929,187 —
Total Finance 14,888,224 18,142,224 13,008,630
FUNDING SOURCES
General Fund 10,038,470 12,168,296 12,963,889 84.70
Information Management Serv. Fund 4,814,192 5,929,187 —
Risk Fund 35,562 44,741 44,741
Total Finance 14,888,224 18,142,224 13,008,630
FTE by Fiscal Year 76.70 81.70 84.70
Salt Lake City Department of Finance
185 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
FY 2025 Department Budget
Personal Services
11,361,105
O & M
291,841
Charges and Services
1,355,684
Salt Lake City Department of Finance
186 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
Changes discussed below represent adjustments to the FY 2023-24 adopted budget.
Personal Services Base-to-Base Changes 154,466
Base-to-base changes compares personal services costs adopted as part of the FY2024 budget to
actual personal services costs paid during the first pay period of the calendar year 2024. Changes in
this category incorporate changes in personal services at the individual staff level, including pay
adjustments, reclassifications, career ladders, and benefits changes that happened in the first part of
the current fiscal year.
Pension Changes 18,428
The budget includes changes as required for participation in the Utah state pension system.
Insurance Rate Changes 66,413
This reflects an increase in the cost of insurance for the Finance Department as described in the
Budget Summary section of the Budget Book.
Salary Proposal 343,378
This increase reflects the Finance Department's portion of the salary proposal described in the
Budget Summary portion of the Mayor's Recommended Budget Book.
Health Savings Account 37,600
The budget includes an increase as described in the Budget Summary
Policy Issues
Resource X Program Based Budgeting (Ongoing) 60,000
Funding to continue the work effort around Program Based Budgeting with ResourceX. Now in its
third year, all general fund departments are participating and staff are looking to establish a long-
term contract.
Business Systems Analyst (Grade 28) (10 Months) 126,437
Two Business Systems Analyst positions are being recommended to primarily focus on tasks
surrounding the Workday Program. With Salt Lake City's new financial system has come some great
and new modules that weren't included in the legacy system. These new modules have created
demand to maintain, test, and improve the operations of the new financial system. (2 FTE)
Grant Analyst - PT to FT (Ongoing) 55,284
The existing Grant Analyst position has been difficult to fill as a part-time position due to the
expertise and skill set needed. As a full-time position, it is anticipated it will be easier to find stronger
candidates. (+ .5 FTE)
Salt Lake City Department of Finance
187 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
This page intentionally left blank
188 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Organizational Structure Fiscal Year 2024-25
Salt Lake City Fire Department
189 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Fire Department
DEPARTMENT VISION STATEMENT
The Salt Lake City Fire Department provides exceptional emergency services with
progression and efficiency.
DEPARTMENT MISSION STATEMENT
Prepare Effectively. Respond Professionally. Impact Positively.
DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW
The Salt Lake City Fire Department specializes in urban structural firefighting,
emergency medical services, and emergency management. The Department
has 406 full-time equivalent positions, divided into two battalions, serving in 14
stations covering 97 square miles.
All Firefighters hold a certification as Emergency Medical Technicians (Basic Life
Support). The Department also has firefighters trained to specialty levels of
Engineer, Hazardous Materials (Hazmat), Airport Rescue Firefighter (ARFF),
Swift Water Rescue (SWR) and, Heavy Rescue (HRT), improving customer
service delivery.
The Fire Administration Division comprises the Logistics, Community Relations, Fire
Prevention, Medical Services, and Technology Division. Logistics provides support
for all fire apparatus the department uses and they maintain the fire facilities' and
fire equipment. Fire Prevention reviews all buildings and proposed new
construction. Medical Services overseas the Community Health Access Team
(CHAT), Medical Response Team (MRT), CPR training, and Continuing Medical
Education (CME) for the department. Technology oversees all radio upkeep, station
alerting, and computer programs/software related to the department.
Fire Operations consist of Station Operations, Airport Operations, and the Training
Division. Firefighters are trained and ready to respond, meeting our core mission
of service to the public. The department maintains four firefighters per emergency
unit to operate at the most effective and efficient level possible and to protect
firefighters from the dangers associated with fighting fires. Each fire unit assigned
to the Operations Division is required to perform monthly business inspections.
Firefighters assigned to the Airport are the first responders to the airfield and
trained to the specialty level of Airport Rescue Firefighter (ARFF).
Salt Lake City Fire Department
190 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Karl Lieb, Fire Chief
Department Performance Measurements
Performance Measures 2021 Actual 2022 Actual 2023 Actual 2024 Target 2025 Target
Improved turnout times Ahead of Target Ahead of Target Ahead of Target Ahead of Target Ahead of Target
Reduce Operational Injuries Ahead of Target Ahead of Target Ahead of Target Ahead of Target Ahead of Target
Fire Prevention will complete 4,300
inspections per year 3,539 3,635 3,392 >4,300 >4,300
Salt Lake City Fire Department
191 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
SALT LAKE CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT
Karl Lieb, Fire Chief
FY 2022-23 Actuals FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget
FY 2024-25 Recommended Budget FY 2024-25 FTE
DEPARTMENT BUDGET
Personal Services 44,586,146 48,966,928 51,302,040
O & M 1,225,905 1,306,645 1,313,045
Charges & Services 1,755,691 1,806,784 1,798,923
Capital Expenditures 390,633 184,000 135,000
Total Fire 47,958,375 52,264,357 54,549,008
DIVISION BUDGETS
Fire Administrative Services 8,074,717 9,028,904 4,022,352 83.00
Fire Office of the Chief 3,979,980 3,821,053 4,079,324 9.00
Fire Operations 35,903,678 34,365,740 39,727,516 314.00
Fire Community Risk Reduction — 5,048,660 2,345,227
Fire Logistics — — 2,040,174
Fire Medical Division — — 2,334,415
Total Fire 47,958,375 52,264,357 54,549,008
FUNDING SOURCES
General Fund 47,958,375 52,264,357 54,549,008 406.00
Total Fire 47,958,375 52,264,357 54,549,008
FTE by Fiscal Year 392.00 402.00 406.00
Salt Lake City Fire Department
192 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
FY 2025 Department Budget
Personal Services: 51,302,040
O & M
1,313,045
Charges & Services
1,798,923
Salt Lake City Fire Department
193 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Karl Lieb, Fire Chief
Changes discussed below represent changes to the FY 2023-24 adopted budget.
Personal Services Base to Base Changes 163,859
Base to base changes compares personal services costs adopted as part of the FY2024 budget
to actual personal services costs paid during the first pay period of the calendar year 2024.
Changes in this category incorporate changes in personal services at the individual staff level,
including pay adjustments, reclassifications, career ladders, and benefits changes that
happened in the first part of the current fiscal year.
Pension Changes (405,181)
The budget includes changes as required for participation in the Utah state pension system.
Insurance Rate Changes 473,079
This reflects an increase in the cost of insurance for the Fire Department as described in the
Budget Summary section of the Budget Book.
Salary Proposal 1,729,802
This increase reflects the Fire Department's portion of the salary proposal described in the
Budget Summary portion of the Mayor's Recommended Budget Book.
Health Savings Account 210,750
The budget includes an increase as described in the Budget Summary
Policy Issues
One-time Reductions (118,500)
The Fire Department was granted one-time money in FY2023-2024 to fund the acquisition of a
new compressor system at Station 1, as well as monies to hydrostatically test SCBA oxygen
bottles. This removes the one-time funding.
Transfer to Non-Departmental for Fire Hydrant (Ongoing) (241,250)
Public Utilities charges the General Fund the cost of maintaining all city fire hydrants including
associated water usage. This transfers the responsibility of this expenditure to the non-
departmental fund.
Medical Response Paramedics (MRPs) - (Ongoing) 163,727
This funds two new Medical Response Paramedics (MRPs) FTEs within the Fire Department's
Mobile Response Team (MRT) allowing the teams to respond to higher acuity level calls for
service. (2 FTE, FOF).
Contracts/Inflationary Increases (Ongoing) 243,365
This funds the high-inflationary environment of doing business. The increases will go towards
software/maintenance/supply contracts, medical equipment, education/training, and other
miscellaneous contracts.
Narcotics Tracking System (One-time) 65,000
This one-time funding will allow the department to procure a new narcotics tracking inventory
system ensuring compliance to federal rules/laws regarding pharmaceuticals and narcotics.
Salt Lake City Fire Department
194 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
Organizational Structure Fiscal Year 2024-25
Salt Lake City Department of Human Resources
195 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Human Resources
DEPARTMENT VISION STATEMENT
To help Salt Lake City thrive through sustainable and effective human resource
business practices, policies, and investment in the City’s greatest asset, its
employees, to work collaboratively within departments and with city leaders.
DEPARTMENT MISSION STATEMENT
We deliver best-in-class service and programs, add strategic value to Salt Lake City
Corporation, and promote an engaged and dedicated workforce committed to the
highest levels of public service. We are focused on attracting the best talent,
promoting opportunities for growth and development, and providing fair and
competitive compensation packages for all employees.
DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW
The Department of Human Resources is a team of 36 full-time employees and
provides services for all City employees.
The Administrative Team establishes goals and manages the operations of the HR
department.
Benefits ensure employees have comprehensive and competitive benefits
packages including, medical, dental, vision and life insurance programs, a large
portfolio of voluntary benefits, and an employee health clinic.
Compensation and Classification are responsible for ensuring that the City
maintains a competitive and equitable position with respect to pay. This is
achieved by conducting numerous salary surveys each year and recommending
necessary market adjustments and general wage increases employees need to
maintain a competitive pay position.
Employee Relations manages all disciplinary actions, and ADA compliance
requests for city employees. Members of this team are the front-line HR
representatives for departments across the City. This team also manages the City’s
leave programs including FMLA and short-term and long-term disability benefits.
Workplace Equity investigates workplace violations of the Equal Employment
Opportunity Act and City policy, ensuring that the City is a safe and enjoyable place
for all to be employed.
Employees’ University manages a robust learning and development program
including new employee orientation, supervisor boot camp, soft skill courses and
access to thousands of online courses.
Salt Lake City Department of Human Resources
196 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Human Resources Information Systems (HRIS) works closely with IMS to manage
the maintenance and integration of HR’s various technology systems.
Recruiting and Onboarding are responsible for recruiting all positions city-wide
with a focus on a diverse and well-qualified City workforce. Additionally, this team
has developed a comprehensive onboarding and off-boarding process.
Funding for the department is provided by the general and risk funds.
Department Performance Measurements
Performance Measures 2021 Actual 2022 Actual 2023 Actual 2024 Target 2025 Target
Complete the implementation of
Workday modules in all HR divisions:
HRIS, benefits, education,
compensation and classification,
employee relations and recruiting
and onboarding.*
ongoing ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing
Respond to EEO complaints,
including a investigation when
appropriate, in an average of 60 days
or fewer.
<60 <60 <60 <60 <60
Each Human Resource Business
Partner will attend a minimum of 30
staff and managerial meetings within
their respective departments per
year.
>30 >30 >30 >30 >30
Increase participation in financial
wellness programs offered to
employees by Salt Lake City by 5%. *
n/a**n/a**>.05 >.05 >.05
Decrease the "time-to-fill" job
recruitment timeframe for
historically hard-to-fill positions by
5%, City-wide. *
n/a**n/a**>.05 >.05 >.05
*New goal in 2023
**Data unavailable
Salt Lake City Department of Human Resources
197 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
Debra Alexander, Chief Human Resources Officer
FY 2022-23 Actuals FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget
FY 2024-25 Recommended Budget FY 2024-25 FTE
DEPARTMENT BUDGET
Personal Services 4,394,245 4,905,089 5,419,467
O & M 32,137 69,283 67,946
Charges & Services 46,230,690 54,916,137 59,539,619
Transfers Out — 3,442,361 —
Total Human Resources 50,657,072 63,332,869 65,027,032
DIVISION BUDGETS
Administration 737,762 841,838 1,136,726 22.40
Recruiting & Onboarding 855,962 1,043,669 —
Education 282,505 349,134 415,745 2.00
Civilian Review Board 177,260 186,564 428,993
HR Information Systems 465,242 598,140 380,448
Employee Relations 1,203,380 1,639,955 1,701,873 9.00
Compliance — — 1,075,802
Insurance 46,934,961 58,673,569 59,887,445 4.60
Total Human Resources 50,657,072 63,332,869 65,027,032
FUNDING SOURCES
General Fund 3,722,111 4,659,300 5,059,723 33.40
Risk Management Fund 46,934,961 58,673,569 59,967,309 4.60
Total Human Resources 50,657,072 63,332,869 65,027,032
FTE by Fiscal Year 36.00 38.00 38.00
Salt Lake City Department of Human Resources
198 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
FY 2025 Department Budget
Personal Services
5,419,467
O & M
67,946
Charges & Services
59,539,619
Salt Lake City Department of Human Resources
199 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
Debra Alexander, Chief Human Resources Officer
Changes discussed below represent adjustments to the FY 2023-24 adopted General Fund budget.
Personal Services Base-to-Base Changes 139,302
Base-to-Base changes compares personal services costs adopted as part of the FY2024 budget to
actual personal services costs paid during the first pay period of the calendar year 2024. Changes in
this category incorporate changes in personal services at the individual staff level, including pay
adjustments, reclassifications, career ladders, and benefits changes that happened in the first part of
the current fiscal year.
Pension Changes 15,821
The budget includes changes as required for participation in the Utah state pension system.
Insurance Rate Changes 43,715
This reflects an increase in the cost of insurance for the Human Resources Department as described
in the Budget Summary section of the Budget Book.
Salary Proposal 177,135
This increase reflects the Department of Human Resource's portion of the salary proposal described
in the Budget Summary portion of the Mayor's Recommended Budget Book.
Health Savings Account 24,450
The budget includes an increase as described in the Budget Summary
Salt Lake City Department of Human Resources
200 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES
Organizational Structure Fiscal Year 2024-25
Salt Lake City Department of Information Management Services
201 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Information Management
Services
DEPARTMENT VISION STATEMENT
Modernize municipal government through sustainable technology solutions.
DEPARTMENT MISSION STATEMENT
Our mission is to be a trustworthy and valued partner that delivers the right
information to the right audience at the right time.
DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW
Salt Lake City’s Information Management Services department assists Salt Lake City
employees in providing essential city services through technology. The department
has six divisions:
Office of the CIO
The Chief Information Officer (CIO) is the Information Management Services
department director and leads the administrative office. It works with department
and division heads across the City and partners to deliver technology solutions that
modernize municipal government and connect the City to its constituents. The CIO
has two deputy directors, Nole Walkingshaw and Chad Korb who directly support
him.
The Financial Services Team is dedicated to procurement and asset management
and oversees the business and supply chain activities within IMS and for the City
computers and technology distributed throughout the city. They manage the daily
operations of accounts payable, budget, office management duties, procurement,
receiving, management, and disposal of all I.T. hardware and software assets for
the City.
The Enterprise Project Management team coordinates with City departments to
help them navigate I.T. systems and projects. Working with departments, they
create project plans and resource allocations necessary to accomplish the given
task and see the projects and solutions throughout the product life-cycle.
Data Analytics and Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
Led by the Chief Data Officer/Geographic Information Officer (CDO) (CGO). This
team is responsible for Data Analytics, Data Standards, Data Policies, Smart Cities
initiative, and Enterprise GIS for Salt Lake City. They assist departments in using
data to drive informed decision-making processes. The team also assists the City in
its transparency initiatives by providing easy access methods to City data.
Salt Lake City Department of Information Management Services
202 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Infrastructure Technology and Security Division
Led by the Chief Information Security Officer, this division is responsible for
monitoring and administering the I.T. Infrastructure across the city. The division
consists of Cybersecurity, Network, and Systems Engineering teams. It ensures that
the network, systems, and users hosted in the City have full access to their data in
the most secure manner possible. Responsibilities for this division include
Network and Security infrastructure (across more than 50 locations and 2 data
centers), internet connectivity, unified communications, remote work
infrastructure, cloud infrastructure, enterprise backup systems, wired and wireless
communications, and numerous 3rd party applications among others.
Web and Media Services Division
Salt Lake City Web and Media Services is the in-house enterprise-wide digital
content governance, graphic design, media content, A/V infrastructure, and
broadcasting division of Information Management Services. Our goal is to be a
centralized city-wide service accessible to every department and division.
Communications and Engagement
The Public Affairs Lab(formerly the Civic Engagement Team) serves City staff across
multiple divisions and departments as an internal consultant on engagement and
communications, providing strategy, resources, and support in all stages of public
interaction. This team aims to empower City staff to engage the public across all
channels to reach new audiences, expand digital engagement, and increase
residence satisfaction. This team works to develop and maintain a structured and
scalable workflow with clear goals that align with Mayoral priorities, enable
transparency across departments, use data to measure effectiveness, and
communicate impact of decisions with key stakeholders.
The communications side of this team is responsible for managing social media
accounts representing the Salt Lake City Government. @SLCgov Social Media
channels serve as a digital way to inform, engage, and respond to SLC residents.
We share new ideas, in varied spaces, with different viewpoints reflecting City and
community voices. Through our content we seek to portray the authentic
experiences of those living and working in Salt Lake City, particularly those that
reinforce the administration's goals. This content should be reliable, relevant, and
accessible across platforms and reflective of the demographic and geographic
diversity of our city.
Software Services
Led by the Chief Technology Officer (CTO), the team designs, develops, integrates,
and maintains software solutions that the City procures or develops. They also
maintain City databases and create custom reporting solutions.
The team works with departments to reduce the software footprint and
standardize enterprise solutions. The application portfolio still sits at almost 200
Salt Lake City Department of Information Management Services
203 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
applications, but several enterprise solutions have slowed the growth, and several
antiquated systems have collapsed into new centralized systems. We are also in
the process of modernizing several systems/applications and conducting the move
of many enterprise and departmental software packages to the cloud.”
Innovations Team
This team is led by the Chief Innovations Officer (CINNO). They have been tasked
with modernizing the city processes and procedures to bring a new high level of
efficiency and accuracy. One of their primary assignments is implementing a new
Workday ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) system, which will be a multi-year,
multi-million dollar project that will help streamline and improve the finance,
accounting, asset management, and human resources systems.
Field Services Team
Led by the I.T. Technology Support Manager, the Field Services division is
responsible for supporting vast and diverse end-user software and hardware. The
division must also ensure the user data and systems are secure and running at
maximum efficiency. This division, consisting of Network Support Administrators
and Field Support Staff, is responsible for computer systems installation and
maintenance, system failure triage, incident routing, escalation, and monitoring.
Field Services also supports other IMS division field services, help desk services,
and on-site support for all city employees.
DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES
IMS Department Performance Measurements
Measure 2021 Actual 2022 Actual 2023 Actual 2024 Target 2025 Target
Citywide I.T. assets inventoried
on an annual basis.75%89%82%100%100%
Case Closed by staff within
standard response thresholds
based on priority, severity, and
system.
92%91%TBD 99%99%
Objective and Key Results
(OKR) and Continuous
Feedback and Recognition
(CFR) Program implemented in
department.
40%50%70%100%100%
Projects that followed agile
project management
methodology.
80%85%90%100%100%
Salt Lake City Department of Information Management Services
204 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES
Aaron Bentley, Chief Information Officer
FY 2022-23 Actuals
FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget
FY 2024-25 Recommended Budget
FY 2024-25 FTE
DEPARTMENT BUDGET
Personal Services 11,748,437 15,797,602 51,302,040
O & M 2,168,201 810,939 1,313,045
Charges & Services 7,361,676 12,023,525 1,798,923
Capital Expenditures 1,337,115 4,140,918 135,000
Total IMS 22,615,429 32,772,984 40,526,282
DIVISION BUDGETS
Office of the CIO — — 7,362,119 14.00
Applications Admin & Support Services 2,633,453 3,193,787 4,840,845 12.00
Data Analytics and GIS 676,395 980,073 1,522,562 6.00
Dpt Leadership and Admin Serv / Innovations Team 4,260,109 4,978,858 880,811 7.00
Enterprise Software Services 1,556,875 3,370,570 —
IMS Department Support 3,709,615 7,231,597 —
Info Management Services 317,529 226,800 —
Information Security 378,425 976,238 —
Multimedia Services 1,125,053 1,630,642 2,554,015 11.00
Network Services 1,959,733 3,790,356 5,242,146 20.00
PC Replacement 1,438,385 1,353,316 2,085,733
Software Support Services 4,559,813 5,040,746 16,038,052 31.00
User Support Services 44 — —
Total IMS 22,615,429 32,772,984 40,526,282
FUNDING SOURCES
Information Management Serv. Fund 22,615,429 32,772,984 40,526,282 101.00
Total IMS 22,615,429 32,772,984 40,526,282
FTE by Fiscal Year 92.00 100.00 101.00
Salt Lake City Department of Information Management Services
205 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
FY 2025 Department Budget
Personal Services
51,302,040
O & M
1,313,045
Charges & Services
1,798,923
Salt Lake City Department of Information Management Services
206 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES
Aaron Bentley, Chief Information Officer
Changes discussed below represent changes to the FY 2023-24 adopted budget.
Personal Services Base-to-Base Changes 261,823
Base-to-Base changes compare personal services costs adopted as part of the FY 2024 budget to
actual personal services costs paid during the first pay period of the calendar year 2024. Changes
in this category incorporate changes in personal services at the individual staff level, including pay
adjustments, reclassifications, career ladders, and benefits changes that happened in the first part
of the current fiscal year.
Insurance Rate Changes 252,321
This reflects an increase in the cost of insurance for the Department of Information Management
Service as described in the Budget Summary section of the Budget Book.
Pension Changes 63,923
The budget includes changes as required for participation in the Utah State Pension System
Salary Proposal 528,926
This increase reflects the salary proposal described in the Budget Summary portion of the Mayor's Recommended Budget Book.
CCAC Salary Adjustments 154,675
The budget includes funding to bring non-represented positions in the City to fair market value in
accordance with the Citizen's Compensation Advisory Committee (CCAC).
Policy Issues
One-time Funding from FY 2023 (2,060,000)
During the approved FY24 budget, IMS was given money to purchase radios for the city in
preparation for the new radio system going live. This was one-time money, and the reduction will
not occur in future years.
FY 2024 Ongoing Budget Adjustments 397,688
Versaterm Case Service & Cellebrite
Reduction Strategy (One-time) (1,000,000)
Reduction of legacy systems and consulting due to the implementation of Workday
Contractual Changes (Ongoing) 1,566,767
Increase cost of Software Services
Inflationary Changes (Ongoing) 783,293
Increased cost based on Inflationary
AV Replacement Program 196,392
The city has audio-visual technology that is aging and is due for replacement.
Radio Replacement Program (Ongoing) 500,000
To maintain and replace the radios purchased during FY23 and FY24 and provide ongoing
maintenance.
Computers and Software for New City FTE in FY25 43,500
New employees at the city will need new additional computers and software. This is the money that
will be used to buy them these devices.
Privacy Officer (10 Months) 134,813
Budget adds 1 FTE to comply with House Bill 491.
Salt Lake City Department of Information Management Services
207 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
This page intentionally left blank
Salt Lake City Department of Information Management Services
208 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
SALT LAKE CITY JUSTICE COURT
Organizational Structure Fiscal Year 2024-25
Salt Lake City Justice Courts
209 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Salt Lake City Justice Court
MISSION STATEMENT
Ensure the highest standards of justice, professionalism, responsiveness, and
respect for those we serve.
VISION STATEMENT
Creating a court that is just, equitable, and trusted by all.
COURT CORE VALUES
Excellence
Having the desire to succeed and the motivation to reach our full potential,
going above and beyond to accomplish the task at hand.
Respect
Recognize and appreciate the value of each individual and their experience
and situation.
Integrity
Doing what we say we are going to do, applying honesty and accountability
with openness.
Community
Bridging the gap between the Court, community and other agencies,
improving access to resources and information.
Unity
Supporting one another and fostering growth while reaching our goals and
adhering to our values.
DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW
The Salt Lake City Justice Court is the largest municipal court in the State of Utah,
with a very high volume of misdemeanor cases. The Court is a limited jurisdiction
court under the umbrella of the Utah State Court system. We are proud to be
part of the Salt Lake City portfolio of public institutions and to serve the citizens
and visitors of this great city.
The Justice Court is responsible for and processes Class B and C
misdemeanors, infractions and small claims cases, jury trials, appeals and
expungements, video hearings, homeless outreach, prisoner transports, and daily
interaction with jails throughout the State of Utah. The court orders, monitors
and tracks probation, warrants, community service, restitution, collections of
monetary penalties, appeals, expungements, and plea-in-abeyance cases. We also
provide community outreach, traffic school, coordination of language interpreter
services, and any ADA needs that arise.
The Justice Court judiciary, employees, and security team are dedicated to open
and transparent access to the Court, bringing justice for all, and providing a safe
and civil environment for dispute resolution.
Salt Lake City Justice Courts
210 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
SALT LAKE CITY JUSTICE COURT
Kate Fairchild, Court Administrator
Department Performance Measures
Performance Measures 2021 Actual 2022 Actual 2023 Actual 2024 Target 2025 Target State Average
Access & Fairness - Percent of
Justice Court customers
satisfied with service
received.
NA NA N/A >90%>90%NA
Time to Disposition - 95% of
criminal case dispositions
should meet established
guidelines for Time to
Disposition (6 months).
58%58%64%>95%>95%79%
Age of Acting Pending Cases -
95% of all criminal cases
should have a disposition
within a 180-day time frame.
50%67%73%>95%>95%74%
Criminal Case Clearance Rate
- A Clearance Rate of 100%
means the court has disposed
of as many cases as were
filed, i.e., the court is keeping
up with its incoming caseload.
90%112%102%>100%>100%104%
Salt Lake City Justice Courts
211 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
SALT LAKE CITY JUSTICE COURT
Kate Fairchild, Court Administrator
FY 2022-23 Actuals
FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget
FY 2024-25 Recommended Budget FY 2024-25 FTE
DEPARTMENT BUDGET
Personal Services 4,474,460 4,870,769 5,339,159
O & M 50,740 65,507 58,507
Charges & Services 398,958 544,277 551,277
Capital Expenditures 4,353 9,167 9,167
Total Justice Court 4,928,511 5,489,720 5,958,110
DIVISION BUDGETS
Justice Court 4,928,511 5,489,720 5,958,110 43.00
Total Justice Court 4,928,511 5,489,720 5,958,110
FUNDING SOURCES
General Fund 4,928,511 5,489,720 5,958,110 43.00
Total Justice Court 4,928,511 5,489,720 5,958,110
FTE by Fiscal Year 42.00 42.00 43.00
.
FY 2025 Department Budget
Personal Services
5,339,159
O & M
58,507
Charges and
Services
551,277
Salt Lake City Justice Courts
212 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
SALT LAKE CITY JUSTICE COURT
Kate Fairchild, Court Administrator
Changes discussed below represent adjustments to the FY 2023-24 adopted budget.
Personal Services Base-to-Base Changes 15,375
Base-to-Base changes compares personal services costs adopted as part of the FY2024 budget to
actual personal services costs paid during the first pay period of the calendar year 2024. Changes in
this category incorporate changes in personal services at the individual staff level, including pay
adjustments, reclassifications, career ladders, and benefits changes that happened in the first part of
the current fiscal year.
Pension Changes (3,125)
The budget includes changes as required for participation in the Utah State Pension System.
Insurance Rate Changes 90,540
This increase reflects a change in the cost of insurance for the Justice Court as described in the
Budget Summary section of the Budget Book.
Salary Proposal 251,987
This increase reflects the Justice Court's portion of the salary proposal described in the Budget
Summary portion of the Mayor's Recommended Budget Book.
Health Savings Account 25,250
The budget includes an increase as described in the Budget Summary
Policy Issues
Community Outreach Case Manager (Grade 19) (12 Months) 88,363
The Justice Court has increased its efforts with homelessness throughout the community and in the
courthouse. The number of individuals seen in 2024 has increased by 20%, and the number of cases
heard in 2024 has increased 103% since a low in 2022. Due to the increase in services and
expectations, the Mayor is requesting a dedicated Case Manager position who can add depth to
investigate and organize the many needs of this segment of the population. (1 FTE, FOF).
Salt Lake City Justice Courts
213 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
SALT LAKE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT
Organizational Structure Fiscal Year 2024-25
Salt Lake City Police Department
214 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Police Department
DEPARTMENT VISION STATEMENT
“We will build upon the noble traditions of integrity and trust to foster a
culture of service, respect and compassion toward our employees and the
community we serve.”
DEPARTMENT MISSION STATEMENT
“We will serve as guardians of our community to preserve life, maintain
human rights, protect property, and promote individual responsibility and
community commitment.”
DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW
The Salt Lake City Police Department serves more than 200,000 residents of Salt
Lake City with 741 general fund FTEs in budget and 20 FTEs for sworn positions
that are unfunded to facilitate hiring processes for Fiscal Year 25. The Department
consists of the Office of the Chief, which oversees four Bureaus, Field Operations I,
Field Operations II, Administrative & Operational Support Bureau, and Investigative
Bureau.
The Department will continue working to help ensure professional public safety
and response to the community. The Department is working closely with the
Mayor and City Council on a proactive approach to the needs of our community.
The Department is working to increase efficiency by leveraging alternate response
models, including its Police Community Response Team and the use of
technologies. The Department will continue improving policies, increasing
transparency, training, and community involvement while upholding the Mission
and Vision of the Department, serve our community, and improve community
relations.
Under the leadership of Chief Mike Brown, the Department has four primary
objectives: lower violent crime, improve response times, fill all vacant sworn
positions, and increase community outreach.
The Salt Lake City Police Department is proud of the city’s growth trajectory. As Salt
Lake City becomes an entertainment and economic hub in the Mountain West, the
Salt Lake City Police Department will need appropriate growth to scale and achieve
the needs of residents and visitors alike as we look toward future world events,
including the Olympics. The City’s growth is reflected in the Department’s calls for
service. In FY 2023-2024, the Department’s service level for all calls, is trending
above the record set in 2022-2023. The demands on the Department have
required innovation and a strategic approach to manage our resources and
maintain responsiveness for our community members.
Salt Lake City Police Department
215 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
SALT LAKE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT
Mike Brown, Chief of Police
Department Performance Measurements
Measure 2021 Actual 2022 Actual 2023 Actual 2024 Target 2025 Target
Lower violent crime when compared to
previous year +5%(3)%(17)%(5)%(5)%
Improve Response Times for Priority 1
Calls for Service (10 minutes or less)12:46 10:15 10:00 10:00
Fill all vacant sworn positions (0
vacancies) -39 -39 0 0
Increase community outreach events New Measure New Measure New Measure 5 Events per month 10 Events per month
Salt Lake City Police Department
216 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
SALT LAKE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT
Mike Brown, Chief of Police
FY 2022-23 Actuals
FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget
FY 2024-25 Recommended Budget FY 2024-25 FTE
DEPARTMENT BUDGET
Personal Services 95,727,166 103,346,800 110,644,432
O & M 2,059,922 3,040,484 4,473,979
Charges & Services 4,859,261 4,589,528 4,883,045
Capital Expenditures 372,945 0 0
Total Police 103,019,294 110,976,812 120,001,456
DIVISION BUDGETS
Office of the Chief 10,875,693 11,194,112 15,679,933 31.00
Administrative 14,703,065 13,178,673 247,475 129.00
Police Field Ops 1 27,752,072 32,671,149 0 222.00
Police Field Ops 2 22,191,370 26,340,670 0 214.00
Investigations Division 27,497,094 27,592,208 13,348,455
Investigative Bureau 0 0 2,852,254 171.00
Police Community Outreach 0 0 118,557
Police Airport Division 0 0 15,264,431
Pioneer Patrol Division 0 0 13,784,704
Liberty Patrol Division 0 0 10,964,251
Central Patrol Division 0 0 12,633,613
Police Special Operations Division 0 0 13,594,591
Police Support Services Division 0 0 11,896,448
Police Training Division 0.00 0.00 9,616,743.86
Total Police 103,019,294 110,976,812 120,001,456
FUNDING SOURCES
General Fund 103,019,294 110,976,812 120,001,456 767.00
Total Police 103,019,294 110,976,812 120,001,456
FTE by Fiscal Year 750.00 761.00 767.00
Salt Lake City Police Department
217 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
FY 2025 Department Budget
Personal Services
110,644,432
O & M
4,473,979
Charges & Services
4,883,045
Salt Lake City Police Department
218 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
SALT LAKE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT
Mike Brown, Chief of Police
Changes discussed below represent adjustments to the FY 2023-24 adopted budget.
Personal Services Base-to-Base Changes (289,598)
Base-to-base changes compares personal services costs adopted as part of the FY2024 budget to
actual personal services costs paid during the first pay period of the calendar year 2024. Changes in
this category incorporate changes in personal services at the individual staff level, including pay
adjustments, reclassifications, career ladders, and benefits changes that happened in the first part of
the current fiscal year.
Pension Changes (1,497,567)
The budget includes changes as required for participation in the Utah State Pension System.
Insurance Rate Changes 203,871
This increase reflects a change in the cost of insurance for the Police Department as described in the
Budget Summary section of the Budget Book.
Salary Proposal 2,933,477
This increase reflects the Police Department's portion of the salary proposal described in the Budget
Summary portion of the Mayor's Recommended Budget Book.
CCAC Salary Adjustments 48,464
The budget includes funding to bring non-represented positions in the City to fair market value in
accordance with the Citizen's Compensation Advisory Committee (CCAC).
Health Savings Account 359,750
This budget includes funding to cover increases in Health Savings Account
Budget Amendment #4: Police Clean Neighborhoods 1,829,000
Funding added in budget amendment #4 of FY 2024 for Police overtime.
Policy Issues
Increased Civilian Response One-time Equipment Costs (74,056)
Removing one time equipment costs funded in FY 24 from budget
Increased Airport Operations One-time Expenses (106,680)
Removing one time equipment costs funded in FY 24 from budget
Calls for Service: Overtime Staffing (Ongoing) 1,363,461
Overtime funding for patrol staffing of calls for service
Inflationary Costs (Ongoing) 199,145
Inflationary cost increase for supplies and contracts
Inflationary Costs: Fleet (Ongoing) 232,399
Increasing fleet budget for estimated FY 25 expense
Evidence Drying Locker Replacement (One-time) 60,000
Replacement of evidence drying lockers
Contract, Event, Task Force Overtime (Revenue Offset) (Ongoing) 1,434,295
Budget for staffing of contract and special event overtime that has associated revenue
Airport Staffing and Equipment (Revenue Offset) (Ongoing) 2,328,683
Budget increase for 6 additional officers and equipment for airport staffing
Salt Lake City Police Department
219 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
This page intentionally left blank
Salt Lake City Police Department
220 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC LANDS
Organizational Structure Fiscal Year 2023-24
Salt Lake City Department of Public Lands
221 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Department of Public Lands
DEPARTMENT VISION STATEMENT
Provide a vibrant system of connected public landscapes and living infrastructure
that enhances the community’s identity, sense of place, and quality of life.
DEPARTMENT MISSION STATEMENT
Salt Lake City shall enhance the livability of the urban environment to ensure that
the resources under our management are carefully stewarded and equitably
accessible for future generations.
DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW
The Department of Public Lands’ five divisions are tasked with the planning,
construction, coordination, maintenance, operations, and acquisition of Public
Lands with a community-based approach. In coordination with our many City
partners, we protect, grow, and enhance natural landscapes, trees, and outdoor
green spaces for the health, beauty, and recreational opportunities of residents
and visitors to the Capital City.
Administrative Services Division: provides leadership, project support, budget
support, and long-term strategies and initiatives through communications, public
outreach, finance, technology, information management, and policy development.
Parks Division: Is the steward of and responsible for the oversight of 864 acres of
park lands (City Parks), SLC Cemetery (130 acres), and the Regional Athletic
Complex (118 acres). The Salt Lake City Parks Division ensures the preservation,
development, and maintenance of parks throughout the city for the use and
enjoyment of community members and visitors to Salt Lake City. The Division's
new motto sums up the focus of the team: "Keeping Parks Clean, Green, and Safe".
Golf Division: Manages the operations of six full-service golf courses throughout
the city. Golf operations include the maintenance of all green spaces, programming
of golf clinics, tournaments, leagues, instruction programs and the management of
the course retail pro shops, cafes, and driving ranges and cart fleet maintenance
and rentals.
Planning & Design Division: Oversees planning efforts including master plans,
facility improvement plans, impact fee spending, facility improvement plans,
community engagement, and resource management plans, as well as design
development and implementation of Departmental capital projects and initiatives.
This includes adding park acreage, increasing level of service and adding new and
renovated assets.
Salt Lake City Department of Public Lands
222 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Trails & Natural Lands Division: Manages the management and care of
approximately 2,000 acres of Natural Lands and shared management of an
additional 6,000 acres located in the Salt Lake City Foothills. These lands consist of
riparian corridors, wetlands, trails, wildlife preserves and critical lands within the
Foothills. The divisions primary focus is on advancing the ecological health and
biodiversity of the public lands system and improving the quality, accessibility, and
equity of natural lands and resources for habitat protection and sustainable
recreational use.
Urban Forestry Division: Manages approximately 90,000 trees with 25,000
potential planting sites (located in city parks, on city facility properties, and along
city streets and trails). The program provides most services related to the
maintenance of city trees including; tree pruning, tree planting, removal, health
evaluation, emergency response, project plan review/permit issuance, storm
cleanup/pickup and hazard assessment.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC LANDS
Kristin Riker, Director
Department Performance Measures
Measure 2021 Actual 2022 Actual 2023 Actual FY24 Target FY25 Target
TRAILS & NATURAL LANDS: # of
active biodiversity enhancement
projects
2 4 6 10 15
FORESTRY: Ratio of trees planted to
trees removed (a number greater
than one indicates expansion)
1.61 2.05 1.59 1.6 1.6
GOLF: Revenue Per Start $30.38 $32.12 $32.49 $30.00 $30.00
PARKS: Ratio of maintained acres per
maintenance FTE 11.46 13.85 12 14 13
*FY 24 are goals only.
**Year over year numbers fluctuated due to FY20 & FY21 Covid 19 factors.
Salt Lake City Department of Public Lands
223 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC LANDS
Kristin Riker, Director
FY 2022-23 Actuals
FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget
FY 2024-25 Recommended Budget
FY 2024-25 FTE
DEPARTMENT BUDGET
Personal Services 18,313,641 22,760,598 24,776,666
O & M 6,519,784 4,142,435 4,354,641
Charges & Services 8,187,415 10,444,500 12,144,489
Capital Expenditures 715,585 7,376,295 8,372,951
Debt Principal — — 413,761
Interest & Bond Expenditures 135,292 510,427 114,452
Depreciation & Amortization 760,237 — —
Total Public Lands 34,631,954 45,234,255 50,176,960
DIVISION BUDGETS
Public Lands Administration 5,473,498 3,547,945 3,752,082 19.85
Parks 12,247,383 15,444,530 15,982,287 84.85
Planning and Ecological Services — — 6,239,884 43.15
Urban Forestry 3,141,141 3,526,680 3,734,071 18.00
Golf 10,163,906 17,938,984 20,468,635 34.15
Total Public Lands 34,631,954 45,234,255 50,176,960
FUNDING SOURCES
General Fund 24,468,048 27,295,271 29,716,013 165.85
Golf Fund 10,163,906 17,938,984 20,460,948 34.15
Total Public Lands 34,631,954 45,234,255 50,176,960
FTE by Fiscal Year 177.00 192.00 200.00
FY 2024 Department Budget
Personal Services
24,776,666
O & M
4,354,641Charges & Services
12,144,489
Capital Expenditures
8,372,951
Bonding/Debt/Interest Charges
413,761
Salt Lake City Department of Public Lands
224 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC LANDS
Kristin Riker, Director
Changes discussed below represent adjustments to the FY 2023-24 adopted budget.
Base-to-Base 126,350
Base-to-base changes compares personal services costs adopted as part of the FY2024 budget to
actual personal services costs paid during the first pay period of the calendar year 2024. Changes in
this category incorporate changes in personal services at the individual staff level, including pay
adjustments, reclassifications, career ladders, and benefits changes that happened in the first part of
the current fiscal year.
Pension Changes 75,806
The budget includes changes as required for participation in the Utah state pension system.
Insurance Rate Changes 223,950
This increase reflects a change in the cost of insurance for the Department of Public Lands as
described in the Budget Summary section of the Budget Book.
Salary Proposal 664,046
This increase reflects the Department of Public Lands portion of the salary proposal described in the
Budget Summary portion of the Mayor's Recommended Budget Book.
Health Savings Account 88,425
The budget includes an increase as described in the Budget Summary
Policy Issues
T&NL New Properties & Growth and Use Impacts One-time Operational Expenses (6,750)
FY24 budget included one time costs for foothill trails maintenance program startup cost for tools,
equipment, and materials.
Contractual Increases (Ongoing) 796,800
The Public Lands Department has experienced operational expense increases related to inflationary
and other contractual price increases. The budget includes funding for cost increases to multiple
expense categories related to utilities, fleet fuel and maintenance, operational contracts, and
supplies.
Glendale Park Phase I (Ongoing) 106,800
The budget includes funding for ongoing maintenance the new Glendale Park Phase I. Phase 1
includes playground, basketball court, mutli-use grass area, pavilion, shrub beds, art and parking lot
with planted islands.
Glendale Park Phase I: Maintenance Tech III (AFSCME 119) (10 Mos) 76,700
The budget includes funding for a Parks Maintenance Tech III position to provide landscape
maintenance at Glendale Park Phase I. (1 FTE, FOF)
Public Lands Project Coordinator (Grade 26) —
The budget includes a Project Coordinator to review, inspect and coordinate new maintenance
projects with City staff, park supervisors, and contractors. Funding is to be identified within the Public
Lands seasonal personnel budget.
Senior Public Lands Planner (Grade 31) (10 Mos) 121,979
The budget includes funding for a Senior Public Lands Planner to support Parks projects. (1 FTE, FOF)
Salt Lake City Department of Public Lands
225 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
FTE Operational Expense (Ongoing) 4,000
The budget includes funding for the Senior Public Lands Planner operational expenses.
Senior Landscape Architect (Grade 34) (10 Mos) 138,636
The budget includes funding for a Senior Landscape Architect to support Parks projects. (1 FTE,FOF)
FTE Operational Expense (Ongoing) 4,000
The budget includes funding for the Senior Landscape Architect operational expenses.
Salt Lake City Department of Public Lands
226 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES
Organizational Structure Fiscal Year 2024-25
Salt Lake City Department of Public Services
227 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
The Department of
Public Services
The Department of Public Services provides essential services to residents,
businesses, and visitors; capital improvement project development and delivery;
and internal services that support all other City functions. The department’s vision
is to be responsive to and anticipate the needs of a growing, diverse, and vibrant
city. Department funds come from the General Fund and the Fleet Fund.
MISSION STATEMENT
Public Services is a team of professionals who value integrity, diversity, and equity.
We are committed to providing essential municipal services and accessible public
spaces for Salt Lake City by investing public funds effectively, efficiently, and
sustainably to make life better throughout the community.
PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW
Administrative Services under leadership of the Department Director, provides
leadership, project support, strategy, and vision to the department while
establishing standards and processes for transparent, accountable, and data-
driven solutions that aim to better serve the public and enhance City assets.
Administrative Services Division functions include technology implementation,
internal and external communications, finance, special projects, information
management, strategic planning, and policy and procedure tracking for
department management. Most recently, the city-wide internal security program
has been established and resides within this Division.
Compliance is responsible for providing the efficient and effective delivery of the
following services:
•Enforce City codes relevant to parking, food cart vendors, sidewalk
entertainers, and impoundment.
•Process customer service requests from residents and business owners.
•Enforce vehicle idling violations.
•Manage vehicle impound operations with contracted vendor.
•Recruit and supervise school crossing guards at State required intersections.
•Maintain and service parking pay stations.
•Manage operations and access of the Library Parking Garage.
Engineering as required by State code, manages procurement and construction of
City-funded capital projects sponsored by other divisions and departments.
Engineering is also responsible for data mapping used by internal and external
staff, all survey work, controls for subdivisions, and new roadways.
Salt Lake City Department of Public Services
228 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Facilities is responsible for the stewardship of 83 City-owned buildings, totaling
more than 2.54 million square feet and an additional 1.76 million square feet of
public plazas, rights-of-way, green ways, and trails in the Downtown and Sugar
House business districts. Facilities manages the Capital Asset Program that tracks
the condition of each facility, schedules repair and replacement, quantifies
deferred capital renewal, and projects costs to preserve assets over their lifetime.
Fleet maintains City-owned vehicles and equipment; supplies and monitors fuel at
15 locations; manages a vehicle pool; and maintains a truck wash-out facility. Fleet
prepares utilization and performance data that is used to optimize the fleet while
supporting the City’s environmental goals. The division is actively involved in
securing a plan for electric infrastructure.
Streets is responsible for the following Streets is responsible for the following operations on City-owned roadways:
•Repair and apply surface treatments on asphalt roadways as well as pothole
repair, and asphalt mill and overlay.
•Manage public-way concrete program which includes the upgrade of concrete
ADA ramps, concrete replacement through the 50/50 or 100% cost-share
program, and sidewalk trip and fall mitigation.
•Concrete road maintenance including joint sealing and limited slab
replacement.
•Control snow and ice on roadways, protected bike lanes, and viaduct sidewalks.
•Maintain signalized intersections’ signals, flashing crosswalks, and electronic
traffic control devices, providing after-hours coverage for emergency response.
•Perform annual inspections, installations, maintenance and replacement of
traffic signs and painted roadway markings.
•Street sweeping to protect the storm water drainage system while providing a
clean, well-presented City.
Salt Lake City Department of Public Services
229 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES
Jorge Chamorro, Director
Department Performance Measurements
Performance Measures FY2021 Actual FY2022 Actual FY2023 Actual FY2024 Target FY2025 Target
COMPLIANCE: maintain full
coverage of required school
crossings, with crossing guard staff
during the school year.
100%100%100%100%100%
ENGINEERING : Number of Public
Way Permits Issued 2,670 2,311 2,280 2,300 2,300
FACILITIES: Maintain productivity of
total tasks completed on time.71%75%75%75%77%
FLEET: Maintain mechanic
productivity rate during work hours
at 90% or greater
88%92%88%90%90%
STREETS: Complete mileage
projected for mill and overlay as
maintenance treatment (new metric
in 24)
N/A N/A N/A 5 miles 10 miles
ADMINISTRATION: Complete
building vulnerability assessments
(new metric in 24). Measured in
number of buildings assessed.
N/A N/A N/A 10 20
Salt Lake City Department of Public Services
230 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES
Jorge Chamorro, Director
FY 2022-23 Actuals
FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget
FY 2024-25 Recommended Budget FY 2024-25 FTE
DEPARTMENT BUDGET
Personal Services 28,402,415 35,037,078 36,201,015
O & M 13,004,305 15,446,523 15,423,843
Charges & Services 9,743,635 10,705,136 12,723,538
Capital Expenditures 932,901 10,748,547 790,423
Equipment Expense — — 7,008,420
Interest & Bond Expenditures 200,872 3,355,903 —
Depreciation & Amortization 6,541,984 0 0
Transfers Out 291,434 654,855 2,061,893
Total Public Services 59,117,546 75,948,042 74,209,132
DIVISION BUDGETS
Administrative Services 2,731,989 3,623,427 4,263,050 20.00
Engineering 5,830,427 7,194,606 7,412,570 51.00
Compliance 3,064,105 4,574,427 5,003,106 32.00
Facility Services 11,413,240 11,980,848 13,042,062 58.00
Fleet 21,787,416 32,498,750 27,947,665 49.00
Streets 14,290,369 16,075,984 16,540,679 116.00
Total Public Services 59,117,546 75,948,042 74,209,132
FUNDING SOURCES
General Fund 37,330,130 43,449,292 46,261,467 277.00
Fleet Fund 21,787,416 32,498,750 27,947,665 49.00
Total Public Services 59,117,546 75,948,042 74,209,132
FTE by Fiscal Year 308.00 319.00 326.00
Salt Lake City Department of Public Services
231 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
FY 2025 Department Budget
Personal Services
36,201,015
O & M
15,423,843
Charges & Services
12,723,538
Capital Expenditures
790,423
Equipment Expense
7,008,420
Salt Lake City Department of Public Services
232 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES
Jorge Chamorro, Director
Changes discussed below represent adjustments to the FY 202 adopted budget.
Personal Services Base to Base Changes 92,358
Base to base changes compares personal services costs adopted as part of the FY2024 budget to
actual personal services costs paid during the first pay period of the calendar year 2024. Changes in
this category incorporate changes in personal services at the individual staff level, including pay
adjustments, reclassifications, career ladders, and benefits changes that happened in the first part of
the current fiscal year.
Pension Changes 33,080
The budget includes changes as required for participation in the Utah state pension system.
Insurance Rate Changes 134,884
This increase reflects a change in the cost of insurance for the Department of Public Services as
described in the Budget Summary section of the Budget Book.
Salary Proposal 354,785
This increase reflects the Department of Public Services portion of the salary proposal described in
the Budget Summary portion of the Mayor's Recommended Budget Book.
Health Savings Account 113,472
The budget includes an increase as described in the Budget Summary
Budget Amendment #3: Road Marking Maintenance (Ongoing) 200,000
Funding will be used to address the increased inventory of assets on the right of way, including bike
lane markings, bike racks and posted signs.
Policy Issues
Mill and Overlay Pilot Program (130,000)
The reduction reflects the conclusion of this pilot. The program will be consolidated in FY25 with
funding as reflected in the budget.
Environmental Engineer One-time Expenses (18,000)
Reduction of start up cost for FTE added in FY24.
Building Administrator One-time Expenses (2,750)
Reduction of start up cost for FTE added in FY24.
Contractual Increases (Ongoing) 603,308
The budget includes funding to cover expected rate increases in contracted services.
Inflationary Increases (Ongoing) 340,109
Funding is intended to cover inflationary impacts on ongoing expenses.
Internal Security Program - Consultant Costs (One-time) 75,000
Funding is intended to support the Security Director performing vulnerability assessments.
Incentive for RV Removal and Disposal (One-time) (FOF) 100,000
Additional funding for the Compliance Division to continue promoting the proper disposition and
timely removal of vehicles deemed a nuisance.
Salt Lake City Department of Public Services
233 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Engineer IV (Grade 31) (10 Months) 117,210
Funding will enable the Engineering Division to enforce construction violations occurring in the public
right-of-way (ROW). (1 FTE)
Project Delivery Support for Parks Projects (10 Months) 249,694
The budget includes funding for two FTEs to add capacity to support the Planning and Design
Division in the Public Lands Department. (2 FTE)
Rapid Intervention Team (Following Pilot) (10 Months) 253,026
Consolidates the pilot program and extend the capabilities of the RIT with an additional crew of
Cleanup Equipment Operators for small public way rehabilitations and manual cleanup services. (3
FTE, FOF)
Mill and Overlay Increase (One-time) 296,000
Consolidates the pilot program, increasing capacity to achieve additional lane miles of treated
roadways.
Reclass Seasonal to Sign and Markings Technician (2 FTEs) (Ongoing) —
Conversion of seasonal staff to add year-round capacity to the maintenance crews responsible for traffic signs and markings.
Salt Lake City Department of Public Services
234 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES
Organizational Structure Fiscal Year 2024-25
Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities
235 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Department Of Public Utilities
DEPARTMENT MISSION AND VISION STATEMENT
To serve our community and protect our environment by working to continuously
improve water, wastewater, stormwater, and street lighting services in a
sustainable manner. We strive to uphold the values of Service, Leadership,
Integrity, Flexibility, Efficiency, and Stewardship.
DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW
The Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities (SLCDPU) provides water, sewer,
stormwater, and street lighting services. SLCDPU provides sewer, stormwater, and
street lighting to the approximately 200,000 residents of Salt Lake City. The service
area for SLCDPU’s water utility is much larger and provides drinking water to more
than 360,000 people in Salt Lake City and portions of Mill Creek, Holladay,
Cottonwood Heights, Murray, Midvale, and South Salt Lake. SLCDPU manages the
four utilities as separate enterprise funds under one administrative management
structure. SLCDPU develops and implements fees, rates, and rate structures that
are approved annually by the Salt Lake City Council.
SLCDPU's work in each of its four utilities is vital to public health, environment,
economy, and quality of life. Our 493 employees are responsible to ensure the
environment is protected, and that the public has access to clean, reliable, and
affordable water resources. SLCDPU is extremely accountable to the public in its
implementation of these services. In fulfilling this important responsibility, SLCDPU
is regulated by (1) federal and state agencies pursuant to the federal Safe Drinking
Water Act and Clean Water Act, and the state’s drinking water and water quality
statutes and rules; (2) federal and state statutes regarding water resources, water
quality, and flood control; and (3) local health department regulations concerning
drinking water and wastewater. SLCDPU, in turn, enforces numerous regulations
concerning water, stormwater, and sewer, primarily contained in Chapter 17 of Salt
Lake City’s ordinances. SLCDPU is also responsible for regulating the Riparian
Corridor Overlay Zone found in Chapter 21 of Salt Lake City’s ordinances.
Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities
236 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES
Laura Briefer M.P.A., Director
Department Performance Measurements
Measure 2021 Actual 2022 Actual 2023 Actual 2024 Target 2025 Target
Water Quality: Water Quality Turbidity
is a measure of water clarity by
indicating how cloudy it is. The
national benchmark is less than 0.1
Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU).
0.03 NTU 0.0282 NTU 0.0234 NTU <0.1 NTU <0.1 NTU
Energy Use: AWWA Water-Energy
Efficiency median is 6,881 thousand
British thermal units per year per
million gallons (Kbtu/yr./MG).
1,902 Kbtu/yr/MG 2607 Kbtu/yr/MG 1,905 Kbtu/yr/MG 1,840 Kbtu/yr/MG 1,840 Kbtu/yr/MG
Water Use: Average Per Capita Water
Use in Gallons per Capita per Day
(gpcd as of 12/31).
193 gpcd 166 gpcd 163 gpcd <200 gpcd <200 gpcd
Sewer: Clean greater than 35% of the
sewer collection system.45% of System 45% of System 44% of System >35% of System >35% of System
Stormwater: Linear feet (LF) of lines
replaced, rehabilitated, or installed.13,541 LF 18,935 LF 18,956 LF*21,700 LF*21,700 LF*
*Target based on annual CIP planning.
Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities
237 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES
Laura Briefer M.P.A., Director
FY 2022-23 Actuals FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget
FY 2024-25 Recommended Budget FY 2024-25 FTE
DEPARTMENT BUDGET
Personnel Services 38,899,254 54,251,832 58,717,106
O & M 6,237,282 9,761,269 11,767,840
Charges & Services 53,911,642 68,863,756 80,939,069
Capital Expenditures (97) 334,049,662 7,900,000
Debt Principal — — 14,425,111
Debt Interest and Fiscal Charges 23,577,318 41,267,908 32,941,996
Building Expense 0 0 277,865,333
Improvements Expense — — 4,650,000
Equipment Expense 0 0 4,783,500
Infrastructure Expense 0 0 59,125,000
Deprecition & Amortization 23,829,918 — —
Transfers Out — 583,605 —
Total Public Utilities 146,455,317 508,778,032 553,114,955
DIVISION BUDGETS
Public Utilities Administration 7,419,074 9,029,919 17,241,502 48.00
Public Utilities Finance 40,848,012 29,806,655 114,261,885 51.00
Public Utilities Engineering 4,569,791 8,892,720 66,714,178 53.00
Water Quality 29,682,804 36,445,186 76,343,354 58.00
Water Reclamation 10,626,539 14,065,437 230,479,108 71.00
Water Resources 1,516,166 2,915,791 2,985,915 8.00
Public Utilities Operations and Maintenance 23,100,318 28,448,446 40,617,277 186.00
Public Utilities GIS and IT 2,573,768 3,856,308 4,471,736
CIP and Debt Service 26,118,845 375,317,570 —
Total Public Utilities 146,455,317 508,778,032 553,114,955
FUNDING SOURCES
Street Lighting Fund 5,054,978 6,044,149 6,776,763 2.35
Water Fund 82,224,402 177,953,787 206,304,772 295.99
Sewer Fund 48,156,069 301,832,622 311,873,824 130.88
Storm Water Fund 11,019,868 22,947,474 28,159,596 45.78
Total Public Utilities 146,455,317 508,778,032 553,114,955
FTE by Fiscal Year 460.00 476.00 475.00
Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities
238 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
FY 2025 Department Budget
Personnel Services
58,717,106
O & M
11,767,840
Charges & Services
80,939,069Capital Expenditures
7,900,000
Debt Principal
14,425,111
Debt Interest and Fiscal Charges
32,941,996
Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities
239 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
This page intentionally left blank
240 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
SALT LAKE CITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Organizational Structure Fiscal Year 2024-25
Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City
241 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Redevelopment Agency
Of Salt Lake City
DEPARTMENT MISSION STATEMENT AND CORE VALUES
The mission of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (RDA) is to revitalize
neighborhoods and business districts to improve livability, spark economic growth,
and foster authentic communities, serving as a catalyst for strategic development
projects that enhance the City’s housing opportunities, commercial vitality, public
spaces, and environmental sustainability.
We foster a set of core values that collectively support the revitalization of Salt Lake
City’s communities:
ECONOMIC GROWTH We act as a responsible steward of public funds, taking a
long-term view of investment, return, and property values.
COMMUNITY IMPACT We prioritize projects and programs that demonstrate
commitment to improving equity and quality of life for residents and businesses in
Salt Lake City.
NEIGHBORHOOD VIBRANCY We cultivate distinct and livable built environments
that are contextually sensitive, resilient, connected, and sustainable.
DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW
Since 1969, the RDA has played a pivotal role in revitalizing many areas of Salt Lake
City. Under the Utah Community Development and Renewal Agencies Act, the RDA
has the charge and financial tools to address blight and disinvestment in specific
parts of the City. By working with communities and development partners, the RDA
is transforming areas suffering from social, environmental, physical, or economic
challenges into neighborhoods and commercial districts that are characterized by a
variety of useful amenities, vital housing opportunities, successful local businesses,
connected public spaces, renewed infrastructure, and public art. As the owner of
the Gallivan Center, the RDA also works with the adjacent property owners to
oversee the maintenance and programming of the 3.5-acre downtown plaza.
To accomplish its goals to enhance livability and trigger economic investment, the
RDA utilizes a robust set of financial, planning, and revitalization tools to support
redevelopment within communities throughout the City. The RDA achieves its
goals through direction from its RDA Board of Directors (the same members as the
Salt Lake City Council) and is administered by its Executive Director (Salt Lake City
Mayor). Together with the Gallivan Center, the RDA has a total of 35 positions led
by the Director and Deputy Director. The staff conducts the daily operations of the
RDA as well as the maintenance and operations of the Gallivan Center.
Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City
242 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
SALT LAKE CITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Danny Walz, Director
FY 2021-22 Actuals FY 2022-23 Adopted Budget
FY 2023-24 Recommended Budget
FY 2023-24 FTE
DEPARTMENT BUDGET
Personal Services 1,588,385 2,480,095 2,766,591
O & M 2,234,307 1,300,000 535,000
Charges & Services 29,967,989 22,452,621 54,339,133
Interest & Bond Expense 3,973,156 10,746,989 9,644,668
Capital Expenditures 6,054,782 14,278,181 841,900
Transfers Out — 12,043,013 16,529,592
Total RDA $ 43,818,619 $ 63,300,899 $ 84,656,884
DIVISION BUDGETS
Administration 3,193,068 3,998,655 5,167,581 21.00
Block 67 CRA 365,771
Block 70 5,766,465 10,915,154 11,065,164
Central Business District 24,008,623 27,596,650 29,893,016
Primary Housing Fund (CWH TI) — 1,599,880 3,602,241
Depot District 2,134,389 4,049,587 7,095,401
Granary District 644 648,546 1,748,249
Housing Development Fund — 5,230,000 2,902,000
North Temple 224,914 449,053 1,952,466
No Temple Viaduct 2,542,885 1,206,609 3,155,765
Northwest Quadrant — 908,100 2,603,998
Westside Community Initiative (NWQ Hsg/UIPA) 1,835,900 500,000 1,835,469
Program Income Fund 1,432,032 1,556,835 1,559,233
Secondary Housing Fund (PAH) 16,478 10,000 1,000,000
Revolving Loan Fund 937,335 345,000 332,400
Stadler Rail — 72,920 168,744
State Street — 2,631,183 6,517,836
9-Line 234,503 1,477,727 3,307,218
West Capitol Hill 1,491,383 100,000 384,332
Total RDA $ 43,818,619 $ 63,295,899 $ 84,656,884
FUNDING SOURCES
Redevelopment Agency Fund 74,179,729 63,300,899 84,656,884 21.00
Total RDA $ 74,179,729 $ 63,300,899 $ 84,656,884
FTE by Fiscal Year 19.00 19.00 21.00
Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City
243 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
FY 2025 DEPT BUDGET
Personal Services
2,766,591
O & M
535,000
Capital Expenditures
841,900
Charges & Services
54,339,133
Interest & Bond Expense
9,644,668
Transfers Out
16,529,592
Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City
244 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
SUSTAINABILITY DEPARTMENT
Organizational Structure Fiscal Year 2024-25
Salt Lake City Department of Sustainability
245 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Sustainability Department
Overview
VISION STATEMENT
The Sustainability Department supports the vision of leading the way on resilience
and environmental stewardship.
MISSION STATEMENT
The Sustainability Department develops goals and strategies to protect our natural
resources, reduce pollution, slow climate change, and establish a path toward
greater equity, resiliency, and empowerment for the community.
DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW
The Department of Sustainability aims to develop goals and strategies to protect
our natural resources, reduce pollution, slow climate change, and establish a path
toward greater resiliency and vitality for all aspects of our community. The
Department is organized in two separate divisions: the Waste & Recycling Division
and the Environment & Energy Division. The Waste & Recycling Division is
responsible for managing the City’s regular refuse, compost, and recycling
collection services and is funded by refuse collection fees. The Environment &
Energy Division develops plans and policies to preserve and improve our built and
natural environments and provide residents information on sustainability issues
affecting Salt Lake City. This division is funded primarily by landfill dividends and
recycling proceeds when available. The Department currently operates with 65 full-
time equivalent positions (FTE’s).
Department Performance Measurement
Measure 2021 Actual 2022 Actual 2023 Actual 2024 Target 2025 Target
Increase percent of residential waste stream diverted from the landfill through recycling and composting
0.372 0.37 0.36 ≥40%≥40%
50% renewable electricity generation for municipal operations by 2023 12% (est)0.12 0.1 ≥50%≥70%
100% renewable electricity generation for community by 2030 0.3 0.31 0.31 ≥30%≥30%
Reduce community greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2040
4,720,000 (est.)
MTCO2e
4,620,000 (est.)
MTCO2e
4,600,000 (est.)
MTCO2e
≤ 4,620,000
MTCO2e
≤ 5,000,000
MTCO2e
SLCGreen Total social media followers (INSTAGRAM, Facebook, and Twitter)18,254 18,823 19,205 20,350 21,350
Salt Lake City Department of Sustainability
246 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
SUSTAINABILITY DEPARTMENT
Debbie Lyons, Director
FY 2022-23 Actuals FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget
FY 2024-25 Recommended Budget FY 2024-25 FTE
DEPARTMENT BUDGET
Personnel Services 5,651,014 6,752,544 7,137,658
O & M 427,198 633,100 731,507
Charges & Services 7,511,721 9,492,684 11,176,601
Capital Expenditures 252,030 8,124,067 3,710,567
Improvements Expense — — 51,000
Debt Principal — — 2,863,727
Bonding/Debt/Interest Charges 59,669 2,986,397 91,832
Depreciation & Amortization 1,968,540 — —
Transfers Out 272,427 275,000 275,000
Total Sustainability 16,142,599 28,263,792 26,037,892
DIVISION BUDGETS
Environment & Energy 1,836,297 2,646,630 2,935,619 8.00
Waste & Recycling 14306302 25617162 23102273.06 57.00
Total Sustainability 16,142,599 28,263,792 26,037,892
FUNDING SOURCES
Refuse Fund 16,142,599 28,263,792 26,037,892 65.00
Total Sustainability 16,142,599 28,263,792 26,037,892
FTE by Fiscal Year 63.00 63.00 65.00
FY 2025 Department Budget
Personnel Services
7,137,658
O & M
731,507
Charges & Services
11,176,601
Capital Expenditures
3,710,567
Improvements Expense
51,000
Debt Principal
2,863,727
Salt Lake City Department of Sustainability
247 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
DEPARTMENT OF SUSTAINABILITY
Debbie Lyons, Director
Changes discussed below represent adjustments to the FY 2023-24 adopted budget.
Personal Services Base-to-Base Changes 86,153
Base-to-base changes compares personal services costs adopted as part of the FY2024 budget to actual personal services costs paid during the first pay period of the calendar year 2024. Changes in this category incorporate changes in personal services at the individual staff level, including pay adjustments, reclassifications, career ladders, and benefit changes that happened in the first part of the current fiscal year.
Salary Proposal and Benefit Changes 300,390
This increase reflects a 5% cost of living increase that is being proposed. This includes non-represented and AFSCME represented employees.
Policy Issues
Revenue
Waste & Recycling Residential Service Fee Revenue Increase (Ongoing) 1,619,837
This reflects a 10% increase to residential service fees for waste and recycling collection. Target cash balance for Waste & Recycling is 18% of operating revenue. Projected end-of-year cash balance with this fee increase is 12%.
Waste & Recycling Glass Recycling Fee Increase (Ongoing) 18,780
Curbside and drop-off glass recycling services are provided by a third party contractor. The monthly subscription fee for curbside glass collection is passed on to the customer through their monthly utility bill. The glass recycling fee increase is driven by a 3% CPI increase in contractual fees.
Waste & Recycling Debt Financing Proceeds and Misc Revenue Decrease (One-Time) (4,251,433)
This revenue item is directly related to an equivalent expense to finance capital purchases, and overall is budget neutral.
Energy & Environment Misc Revenue Increase (Ongoing) 34,751
Ongoing owners' distribution from the Salt Lake Valley Landfill is expected to increase by $30,000 and additional miscellaneous interest income is expected to increase by $4,751.
Expense
Waste & Recycling Capital Purchase Decrease (One-Time) (4,013,500)
Capital equipment financed in FY25 will decrease from FY24. The Department purchased more equipment than normal in FY24 due to supply chain limitations in prior years. Waste & Recycling equipment is replaced on a six-year cycle.
Waste & Recycling Public Utilities Billing System Allocation (Ongoing) 889,104
This increase reflects an expected 17% increase in an ongoing transfer to Public Utilities for collecting Waste and Recycling fees. In addition, Public Utilities is developing a new billing system and the Refuse Fund's calculated allocation will be $670,000 per year for the next three fiscal years.
Waste & Recycling Fleet Fuel and CNG Decrease (Ongoing) (44,700)
Fuel cost for the Department is expected to decrease by $44,700 for FY25 based on market outlook.
Waste & Recycling Tipping Fee Increase (Ongoing) 258,000
This increase reflects the change in fees charged at the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Facility (Landfill) and Waste Management's Recovery Facility (recycling).
Waste & Recycling Fleet Maintenance Increase (Ongoing) 221,524
This reflects an expected 10% inflationary increase over the FY24 adopted budget.
Salt Lake City Department of Sustainability
248 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Waste & Recycling Lease Debt Payment Decrease (Ongoing) (30,838)
This decrease reflects scheduled financial payments for fiscal year 2020 equipment purchases that have ended. Due to supplier chain issues, capital purchases were postponed and thus scheduled financial payments decreased. Supply chain issues have improved so scheduled financial payments should resume in future fiscal years.
Waste & Recycling Operating and Administrative Increase (Ongoing) 107,968
This includes a 3% inflationary increase in glass recycling contract, building repairs and expenses, safety equipment, supplies and apparel. and other miscellaneous expenses.
Salt Lake City Department of Sustainability
249 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
This page intentionally left blank
250 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
SALT LAKE CITY 911 COMMUNICATIONS BUREAU
Organizational Structure Fiscal Year 2024-25
Salt Lake City 911 Communications Bureau
251 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
911 Dispatch Bureau
DEPARTMENT VISION STATEMENT
We will strive to partner with our officers and firefighters to create a safe and
healthy community where our citizens can work and live.
DEPARTMENT MISSION STATEMENT
Salt Lake City 911 will maintain a high state of readiness to provide a caring and
committed link between our officers, firefighters, and citizens of Salt Lake City.
DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW
The 911 Communications Bureau provides dispatch services for Salt Lake City and
Sandy City residents. They process all emergent and non-emergent calls in both
municipalities. The dispatchers work cooperatively with the Fire Departments and
Police Departments that they serve and Sandy Animal Services to address the
needs of the public.
The 911 Bureau is managed by an at-will director that reports to the Office of the
Mayor. The total FTEs for the 911 Communications Bureau stands at 100. The
majority of these FTEs answer calls 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and answered
over 660,000 calls last year. These specialized dispatchers require rigorous training
each year and are held to high standards of quality response.
911 Communications Bureau Performance Measures
Performance Measures 2021 Actual 2022 Actual 2023 Actual 2024 Target 2025 Target
Answer phones within 15 seconds at least 95.24% of the time 95.24%95.34%93.71%95.00%95.00%
Answer phones within 40 seconds at least 98.47% of the time 98.47%98.19%97.42%99.00%99.00%
*911 Comm gathers performance measurement information on a calendar year basis.
Salt Lake City 911 Communications Bureau
252 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
SALT LAKE CITY 911 COMMUNICATIONS BUREAU
Lisa Kehoe, Director
FY 2022-23 Actuals
FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget
FY 2024-25 Recommended Budget
FY 2024-25 FTE
DEPARTMENT BUDGET
Personnel Services 9,764,164 10,088,793 10,438,033
Operating and Maintenance 46,435 84,984 116,784
Charges & Services 298,518 935,606 905,116
Capital Expenditures 123 150,373 150,373
Total 911 Communications Bureau 10,109,240 11,259,756 11,610,306
DIVISION BUDGETS
Dispatch 10,872,140 11,259,756 11,610,306 100.00
Total 911 Communications Bureau 10,872,140 11,259,756 11,610,306
FUNDING SOURCES
General Fund 10,109,240 11,259,756 11,610,306 100.00
Total 911 Communications Bureau 10,109,240 11,259,756 11,610,306
FTE by Fiscal Year 100.00 100.00 100.00
FY 2024 Department Budget
Personnel Services
10,438,033Operating and Maintenance
116,784
Charges & Services
905,116
Capital Expenditures
150,373
Salt Lake City 911 Communications Bureau
253 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
SALT LAKE CITY 911 COMMUNICATIONS BUREAU
Lisa Kehoe, Director
Changes discussed below represent adjustments to the FY 2023-24 adopted budget.
Personal Services Base-to-Base Changes (113,642)
Base-to-base changes compares personal services costs adopted as part of the FY2024
budget to actual personal services costs paid during the first pay period of the calendar year
2024. Changes in this category incorporate changes in personal services at the individual staff
level, including pay adjustments, reclassifications, career ladders, and benefit changes that
happened in the first part of the current fiscal year.
Pension Changes 14,904
The budget includes changes as required for participation in the Utah State Pension System.
Insurance Rate Changes 180,062
This increase reflects a change in insurance costs for the 911 Communication Bureau as
described in the Budget Summary section of the Budget Book.
Salary Proposal 206,976
This increase reflects the 911 Communication Bureaus portion of the salary proposal
described in the Budget Summary portion of the Mayor's Recommended Budget Book.
Health Savings Plan 62,250
The budget includes an increase as described in the Budget Summary
Salt Lake City 911 Communications Bureau
254 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
NON-DEPARTMENTAL
General Fund Requests Overview
Municipal Contribution/Civic Support
Salt Lake City Arts Council 800,000 800,000 1,000,000
SL Area Chamber of Commerce 50,000 55,000 55,000
Sugar House Park Authority 218,891 270,251 236,597
Diversity Outreach — 3,000 3,000
Utah League of Cities and Towns 221,922 233,474 243,347
National League of Cities and Towns 12,797 12,797 12,797
Tracy Aviary 719,367 763,526 814,173
Sister Cities 8,208 10,000 30,000
ACE Fund (Previously Signature Events) 193,250 200,000 300,000
Dignitary Gifts/Receptions/Employee Appreciation 4,258 170,000 170,000
Housing Authority Transitional Housing 197,291 85,000 85,000
Regional Economic Development Funding 108,000 108,000 108,000
US Conference of Mayors — 12,242 14,242
Jordan River Membership — 16,000 16,000
Rape Recovery Center 30,000 30,000 30,000
YWCA - FJC Wrap Around Services 45,000 45,000 45,000
Housing Assist Program - Rental Assistance 147,794 — —
DAQ Lawnmower Exchange — 230,000 —
National League of Cities Conference — — —
Salt Lake City Foundation — 3,000 3,000
World Trade Center Membership 50,000 50,000 50,000
Local Business Marketing Program 20,000 20,000 20,000
Sorenson Center w/ County 830,498 1,014,800 1,014,800
Transit Key Routes 6,658,272 7,000,000 7,000,000
Home to Transit Program 1,669,331 3,000,000 3,307,807
Outreach New Routes 77,354 100,000 100,000
Hive Pass Pass-Through Expense 440,386 625,648 350,000
Free Bus Passes for School Children, Parents, Guardian, Faculty — — 214,648
Downtown Alliance Safety Ambassador (170,546) — —
Switchpoint Donation — 250,000 —
Suazo Membership 75,000 45,000 45,000
Healthcare Innovation-Biohive 77,690 100,000 100,000
NBA All Star Game 801,796 — —
Open Streets Initiative 150,000 500,000 400,000
Police Department Expungements — — 300,000
Volunteers of America Detox — — 1,000,000
Total Municipal Contribution/ Civic Support 13,436,559 15,752,738 17,068,411
Governmental Transactions
Capital Improvements Project Fund 31,617,831 13,257,591 14,368,191
Fleet Replacement Fund 12,091,900 11,743,350 5,657,993
Non-Departmental FY 2022-23 Actuals FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget
FY 2024-25 Recommended Budget
Salt Lake City Non-Departmental
255 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Transfer to RDA 22,134,598 15,985,753 19,661,505
Transfer to Golf 25,700 —
Golf Fund ESCO 493,239 510,427 528,213
Golf Admin Fee Transfer 339,335 356,302 356,302
Golf IMS Transfer 350,000 350,000 350,000
Rosepark Infrastructure Renewal 500,000 500,000 500,000
Golf Course Living Wage & CCAC (One-time) 370,100 370,100 370,100
Transfer to Water Fund (Assistance) 100,000 200,000 100,000
Transfer to Water Fund (Fire Hydrant Fee) — — 534,469
Housing Sales Tax Plan (Transfer to the Housing Fund) — 1,840,000 2,590,000
Transfer to Governmental Immunity 500,000 — —
Transfer to Refuse Fund (Sustainability) 1,762,126 1,170,900 1,170,900
Transfer to Public Utilities Funds 2,000,000 — 61,000
Transfer to Risk Fund — — —
Transfer to Other Special Revenue Fund 300,000 100,000 100,000
Transfer to Information Management Services Fund — 22,311,740 23,615,477
IFAS Account IMS Transfer — — —
Total Transfers 80,917,282 79,195,089 80,789,352
Interfund Charges
General Fund Costs for Streetlighting 103,682 184,420 184,420
City Data Processing Services 19,676,545 — —
Risk Management Premium 2,970,656 3,911,485 3,879,655
Centralized Fleet Management 6,938,922 7,656,893 7,656,893
Ground Transportation GF Expense 50,000 — —
Total Interfund Charges 29,739,805 11,752,798 11,720,968
Grant Related Programs
Federal Grant Match Account — — —
Total Grant Related Programs — — —
Other Administrative Costs
Legal Defenders 1,404,676 1,645,067 1,724,817
Public Utilities - Land Swap Payment 200,000 200,000 —
10 Year Plan - Airport Trail Reimbursement Required by FAA Corrective Action Plan 103,886 — —
Apprenticeship Program — 630,000 130,000
City Hall Security Improvements (One-time) 500,490 379,450 —
City Hall Police Presence (Ongoing) — 280,350 342,750
City Hall Security: City Hall Public Order Security (Ongoing) — — 99,840
City Hall Security: Protective Detail (Ongoing) — — 120,000
Retirement Payouts 183,000 696,000 696,000
Music Licensing Fees - Moving to IMS 3,635 9,000 —
Contract with U of U for Demographic Project — 50,000 50,000
Washington DC Consultant — 75,000 75,000
Tuition Aid Program 214,222 320,000 320,000
Non-Departmental FY 2022-23 Actuals FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget
FY 2024-25 Recommended Budget
Salt Lake City Non-Departmental
256 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Municipal Elections 39,964 404,551 50,000
Animal Services Contract 1,958,095 1,970,648 2,069,180
Citywide Equity Plan and Training 90,001 — —
Gentrification Mitigation Study 86,849 — —
Protest Response Costs (200) — —
Community Investment Priorities 1,000,000 — —
Police Department Body Cameras 1,547,571 1,549,692 1,692,972
Committee on Racial Equity on Policing — 120,000 —
Police Training 1,458 55,000 —
Police Department Social Worker Funding 218,089 1,840,127 —
Wind Storm Damage (161,951) — —
Boards & Commissions Honoraria — 26,000 —
REP: Increased Mental Health Responders — — 1,133,574
REP: Commission of Racial Equity & Policing — — 120,000
REP: Arbinger Leadership Cohort (REP-C) (Ongoing) — — 74,688
REP: Leadership in Police Organization (REP-C) (Ongoing) — — 52,500
REP: School Resource Training (REP-C) (Ongoing) — — 22,775
REP: Culturally Responsive Therapy for Negative Police Interactions (REP-C) (Ongoing) — — 99,840
Racial Equity & Policing Peer Court — 20,000 —
Racial Equity & Policing Holding Account — 1,781,191 1,531,389
Salary Negotiation Hold — 760,000 —
Salary Contingency — — 2,131,513
Council Lobbyists — 60,000 —
Car and RV Camping Pilot Program 98,729 500,000 —
Return of Op Diversion Funding 490,847 — —
Contingency 2,104 — —
Shooting Range Remediation 121,284 — —
Council - Dignitary Gifts Rece 20,000 —
Fire SCBA — 197,400
Annual Financial Audit 270,100 —
Outdoor Bus Activity Grant Pilot 99,617 — —
PD Substations 113,292 — —
Downtown Streets Enhanced 443,000 — —
2023 Flooding 574,772 — —
Transportation Utility Fee Consultant — 50,000 —
Wasatch Community Gardens — 50,000 50,000
Total Other Administrative Costs 9,333,430 13,762,176 13,490,791
Special Revenue Fund Accounting
Total Special Revenue Fund Accounting 73,300,858 31,130,108 24,062,310
Debt Service Funds
Debt Service Funds 30,343,954 34,894,979 31,556,034
Special Improvement District Funds 82 3,000 3,000
Total Debt Service Funds 30,344,036 34,897,979 31,559,034
Non-Departmental FY 2022-23 Actuals FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget
FY 2024-25 Recommended Budget
Salt Lake City Non-Departmental
257 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Capital Projects Funds
Capital Projects Fund 45,170,816 34,894,979 32,322,843
Impact Fees Fund 7,170,601 — —
Capital Projects Maintenance Fund 4,418,112 — —
Total Capital Projects Funds 56,759,529 34,894,979 32,322,843
FY 2022-23 Actual Budget FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget FY 2024-25 Adopted Budget
Funding Sources
General Fund 133,427,076 120,462,801 123,069,522
Special Improvement Districts Funds 82 3,000 3,000
Miscellaneous Special Service District Fund 1,668,631 1,700,000 1,700,000
Emergency 911 3,800,385 3,800,385 3,913,585
CDBG Operating Fund 4,056,150 5,597,763 5,485,515
Misc Grants Operating Funds 58,621,665 8,919,917 6,644,210
Salt Lake City Donation Fund 3,780,293 500,000 500,000
Other Special Revenue Funds 325,173 400,000 400,000
Housing Funds 1,048,561 10,212,043 5,419,000
Debt Service Funds 30,343,954 34,894,979 31,556,034
Capital Projects Fund 45,170,816 34,894,979 32,322,843
Impact Fees Fund 7,170,601 — —
Capital Projects Maintenance Fund 4,418,112 — —
Total Non-Departmental 293,831,499 221,385,867 211,013,709
Non-Departmental FY 2022-23 Actuals FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget
FY 2024-25 Recommended Budget
Salt Lake City Non-Departmental
258 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
NON-DEPARTMENTAL
General Fund Requests Overview
The Non-departmental portion of the budget provides a financial reporting and budgeting section to account for all
General Fund monies transferred to other funds, grants, and other special revenue funds. It provides accounting for
funds that do not programmatically belong to any particular City department. It includes an accounting of the City’s
debt service and capital improvement programs. It is also used to monitor disbursements of monies for civic
organizations that provide a service on behalf of Salt Lake City but are not legal entities of the City.
Apprenticeship Program (500,000)
A reduction in funding available for the Apprenticeship Program
Salt Lake City Arts Council (Ongoing) (FOF) 200,000
The budget includes an increase in funding for the Arts Council. $117,500 of this additional fund is for City Arts Grants, $2,500 is for increases in Art Barn utilities and the remaining $80,000 is for the increase in the cost of running the Twilight Concert Series, Living Traditions, Busker Fest and the Finch Lane Gallery.
City Hall Security: City Hall Police Presence (Ongoing) (FOF) 62,400
Funding is being recommended for staffing cost for a City Hall police presence on Tuesdays.
City Hall Security: City Hall Public Order Security (Ongoing) (FOF) 99,840
Funding is included for twice monthly City Hall public order security.
City Hall Security: Protective Detail (Ongoing) 120,000
The budget includes funding for the Mayor's protective detail.
Axon Body Camera Enhancements (Ongoing) (FOF) 143,280
Funding is being included to provide enhancements to the City's Axon Body Cameras.
Ace Fund (Ongoing) 100,000
This funding is meant to help cover inflationary increases as well as the increasing number of applications to the
Ace Fund being now being received.
Sister Cities (Ongoing) 20,000
Additional funding is being provided for the City's Sister Cities program to cover membership costs as well as program and diplomatic enhancements in anticipation of the upcoming Olympics bid.
Utah League of Cities and Towns (Ongoing) 9,873
The budget includes an increase in funding for the Utah League of Cities and Towns contract to align with the amount being billed by the organization.
Tracy Aviary (Ongoing) 50,647
The Aviary is requesting an additional $50,647, which includes a 7% CPI increase as well as $40,000 to be used as an offset for water service charges as referenced in their contract with the City.
US Conference of Mayors (Ongoing) 2,000
Funding to cover the anticipated increase in the cost of the US Conference of Mayor’s Membership.
Arbinger Leadership Cohort (REP-C) (Ongoing) (FOF) 74,688
This funding pertains to training that would provide an outward mindset including the following: strategic partnership, inclusion, outward mindset in public safety, strategic planning and execution.
Salt Lake City Non-Departmental
259 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Leadership in Police Organization (REP-C) (Ongoing) (FOF) 52,500
This increase would fund a three-week course that explores leadership at different levels in the organization: leading individuals, leading groups, and leading organizations. The course uses the following methods: Applied Learning, Translation of Theory to Practice and Practical Leadership Strategies.
School Resource Training (REP-C) (Ongoing) (FOF) 22,725
The budget includes funding for professional development for all School Resource Officers (SROs) outside the legal basic requirements. This would allow all SROs to stay updated on current practices, and gain a deeper or broader expertise in youth development, as well as other areas pertinent to the field.
Culturally Responsive Therapy for Negative Police Interactions (REP-C) (Ongoing) (FOF) 99,840
This funding is to support grief counseling for family members affected by negative police interactions. The support would ensure that community members have the lowest barrier possible to soliciting counseling services that are culturally responsive and tailored to meet various diverse needs.
Transfer from Fire for Fire Hydrant Fee 241,250
Funding for Fire Hydrant maintenance has traditionally been paid to Public Utilities through the Fire Department budget. This funding will be moved to the Non-Departmental budget.
Fire Hydrant Fee (Ongoing) (FOF) 293,219
Funding is included to cover an increase in costs for Public Utilities to maintain Fire Hydrants in the City.
City Hall Security Improvements FY24 (One-time) (379,450)
The remaining funding for security improvements to the City and County Building will be removed from the budget.
Municipal Elections FY 2024 (One-time) (354,551)
A reduction in funding for various elections related costs in FY 2024.
Sugarhouse Park Authority (One-time) (33,654)
A one-time increase was included in the FY 2024 budget for a portion of the cost of a pavilion replacement in the park. This funding is being removed from the budget.
Transportation Utility Fee Consultant (One-time) (50,000)
Funding provided in FY 2024 for a Transportation Utility Fee consultant is being reduced.
Downtown Street Activation for Summer and Fall 2023 (One-time) (500,000)
The Mayor recommends removing funding for Downtown Open Streets activation that was utilized during the
Summer and Fall months of 2023.
Open Streets - Continuation of Downtown Streets (One-time) 400,000
Funding is being recommended for a continuation of the Downtown Open Streets efforts for the Summer and
Fall months of 2025. Funding will be needed during fiscal year 2025 to cover the costs associated with the
contract for Open Streets.
Police Officer Training (One-time) (55,000)
Remaining one-time funding for police training is being reduced from the budget.
Fleet Replacement Fund Transfer (6,085,357)
The reduction in funding for the Fleet Replacement fund transfer is primarily due to the reduction of $1,700,000 in FOF funding historically used for Streets fleet equipment and the reduction of $4,000,000 in FOF funding historically used for Public Safety apparatus and vehicles. Other changes include a reduction of funding needed for vehicles for newly added positions.
Golf Transfer 17,786
The funding for the Golf transfer is increasing due to a change in the required ESCO payment.
Salt Lake City Non-Departmental
260 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
IMS Fund Transfer 1,340,962
The IMS fund transfer is increasing for several reasons, including; $250,000 in funding for the Radio Replacement program to maintain and replace radios purchased during fiscal years 2023 and 2024, the $100,000 reduction of one-time funding for CAP and $10,000 reduction for Spidr Tech software, changes in funding for new positions, increases in costs related to contracts and inflation, the ongoing $397,688 cost of Versaterm Case Service and Cellbrite that was added in BA #4 of FY 2024, the $650,000 reduction in costs for legacy systems due to the implementation of Workday, a $108,757 cost increase for a Privacy Officer position to comply with the requirements of House Bill 491 of this year's legislative session, and $127,648 cost of audio-visual equipment in need of replacement.
Debt Service Funding Transfer 523,676
Changes to the Debt Service transfer include a $815,049 reduction in bond debt service, a $162,600 increase in ESCO payments and an increase of $1,176,125 for the LBA debt service.
CIP Funding Transfer 1,147,642
The CIP funding transfer is being increased by $1,147,642 primarily due to the Public Land's department's transfer of $683,152 in funding back to CIP for maintenance. In the FY 2024 budget, this ongoing funding was used toward vehicles and other one-time costs associated with an increase in parks maintenance positions in the department. Other changes to the transfer include an increase of $560,000 for ongoing CIP commitments and a reduction of $150,000 for Westside art.
Public Utilities: Land Swap (Ongoing) (200,000)
$200,000 has been included annually for several years to cover the cost of a land swap between the City, the County and Public Utilities. The land swap costs have been covered and will now be reduced from the budget.
Public Utilities: Water Usage Study (One-time) (100,000)
Funding for a water usage study / audit for Salt Lake City facilities is being reduced from the budget.
RDA Transfer 2,925,752
The transfer to the RDA fund will increase primarily due to a $3,675,752 increase in RDA Tax Increment funding. Other changes include a reduction of $1.5 million for Gap Financing for Switchpoint's Project on North Temple, Switchpoint and Catalytic Grant Program and Sanctioned Camping Catalytic Grant Program Holding Account. There is also a $750,000 increase to the Housing Plan - Land Discounts and Financing transfer to RDA.
Sustainability: E&E Continuation of Air Quality Incentives (One-time) (230,000)
The budget removes one-time funding for air quality incentives for e-bikes and indoor air quality improvement tools.
Sustainability: Misc Program Efficiency Reductions (Ongoing) (46,200)
Various program reductions.
Boards & Commissions Honoraria (One-time) (26,000)
Funding for Boards and Commissions honoraria is being reduced from the budget.
REP Peer Court Support (20,000)
The budget removes funding for Peer Court.
Legal Defenders (Ongoing) 79,750
An increase in funding for the Legal Defenders contract is being included.
Music License Fees - Moving to IMS (9,000)
The budget for music license fees for the city are being moved from the Non-Departmental budget to IMS.
Salary Contingency (Ongoing) (760,000)
Funding set aside for potential anticipated salary items in the FY 2024 budget is being removed from the FY 2025 budget.
Salt Lake City Non-Departmental
261 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Risk: Lifestyle Spending Account (One-time) (500,000)
Funding for the trial Lifestyle Spending Account program undertaken during FY 2024 is being removed from the budget.
Risk: Insurance Premium Increase 468,171
The city is evaluating moving to an insurance carrier from self insurance for workers compensation.
Animal Control Contract (Ongoing) 98,532
The increase required by the County based on the Animal Services contract.
UTA On Demand Service (Ongoing) (FOF) (Ongoing) 307,807
Funding to support contractual increase for the On-Demand Service.
Police Department Expungements (One-time) 300,000
The budget includes funding to reduce a backlog of expungements in process.
Volunteers of America - Detox (One-time) 1,000,000
Funding is being requested for the facility related needs at the Volunteers of America site on Redwood Road.
Salt Lake City Non-Departmental
262 Mayor’s Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Staffing
Document
This page intentionally left blank
Official Staffing Document
Summary for Fiscal Year 2024-25
This section reflects the official staffing document for FY 2024-25. The staffing
document inventories individual positions and pay grade classifications within each
division. It includes the total number of authorized positions and job classifications
for each department by division and fund. The total number of all positions in the
City is tallied on the initial summary page.
Any change made to the City staffing document that increased costs but did not
increase the number of positions was presented to the City Council for review. Any
change in the total number of positions requires the approval of the City Council.
The total numbers of positions are presented for the last two fiscal years (2022-23
and 2023-24), as well as the staffing level for FY 2024-25. Changes from the
previous fiscal year’s budget are noted and explained in the column entitled
Changes from FY 2023-24 to FY 2024-25.
Changes are noted as follows:
RECLASSIFICATIONS
•If a reclassification resulted in a pay grade change only, the notation would be,
for example, Changed to _________/from 29
•If a reclassification resulted in a change of title only, the notation would be, for
example, Changed to _________/from Personnel Director.
•If a reclassification resulted in a change of grade and title, the notation would
be, for example, Changed to_________/from Personnel Director (29)
REORGANIZATIONS
•If a position or part of a position has been transferred to a different part of the
organization the notation would be, for example, Transferred to_________/from
Employee Services.
•If a percentage of the position were transferred, the notation would be, for
example, .25 Transferred to _________/from Employee Services.
•If a position or percentage of a position were transferred to another
department, the notation would be, for example, Transferred to Department
of_________, Division of_________/from Employee Services.
•There will be offsetting notations in the receiving area of the organization to
explain from where the position or percentage of the position was transferred.
NEW POSITIONS
•A position which has been added to the official staffing document in Fiscal Year
2024-25 is noted as New Position.
Salt Lake City Staffing Document
265 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
ELIMINATED POSITIONS
•A position which has been removed from the official staffing document for the FY 2024-25
is noted as Position eliminated.
POSITION HELD VACANT
•A position which is being held vacant in the official staffing document for the
fiscal year 2024-25 is noted as Position held vacant.
POSITION TITLE ABBREVIATIONS
•H indicates an hourly position
•PT indicates a part-time position
•S indicates a seasonal position
Salt Lake City Staffing Document
266 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
STAFFING DOCUMENT SUMMARY
COMPARISON OF FISCAL YEARS 2023 THROUGH 2025
Budget Budget Budget FY24-25
DEPARTMENT FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Variance
GENERAL FUND
Attorney's Office 57.50 60.50 66.50 6.00
City Council 36.00 39.00 39.00 0.00
911 Communications Bureau 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00
Community and Neighborhood 190.00 195.00 193.00 (2.00)
Economic Development 22.00 22.00 23.50 1.50
Department of Finance 76.70 81.70 84.70 3.00
Fire 392.00 402.00 406.00 4.00
Human Resources 31.40 33.40 33.40 0.00
Justice Courts 42.00 42.00 43.00 1.00
Mayor's Office 32.00 34.00 35.00 1.00
Police 750.00 761.00 767.00 6.00
Public Lands 143.35 157.85 165.85 8.00
Public Services 262.00 273.00 277.00 4.00
Non Departmental 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
GENERAL FUND TOTAL 2,134.95 2,201.45 2,233.95 32.50
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Airport 619.30 639.30 664.30 25.00
Golf 33.65 34.15 34.15 0.00
Public Utilities
Street Lighting 2.72 2.57 2.35 (0.22)
Water 288.16 298.21 295.99 (2.22)
Sewer 127.65 130.80 130.88 0.08
Storm Water 40.47 43.42 45.78 2.36
Total Public Utilities 459.00 475.00 475.00 0.00
Sustainability 63.00 65.00 65.00 0.00
ENTERPRISE FUND TOTAL 1,174.95 1,213.45 1,238.45 25.00
INTERNAL SERVICE AND OTHER FUNDS
Information Mgmt Svcs 92.00 100.00 101.00 1.00
Fleet Management 46.00 46.00 49.00 3.00
Government Immunity 9.00 10.00 9.00 (1.00)
Risk Management 7.40 7.70 8.70 1.00
Special Revenue: 1/4 Sales Tax from County 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
INTERNAL SERVICE AND OTHER FUND TOTAL 154.40 163.70 167.70 4.00
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 32.00 34.00 34.00 0.00
TOTAL POSITIONS 3,496.30 3,612.60 3,674.10 61.50
Salt Lake City Staffing Document
267 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
City Council
Council Person xxx 7.00 7.00 7.00
Executive Director 41 1.00 1.00 1.00
Deputy Director-City Council 39 1.00 2.00 2.00
Legislative & Policy Manager 37 0.00 1.00 1.00
Senior Advisor City Council 37 1.00 0.00 0.00
Associate Deputy Director -Council 37 1.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Public Policy Analyst 33 2.00 3.00 3.00
Operations Mgr/Mentor 31 1.00 1.00 1.00
Community Facilitator 31 0.00 0.00 0.00
Public Policy Analyst II 31 3.00 3.00 3.00
Council Office Communication Director 31 1.00 1.00 1.00
Policy Analyst 31 0.00 0.00 0.00
Policy Analyst/Public Engagement 28 2.00 1.00 1.00
Public Engage/Comm Specialist II 28 1.00 1.00 1.00
Constituent Liaison/Public Policy Analyst 27 2.00 3.00 3.00
Public Engagement & Comm Special 26 3.00 6.00 6.00
Constituent Liaison 26 3.00 3.00 3.00
Assistant to Council Executive Director 25 1.00 1.00 1.00
Council Admin Asst 24 5.00 4.00 4.00
RPT Council Staff Asst 26 1.00 1.00 1.00
CITY COUNCIL TOTAL 36.00 39.00 39.00
Mayor Executive Staff
Mayor xxx 1.00 1.00 1.00
Chief of Staff 41 1.00 1.00 1.00
Chief Administrative Officer 41 1.00 1.00 1.00
Deputy Chief of Staff 39 1.00 1.00 1.00
Deputy Chief Administrative Officer 39 1.00 1.00 1.00
Senior Advisor 39 2.00 0.00 0.00
Communications Director 39 1.00 0.00 0.00
Communications Deputy Director 30 1.00 0.00 0.00
Policy Advisor 29 2.00 1.00 1.00
REP Commission Senior Staff Position 29 1.00 0.00 0.00
Community Liaison 26 5.00 0.00 0.00
Executive Assistant 24 5.00 3.00 3.00
Office Manager Mayor's Office 24 1.00 1.00 1.00
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
Salt Lake City Staffing Document
268 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Community Outreach Sp & E Coord 24 1.00 0.00 0.00
Communication & Content Mgr 21 1.00 0.00 0.00
Administrative Assistant 19 2.00 2.00 2.00
Mayor Executive Staff Total 27.00 12.00 12.00
Mayor Communication
Communications Director 39 0.00 1.00 1.00
Communications Deputy Director 30 0.00 1.00 1.00
Communication & Content Mgr 30 0.00 1.00 1.00
Mayor Communication Total 0.00 3.00 3.00
Mayor Policy Advisors
Senior Advisor 39 0.00 2.00 3.00 New Position
Mayor Policy Advisors Total 0.00 2.00 3.00
Mayor Equity Administration
Chief Equity Officer 39 1.00 1.00 1.00
REP Commission Senior Staff Position 29 0.00 1.00 1.00
Equity Team Member 27 1.00 0.00 0.00
Community Liaison 26 3.00 5.00 5.00
Executive Assistant 24 0.00 1.00 1.00
Mayor Equity Administration Total 5.00 8.00 8.00
Mayor Community Outreach
Senior Advisor 39 0.00 2.00 2.00
Community Liaison 26 0.00 4.00 4.00
Community Outreach Sp & E Coord 24 0.00 2.00 2.00
Executive Assistant 24 0.00 1.00 1.00
Mayor Community Outreach Total 0.00 9.00 9.00
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR TOTAL 32.00 34.00 35.00
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
Salt Lake City Staffing Document
269 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
911 COMMUNICATIONS BUREAU Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
911 Dispatch Director 38 1.00 1.00 1.00
911 Dispatch Deputy Director 32 1.00 1.00 1.00
911 Dispatch Operations Mgr 31 0.00 0.00 4.00 4 Changed from Operations Manager grade 29 to Assistant Director grade 31.
911 Dispatch Operations Mgr 29 2.00 4.00 0.00 4 Changed from Operations Manager grade 29 to Assistant Director grade 31.
911 Dispatch Supervisor 27 10.00 9.00 9.00
911 Dispatch Dispatcher I-III 20 82.00 81.00 81.00
911 Dispatch Dispatcher I-III Unfunded 20 3.00 3.00 3.00
Office Facilitator II 19 1.00 1.00 1.00
911 COMMUNICATIONS BUREAU TOTAL 100.00 100.00 100.00
Office of the Executive Director
Executive Director 41 1.00 1.00 1.00
ORAT Director 39 1.00 1.00 0.00 1 Transferred to Real Estate & Commercial Development
ORAT Specialist 31 0.50 0.50 0.00 1 Transferred to Design & Construction Management
Executive Assistant 26 0.00 0.00 1.00 1 Changed from Admin Assist (24)
Administrative Assistant - Appointed 24 1.00 1.00 0.00 1 Changed to Executive Assist (26)
Airport Construction Coordinator 23 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 Grade changed from 18 to 23
Administrative Secretary 18 1.00 0.00 0.00
Office Technician II 15 0.00 0.00 0.00
Executive Director's Office Total 5.50 4.50 3.00
Communication and Marketing Division
Director Communication & Marketing 38 0.00 0.00 1.00 1 Changed from Director Airport Public Relations & Marketing (38)
Director Airport Public Relations & Marketing 38 1.00 1.00 0.00 1 Changed to Director Communication & Marketing (38)
Air Service Development Manager 31 1.00 1.00 0.00 1 Transferred to Real Estate & Commercial Development
Senior Manager Air Services Development 31 0.00 0.00 0.00
Airport Communication Manager 30 1.00 1.00 2.00 1 New position
Airport Community Outreach Manager 30 0.00 0.00
Airport Communication Coordinator 26 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 Grade changed from 25 to 26
Airport Public Relations Manager 30 0.00 0.00 0.00
Communication and Marketing Total 4.00 4.00 4.00
DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
Salt Lake City Staffing Document
270 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Planning and Environmental Division
Director of Airport Plan/Cap Program 39 1.00 1.00 1.00
Assistant Planning, Environmental & Cap Program Director 37 0.00 0.00 1.00 1 Changed from Assistant Planning & Environmental Director (36)
Assistant Planning & Environmental Director 36 0.00 1.00 0.00 1 Changed to Assistant Planning, Environmental & Cap Program Director (37)
Airport Environmental Program Manager 34 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 Grade changed from 33 to 34
Airport Senior Environmental Sustainability Coordinator 32 2.00 1.00 1.00 1 Grade changed from 31 to 32
Airport Planning & DBE Manager 33 0.00 0.00 2.00 1 Changed from Airport Planner Manager (30) and 1 changed from Airport Senior Planner (30)
Airport Planner Manager 30 0.00 1.00 0.00 1 Changed to Airport Planning & DBE Manager (33)
Airport Senior Planner 30 3.00 2.00 1.00
1 Changed to Airport Planning & DBE Manager (33), 1 Changed to GIS Programmer Analyst (27), 1 New position
Airport Principal Planner 27 0.00 2.00 2.00
Airport Environmental Sustainability Coordinator 27 0.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Planning & DBE Programs Coordinator 25 0.00 0.00 1.00 1 Changed from Airport Planning Programs Coord (25)
Airport Planning Programs Coordinator 25 1.00 1.00 0.00 1 Changed to Airport Planning & DBE Coord (25)
Associate Planner 24 0.00 0.00 0.00
Environmental Specialist II 26 1.00 1.00 1.00
Environmental Specialist I 23 0.00 0.00 0.00
Geographic Information System Mgr 33 0.00 1.00 1.00
GIS Programmer Analyst 27 0.00 1.00 2.00 1 Changed from Airport Senior Planner (30)
Office Facilitator II 22 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 Grade changed from 19 to 22
Planning and Environmental Total 10.00 15.00 16.00
Finance and Accounting Division
Director of Finance and Accounting 39 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Controller 37 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Finance Manager 37 1.00 1.00 2.00 1 Changed from Construction Finance Manager (33)
Construction Finance Manager 33 1.00 1.00 0.00 1 Changed to Airport Finance Manager (37)
Financial Analyst IV 32 1.00 0.00 0.00
Financial Analyst III 30 3.00 3.00 2.00 1 Changed to Accountant III (27); 2 Grade change from 29 to 30
Auditor IV 32 0.00 0.00 1.00 1 Changed from Auditor III (28)
Auditor III 28 1.00 1.00 0.00 1 Changed to Auditor IV (32)
DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
Salt Lake City Staffing Document
271 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Accountant III 27 3.00 3.00 5.00 1 Changed from Financial Analyst III (29); 1 Changed from Accountant II (21)
Warehouse Supervisor 24 0.00 0.00 0.00
Auditor II 23 1.00 1.00 1.00
Accountant II 21 3.00 3.00 3.00 1 Changed to Accountant III (27); 1 Changed from Office Facilitator I/II (19)
Airport Procurement Specialist 21 0.00 0.00 0.00
Accountant I 18 0.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Warehouse Operator 15 0.00 0.00 0.00
Warehouse Sup Worker-Airport 14 0.00 0.00 0.00
Office Facilitator I/II 19 0.00 0.00 1 Transferred from Maintenance; 1 Changed to Accountant II (21)
Part-Time/Accounting Intern 0.50 0.50 0.50
Finance and Accounting Total 16.50 15.50 16.50
Maintenance Division
Director of Maintenance 39 1.00 1.00 1.00
Assistant Maintenance Director 36 4.00 4.00 5.00 1 New position
Airport Maintenance Operations Superintendent 34 0.00 0.00 0.00
Airport Fleet Manager 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Maintenance Superintendent 32 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aviation Services Manager 31 2.00 3.00 3.00
Airport Maintenance Ops Support Mgr 31 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Facilities Assets Manager 31 1.00 2.00 2.00
Airport Maintenance Manager 31 4.00 4.00 5.00 1 Changed from Maintenance Electrician IV (22)
Warranty Commissioning Manager 30 1.00 1.00
Facilities Maint Warranty/Commission Mgr 30 1.00 1.00 2.00 1 Changed from Tech Systems Analyst IV (28)
Technical Systems Program Mgr 30 1.00 1.00 3.00 2 Changed from Senior Facility Maint Supervisor (27); 3 Grade changed from 29 to 30
Computer Maint Mgmt Systems Administrator 29 2.00 4.00 5.00 1 New position
Computer Maint Systems Supervisor 29 0.00 0.00 0.00
Tech Systems Analyst IV 28 1.00 1.00 0.00 1 Changed to Facilities Maint Warranty/Commission Mgr (30)
Energy/Utilities Management Coordinator 27 0.00 0.00 1.00 1 Changed from Airport Energy Manager (27)
Airport Energy Manager 27 0.00 1.00 0.00 1 Changed to Energy/Utilities Management Coordinator (27)
Airport Fleet/Warehouse Operations Manager 27 1.00 1.00 1.00
Facility Maintenance Contract Administrator 27 1.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Facility Maint Supervisor 27 5.00 4.00 2.00 2 Changed to Technical Systems Manager (30)
DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
Salt Lake City Staffing Document
272 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Senior Airport Grounds/Pavement Supervisor 27 4.00 4.00 4.00
Plant Coordinator Supervisor 27 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aviation Srvs Tech Sys Adm 27 1.00 2.00 4.00
1 Changed from Facility Support Coordinator (26); 1 Changed from Facility Maintenance Coordinator (25)
Civil Maint Warranty 28 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 Grade change from 26 to 28
Facility Maintenance Manager 26 0.00 0.00 0.00
HVAC Specialist 25 1.00 1.00 1.00
Fleet Management Services Supervisor 27 5.00 5.00 5.00 5 Grade change from 25 to 27
Facility Maint Supervisor 25 6.00 7.00 7.00
Airport Signs Graphic Design Supervisor 25 1.00 1.00 1.00
Facilities Maintenance Coordinator 25 32.00 33.00 37.00 1 Changed to Aviation Services Tech Services Admin (27); 5 New positions
Airport Maintenance Supervisor 25 11.00 11.00 13.00 2 Changed from Airfield Maint. Euip. Operator I-II-III (16-43)
Electronic Security Technician 24 12.00 14.00 15.00 1 New position
Management Analyst 26 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 Changed grade from 24 to 26
Warehouse Supervisor 24 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Grounds/Pavement Super 23 1.00 1.00 1.00
Facility Maintenance Contract Coordinator 22 0.00 0.00 0.00
Facility Support Coordinator 26 6.00 4.00 3.00 1 Changed to Aviation Services Tech Services Admin (27)
Maintenance Electrician IV 22 4.00 4.00 2.00
1 Changed to Airport Maintenance Manager (31); 1 Changed to Airfield Maintenance Electrician (25); 2 Grade changed from 22 to 24
Airfield Maintenance Electrician 25 21.00 21.00 22.00 1 Changed from Maintenance Electrician IV (22)
Airfield Electrical Supervisor 27 4.00 5.00 5.00
HVAC Tech II 21 8.00 11.00 11.00
Airport Lead Sign Technician 21 3.00 3.00 4.00 1 New position
Senior Fleet Mechanic 21 6.00 6.00 6.00
Plumber II 21 0.00 0.00 0.00
Airport Procurement Specialist 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Budget & Special Projects Coordinator 20 0.00 0.00 0.00
Airfield Main. Specialist I-II-III 16-23 87.00 87 Changed from Airfield Maint. Equip. Operator I-II-III (16-23)
Airfield Maint. Equip. Operator I-II-III 16-23 89.00 90.00 0.00
1 Changed to Senior Florist (18); 2 Changed to Airfield Maintenance Supervisor (25); 87 Changed to Airfield Maint. Specialist I-II-III (16-23)
Airport Lighting & Sign Technician 20 3.00 3.00 3.00
DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
Salt Lake City Staffing Document
273 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Carpenter II 20 9.00 8.00 0.00 8 Changed to General Maintenance Worker (20)
General Maintenance Worker 20 2.00 6.00 22.00 8 Changed from Carpenter II (20); 6 Changed from Painter II (20); 2 New positions
Fleet Body Repair and Painter 20 1.00 1.00 1.00
Fleet Mechanic I/II 20 20.00 20.00 20.00
Painter II 20 7.00 6.00 0.00 6 Changed to General Maintenance Worker (20)
Office Facilitator I/II 19 1.00 1.00 0.00 1 Transferred to Finance & Acct
Facilities Contract Compliance Specialist 19 6.00 6.00 6.00
Facility Maint Contract Repair Tech II 19 0.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Florist 18 1.00 0.00 1.00 1 Changed from Airfield Maint. Equip. Operator I-II-III (16-23)
Airfield Maint. Equipment Oper III 18 0.00 0.00 0.00
Maintenance Electrician I (Apprentice)17 0.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Warehouse Operator 15 4.00 5.00 6.00 1 New position
Warehouse Sup Worker-Airport 14 1.00 0.00 0.00
Fleet Services Worker 15 1.00 1.00 1.00
Intern 0.50 0.50 0.50
Maintenance Division Total 301.50 314.50 325.50
Design and Construction Management Division
Director - Airport Engineering 39 1.00 1.00 0.00 1 Changed to Director of Design & Construction Management (39)
Director of Design & Construction Management 39 0.00 0.00 1.00 1 Changed from Director - Airport Engineering (39)
Assist Director of Design & Construction Management 37 0.00 0.00 1.00 1 Changed from Engineer VII (34)
Assist Director of Construction Management 37 0.00 0.00 1.00 1 Changed from Senior Engineer Project Manager (34)
Assist Director of Project Delivery 37 0.00 0.00 1.00 1 Changed from Engineer VI (34)
Engineer VII 36 2.00 2.00 2.00 1 Changed to Assist Director of Design & Construction Mngt (37); 1 Changed from Engineer VI (34)
Airport Architect 37 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 Grade changed from 36 to 37
Senior Engineer Project Manager 34 1.00 1.00 0.00 1 Changed to Assist Director of Construction Mngt (37)
Airport Senior Architectural Manager 34 1.00 1.00 0.00 1 Changed to Senior Architect (36)
Engineer VI 34 2.00 2.00 1.00
1 Changed to Engineer VII (36); 1 Changed from Engineer V (33); 1 Changed to Assist Director of Project Delivery (37)
Airport Tenant Development Manager 33 0.00 0.00 1.00 1 New position
Senior Architect 36 1.00 1.00 2.00 1 Changed from Airport Senior Architectural Manager (34); 2 Grade change from 33 to 36
DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
Salt Lake City Staffing Document
274 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Geographic Information System Mgr 33 1.00 0.00 0.00
Engineer V 33 1.00 1.00 0.00 1 Changed to Engineer VI (34)
ORAT Specialist 31 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Transferred from Office of the Executive Director; 1 Changed to Intern (0)
Airport Surveyor 30 1.00 1.00 1.00
Engineering Construction Program Manager 29 1.00 1.00 1.00
Construction Manager 28 3.00 3.00 3.00 3 Grade change from 27 to 28
Engineering Tech VI 27 2.00 2.00 2.00
GIS Programmer Analyst 27 2.00 0.00
Management Analyst 26 0.00 0.00 1.00 1 Changed from Airport Construction Project Coordinator (23)
Engineering Tech V 24 3.00 3.00 3.00
Architectural Associate IV 24 1.00 1.00 1.00
Engineering Tech IV 23 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Construction Project Coordinator 23 1.00 1.00 0.00 1 Changed to Management Analyst (26)
Project Coordinator III 22 2.00 2.00 2.00
Airport Field Technician 22 1.00 1.00 1.00
Engineering Records Program Specialist 20 1.00 1.00 1.00
Office Facilitator I 18 1.00 1.00 1.00
Intern 0.00 0.00 0.50 1 Changed from ORAT Specialist
Design & Construction Management Total 31.00 28.00 29.50
Operations Division
Chief Operating Officer 40 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 Grade change from 39 - 40
Director of Airport Operations 39 1.00 1.00 1.00
Assistant Operations Director 38 3.00 3.00 4.00 1 New position
Airport Operations Superintendent - Security Comm 35 0.00 0.00 0.00
Airport Operations Superintendent - Landside 35 0.00 0.00 0.00
Airport Operations Superintendent - Terminals 35 0.00 0.00 0.00
Airport Safety, Engagement & Training Senior Manager 32 0.00 0.00 2.00
1 Changed from Safety Management Systems (SMS) Program Manager (31); 1 Changed from Airport Ops Manager - Safety (29)
Airport Operations Manager - Ground Transportation 30 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 Grade change from 31 to 30
Airport Operations Manager / Parking 32 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 Grade change from 31 to 32
Safety Management Systems (SMS) Program Manager 31 0.00 1.00 0.00 1 Changed to Airport Safety, Engagement & Training Senior Manager (32)
DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
Salt Lake City Staffing Document
275 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Airport Operations Manager - Terminal/Landside 30 0.00 0.00 4.00
1 Changed from Airport Ops Manager - Airfield (30); 2 Changed from Airport Ops Manager - Terminals (29); 1 New position
Airport Operations Manager - Airfield 30 14.00 15.00 14.00
15 Grade change from 29 to 30; 1 Changed to Airport Ops Manager - Terminal/Landside (30); 14 Grade change from 29 to 30
Airport Operations Manager Airfield/FBO 30 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 Grade change from 29 - 30
Airport Operations Manager - Terminals 29 2.00 2.00 0.00 2 Changed to Airport Ops Manager - Terminal/Landside (30)
Airport Operations Manager -Safety 29 1.00 1.00 0.00 1 Changed to Airport Safety, Engagement & Training Senior Manger (32)
Airport Operations Manager - Security 30 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 Grade change from 29 to 30
Airport Operations Manager / Communications 29 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Operations Manager - Customer Service 29 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Customer Service Supervisor 23 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Training Coordinator 26 0.00 0.00 0.00
Airport Safety, Engagement & Training Manager 29 0.00 0.00 5.00 4 Changed from Airport Training Program Manager (29); 1 New position
Airport Training Program Manager 29 0.00 4.00 0.00 4 Changed to Airport Safety, Engagement & Training Manager (29)
Safety Program Coordinator 26 3.00 0.00 1.00 1 New position
Airport Operations Supervisor - Terminal/Landside 26 0.00 0.00 13.00
11 Changed from Airport Landside Operations Supervisor (25); 1 Changed from Airport Ops Supervisor - Airfield (25); 1 New position
Airport Operations Supervisor - Airfield 25 1.00 1.00 0.00 1 Changed to Airport Operations Supervisor - Terminal/Landside (26)
Airport Landside Operations Supervisor 25 11.00 11.00 0.00 11 Changed to Airport Operations Supervisor - Terminal/Landside (26)
Airport Operations Duty Agent Supervisor 25 0.00 0.00 0.00
Airport Operations Supervisor / Access Control 25 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Operations Access Control Coordinator 23 1.00 2.00 2.00
Management Analyst 26 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 Grade change from 24 to 26
Office Facilitator II 22 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 Grade change from 19 to 22
Airport Operations Supervisor / Communications 26 5.00 5.00 6.00 1 New position; 6 Grade change from 24 to 26
Airport Operations Training Supervisor Communications 27 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 Grade change from 24 to 27
Engagement Coordinator 24 1.00 0.00 0.00
Airport Operations Specialists - Airfield 23 22.00 22.00 22.00
DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
Salt Lake City Staffing Document
276 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Airport Operations Specialists - Terminal/Landside I-III 23 41.00 77.00 77.00 1 Changed to Airport Operations Agent - FBO (23); 1 Changed from Part-time Ops Tech
Airport Operations Customer Service Representative 23 2.00 2.00 3.00 1 New position
Airport Operations Agent - FBO 24 6.00 6.00 7.00
1 Changed from Airport Ops Specialist - Terminal/Landside I-III (23); 7 Grade change from 23 to 24
Airport Operations Duty Agent 23 0.00 0.00 0.00
Employment Services Coordinator 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
Administrative Secretary 18 0.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Commercial Vehicle Ins 18 3.00 4.00 4.00
Airport Landside Operations Officer 18 36.00 0.00 0.00
Air Operations Security Spec 17 2.00 2.00 2.00
Airport Operations Lead Coordinator 17 4.00 4.00 4.00
Airport Operations Coordinator 16 12.00 12.00 12.00
Airport Operations Coord II 16 0.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Secretary 15 0.00 0.00 0.00
Access Control Specialist 15 9.00 9.00 10.00 1 New position
Office Technician II 15 0.00 0.00 0.00
Airport Operations Coord I 14 0.00 0.00 0.00
Paging Operator 10 0.00 0.00 0.00
Part-Time Operations Technician 2.50 2.50 1.50
One .5 position changed to Airport Ops Specialist - Terminal/Landside I-III (23); One .5 position eliminated
Part-Time Operations Intern 1.00 1.00 1.00
Regular Part-Time/Paging Operator 10 0.30 0.30 0.30
Operations Division Total 196.80 201.80 209.80
Real Estate & Commercial Development Division
Director Administration and Commercial Services 39 1.00 1.00 1.00
ORAT Director 39 0.00 0.00 1.00 1 Transferred from Office of the Executive Director
Commercial Manager Airport 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Contracts & Procurement Manager 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Property & Real Estate Manager 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Air Service & Business Development Manager 35 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed 1 from Business Development Manager (32)
Business Development Manager 32 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed 1 to Air Service & Business Development Manager (35)
Air Service Development Manager 31 0.00 0.00 1.00 1 Transferred from Communication & Marketing
Airport Risk Manager 29 1.00 1.00 1.00
DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
Salt Lake City Staffing Document
277 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Airport Tenant Relations Coordinator 27 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Property Specialist II 27 3.00 3.00 2.00 Changed 1 to Airport Property Specialist I 24
Airport Contract Specialist I 27 3.00 3.00 3.00
Commercial Program Coordinator 27 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed 1 from Commercial Program Specialist (27)
Commercial Program Coordinator 27 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed 1 to Commercial Program Coordinator (27)
Airport Contracts Specialist II 26 0.00 0.00
Airport Risk Management Coordinator 24 0.00 0.00
Airport Property Specialist I 24 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed 1 from Airport Property Specialist II (27)
Admin Assistant / GRAMA Coord 22 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed 1 to Special Projects Assistant (21)
Special Projects Assistant 21 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed 1 from Admin Assistant / GRAMA Coord. (22)
Administrative Secretary II 21 0.00 0.00
Administrative Secretary 18 0.00 0.00
Real Estate & Commercial Development Total 15.00 15.00 17.00
Information Technology Services Division
Airport Information Management Services Director 39 1.00 1.00 0.00 1 Changed to Director Information Technology (39)
Director Information Technology 39 0.00 0.00 1.00 1 Changed from Airport Information Management Services Director (39)
Airport Information Technology Manager 38 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 Grade change from 36 to 38
Airport Special Systems Manager 37 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 Grade change from 36 to 37
Cybersecurity Engineer Manager 37 0.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Tech Systems Superintendent 36 0.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Network Architect 36 1.00 1.00 0.00 1 Changed to Cybersecurity Engineer I (35)
Cybersecurity Engineer I 35 0.00 0.00 1.00 1 Changed from Senior Network Architect (36)
Senior Software Engineer 35 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 Grade change from 34 to 35
Network Engineering Team Manager 38 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 Grade change from 37 to 38
Network System Engineer III 36 3.00 3.00 5.00 3 Grade change from 33 to 36; 1 Changed from Network Support Admin II (25); 1 New position
Information Tech Support Manager 32 0.00 0.00 4.00
3 Changed from Tech System Program Manager (30); 1 Changed from Network Support Admin I (23)
Network System Engineer II 34 2.00 2.00 1.00 2 Grade change from 31 to 34; 1 Changed to Network Support Admin III (27)
Software Support Admin II 30 1.00 1.00 1.00
DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
Salt Lake City Staffing Document
278 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Technical System Program Manager 30 3.00 3.00 0.00 3 Changed to Information Tech Support Manager (32)
Network Support Team Manager 32 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 Grade change from 29 to 32
Network Support Administrator III 27 7.00 7.00 12.00
2 Changed from Tech Systems Analyst II (24); 2 Changed from Network Support Admin II (25); 1 Changed from Network System Engineer II (34)
Technical Systems Analyst IV 28 0.00 0.00 1.00 1 Grade change from 27 to 28; 1 Changed from Tech Systems Analyst II (24)
Technical Systems Analyst III 26 0.00 0.00 0.00
Network Support Administrator II 25 11.00 11.00 9.00
2 Changed to Network Support Admin III (27); 1 Changed to Network System Engineer III (36); 1 New position
Technical Systems Analyst II 24 3.00 4.00 1.00 1 Changed to Tech Systems Analyst IV (28); 2 Changed to Network Support Admin III (27)
Network Support Administrator I 23 2.00 2.00 1.00 1 Changed to Information Tech Support Manager (32)
Information Technology Services Division Total 39.00 41.00 43.00
SLC DEPT OF AIRPORTS TOTAL (AIRPORT FUND)619.3 639.3 664.3
DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
Office of City Attorney
City Attorney 41 1.00 1.00 1.00
Office Manager 24 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 grade change from 21 to 24
Office of City Attorney Total 2.00 2.00 2.00
Legal Support
General Fund
Deputy City Attorney 40 1.00 1.00 1.00
Division Chief Senior City Attorney 39 2.00 2.00 2.00
Senior City Attorney 39 8.50 8.50 10.00 1 new position
Assistant City Attorney 34 0.50 0.50 0.00
First Assistant City Prosecutor 39 2.00 2.00 2.00 2 grade change from 34 to 39
Assistant City Prosecutor 29 3.00 4.00 2.00 2 positions changed to Associate City Prosecutor (33)
Associate City Prosecutor 33 10.00 11.00 13.00 13 grade changed from 27 to 33; 2 positions changed from Assistant City Prosecutor (29)
Paralegal 24 4.50 3.50 3.50 3.5 grade change from 21 to 26
Prosecutor Law Office Manager 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
Salt Lake City Staffing Document
279 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Legal Secretary III 21 4.00 4.00 4.00 4 grade change from 18 to 21
Senior Prosecutor Assistant 17 6.00 4.00 2.00 2 Changed to Pros Asst
Prosecutor Assistant 16 4.00 6.00 9.00 1 new, 2 changed from Sr Pros Asst
Legislative Affairs Director 38 0.00 0.00 1.00 proposed grade change from 34
Special Project Analyst 26 0.00 0.00 1.00 1 new position; potential to change grade
Special Project Assistant 21 0.00 0.00 1.00 1 new position; potential to change grade
Legal Support Total 46.50 47.50 52.50
City Recorder
City Recorder 35 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 proposed to change grade from 35 to 38
Minutes and Records Clerk 21 3.00 3.00 3.00
Deputy Recorder 26 3.00 3.00 2.00 2 proposed to change grade from 26 to 31; 1 changed to Elections Management Coordinator
Elections Management Coordinator 26 0.00 0.00 1.00 1 changed from Deputy Recorder
Special Projects Analyst 26 0.00 1.00 1.00 1 proposed to change to Business Systems Analyst II (30)
Associate Records Technician 18 1.00 0.00 0.00
Boards & Commission Liaison 23 0.00 1.00 1.00 1 proposed to change to Business Systems Analyst I (28)
Office Facilitator 20 0.00 1.00 1.00
Special Projects Analyst 26 0.00 0.00 1.00 1 new position
Records Archive Clerk 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
City Recorder Total 9.00 11.00 12.00
Risk Management Fund
Risk Manager 38 1.00 1.00 1.00 Grade change from 35 to 38
Risk Management Analyst 26 0.00 1.00 1.00 Position is in 6203 Workers Compensation Fund
Risk Management Specialist 24 1.00 0.00 0.00
Risk Coordinator 21 0.00 0.00 0.50 .5 Moved from Gov Imm
Sr. Claims Adjuster 28 0.00 0.00 1.00 Moved from Gov Imm
Senior Budget & Policy Analyst 32 0.30 0.30 0.30
Office Facilitator I 18 0.50 0.50 0.00
Subtotal of Risk Management Fund 2.80 2.80 3.80
Governmental Immunity Fund
Division Chief Senior City Attorney 39 1.00 1.00 1.00
Senior City Attorney 39 3.50 3.50 4.00
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
Salt Lake City Staffing Document
280 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Assistant City Attorney 34 0.50 0.50 0.00 Changed to Sr. City Attorney
Claims Adjuster 24 1.00 0.00 0.00 Moved to Risk Admin
Paralegal 21 2.50 2.50 2.50
Risk Coordinator 21 0.00 1.00 0.50 .5 Moved to Risk Admin
Deputy Risk Manager 33 0.00 1.00 1.00
Office Facilitator I 18 0.50 0.50 0.00
Subtotal of Gov Immunity Fund 9.00 10.00 9.00
CITY ATTORNEY TOTAL 69.30 73.30 79.30
General Fund 57.50 60.50 66.50
Risk Management Fund 2.80 2.80 3.80
Governmental Immunity Fund 9.00 10.00 9.00
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
CAN Admin Office of the Director
CAN Director 41 1.00 1.00 1.00
CAN Deputy Director 37 2.00 2.00 2.00
Financial & Admin Services Director 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Communications Manager 34 0.00 0.00 1.00 1 New Position
Policy & Program Manager 29-32 3.00 2.00 2.00
Real Property Manager, Agent, Spec 21-34 4.00 4.00 4.00
CIP Manager, Specialist 25-31 2.00 0.00 0.00
Financial Analyst III 30 1.00 0.00 0.00
Business Systems Analyst 28 0.00 1.00 1.00
Executive Assistant 24 1.00 1.00 1.00
Office Facilitator I-II 18-19 0.00 0.00 0.00
CAN Admin Office of Director Total 15.00 12.00 13.00
Building Services
Building Official 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Building Services Manager 32 3.00 3.00 3.00
Business Systems Analyst 30 1.00 1.00 1.00
Fire Protection Engineer 29 2.00 2.00 2.00
Economic Dev Business Coordinator 29 2.00 1.00 1.00
Plans Examiner Sr, Chief, I-III 25-29 8.00 8.00 8.00
Building Inspector Sr, I-III 19-29 20.00 20.00 21.00 1 New Position
Civil Enforcement Spvr, Invst, Officer I-III 17-29 16.00 18.00 18.00
Permit Processor Spvr, I-II 14-24 5.00 5.00 5.00
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOODS Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
Salt Lake City Staffing Document
281 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Office Facilitator & Technician I-III 15-19 5.00 5.00 5.00
Building Services Total 63.00 64.00 65.00
Housing Stability
Housing Stability Director 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Housing Stability Deputy Director 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Policy & Program Manager, Specialist 27-33 5.00 4.00 4.00
Homeless Manager, Coordinator 21-33 3.00 3.00 3.00
Accountant III 27 1.00 1.00 1.00
Principal Planner 27 0.00 0.00 0.00
Comm Develop Grant Spec, Analyst 26 3.00 5.00 5.00
Housing Rehab Specialist, I-II 23-25 4.00 3.00 3.00
Housing Loan Officer, Administrator 21-25 1.00 2.00 2.00
Office Facilitator I-II 20-22 2.00 2.00 2.00
Housing Stability Total 21.00 22.00 22.00
Planning
Planning Director 37 1.00 1.00 1.00
Planning Deputy Director 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Planning Manager 33 5.00 6.00 6.00
Planning Supervisor 31 1.00 0.00 0.00
Development Review Planner Sr, I-III 25-30 6.00 6.00 6.00
Planner Senior, Principal, Associate 24-28 24.00 25.00 25.00
Graphic Design Specialist 23 1.00 1.00 1.00
Administrative Secretary 18 2.00 2.00 2.00
Planning Total 41.00 42.00 42.00
Transportation
Transportation Director 37 1.00 1.00 1.00
Transportation Deputy Director 34 1.00 1.00 1.00
Transportation Section Manager 33 2.00 2.00 2.00
Transportation Engineer II-VII 29-36 7.00 7.00 7.00
Transit Policy & Program Planner I-IV 25-31 11.00 11.00 11.00
Traffic Control Center Supervisor, I-II 23-26 2.00 2.00 2.00
Traffic Technician Sr, I-II 19-23 4.00 4.00 4.00
Office Facilitator & Technician II 19-22 2.00 2.00 2.00
Transportation Total 30.00 30.00 30.00
Youth & Family
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOODS Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
Salt Lake City Staffing Document
282 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Youth & Family Director 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Youth & Family Associate Director 29 3.00 3.00 3.00
Financial Analyst III 30 0.00 1.00 1.00
Community Programs Manager, Sr 24-26 9.00 13.00 9.00 4 positions moved to Pub Lands
Spec Projects & Events Coordinator 21 2.00 2.00 2.00
Office Facilitator & Technician II 15-20 1.00 1.00 1.00
Program Assistant 14 4.00 4.00 4.00
Youth & Family Total 20.00 25.00 21.00
Community & Neighborhoods Total 190.00 195.00 193.00
General Fund 190.00 195.00 193.00
1/4 Cent Sales Tax Transportation Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOODS Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
Economic Development
Economic Development Director 41 1.00 1.00 1.00
Economic Development Deputy Director 37 1.00 1.00 1.00
Technology & Innovation Strategic Ind Advisor 34 1.00 1.00 1.00
Director of Business Development 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Asst. Director of Business Development 30 0.00 1.00 1.00
Economic Development Manager 29 4.00 3.00 4.00 New Position
ED Project Coordinator 26 3.00 3.00 3.50 New PT position
Executive Manager 26 1.00 1.00 1.00
Office Manager 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
Economic Development Total 13.00 13.00 14.50
Arts Council
Arts Council Executive Director 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Arts Council Assistant Director 30 1.00 1.00 1.00
Arts Council Program Manager 29 1.00 2.00 2.00
Public Art Program Manager 29 1.00 1.00 1.00
Arts Council Program Coordinator 25 4.00 3.00 3.00
Office Facilitator I 20 1.00 1.00 1.00
Arts Council Total 9.00 9.00 9.00
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TOTAL 22.00 22.00 23.50
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
Salt Lake City Staffing Document
283 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Finance Office of the Director
Chief Financial Officer 41 1.00 1.00 1.00
Deputy Director 39 1.00 2.00 2.00
Controller 39 1.00 0.00 0.00
Business Sys Analyst Team Lead 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Business Sys Analyst II 30 1.00 2.00 4.00 2 New Positions
Financial Analyst II 25 0.00 1.00 1.00
Payroll & Accounting Manager 30 1.00 0.00 0.00
Business Analyst 29 1.00 0.00 0.00
Grant Manager 29 1.00 0.00 0.00
City Payroll Administrator 26 2.00 0.00 0.00
Grants Acq/Project Coordinator 25 2.00 0.00 0.00
Sr Payroll Specialist 23 1.00 0.00 0.00
Payroll Kronos Specialist 22 1.00 0.00 0.00
Office Facilitator II 19 1.00 1.00 1.00
City A/P Coordinator 20 2.00 0.00 0.00
Finance Office of the Director Total 17.00 8.00 10.00
Finance Accounting Reporting
Accounting
Controller 39 0.00 1.00 1.00
Deputy Controller 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Financial Manager (RDA)33 0.00 1.00 1.00
Financial Analyst IV 32 2.00 1.00 1.00
Financial Analyst IV (RDA)32 1.00 0.00 0.00
Financial Analyst III 30 0.00 1.00 1.00
Financial Analyst II 25 0.00 1.00 1.00
Staffing/Position Control Specialist 22 1.00 0.00 0.00
Property Control Agent 22 1.00 0.00 1.00 Moved from Cap Asset Planning
City A/P Coordinator 20 0.00 1.00 1.00
Business Systems Analyst II 30 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Acct Payable Clerk
Accounts Payable Clerk 18 0.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Bus Sys Analyst II
Payroll
Payroll & Accounting Manager 30 0.00 1.00 1.00
City Payroll Administrator 26 0.00 2.00 2.00
Sr Payroll Specialist 23 0.00 1.00 1.00
Payroll Kronos Specialist 22 0.00 1.00 1.00
Finance Accounting Reporting Total 6.00 13.00 14.00
FINANCE DEPARTMENT Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
Salt Lake City Staffing Document
284 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Finance Internal Audit
Director Int Audit & Fin Analysis 36 1.00 1.00 1.00
Auditor I 22 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Sr Fin Analyst Auditor
Auditor II 24 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Sr Fin Analyst Auditor
Auditor III 30 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Sr Fin Analyst Auditor
Sr Financial Analyst Auditor 32 4.00 3.00 0.00 Changed to Auditor I, II and III
Financial Analyst I 21 1.00 0.00 0.00
Internal Audit & Financial Analysis Total 6.00 4.00 4.00
Finance Revenue
Collections
Director Revenue & Collections 36 1.00 0.00 0.00
Director of Revenue Operations 35 0.00 1.00 1.00
Collections Manager 30 1.00 0.00 0.00
Lead Collections Officer 22 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Fin Program Super
Collections Officer 20 4.00 3.00 3.00
Lead Hearing Officer Referee Coord.19 0.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Fin Program Super
Hearing Officer Referee Coord II 18 0.00 2.00 2.00
Finance Program Supervisor 24 0.00 0.00 2.00 Changed from Lead Hearing Officer and Lead Collector
Licensing
City Licensing Manager 29 1.00 1.00 1.00
Business License Liaison 25 0.00 1.00 1.00
Landlord/Tenant License Supervisor 24 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Fin Program Super
Business License Officer 17 3.00 3.00 4.00 Changed from BL Processor II
Good Landlord Manager 16 1.00 0.00 0.00
Business License Processor II 16 3.00 4.00 3.00 Changed to BL Officer
Business License Processor I 14 1.00 0.00 0.00
Finance Program Supervisor 24 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Landlord License Super
Analytics
Financial Analytics Manager 33 0.00 1.00 1.00
Financial Analyst IV 32 2.00 2.00 1.00
Financial Analyst III 29 1.00 0.00 3.00 Changed from Fin Analyst III, IV
Financial Analyst II 25 0.00 2.00 0.00 Changed to Fin Analyst III
Financial Analyst I 21 1.00 0.00 0.00
Finance Revenue Total 21.00 23.00 23.00
FINANCE DEPARTMENT Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
Salt Lake City Staffing Document
285 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Finance Grants Administration
Grant Manager 31 0.00 1.00 1.00
Grants Acq/Project Coordinator 25 0.00 2.00 0.00 Changed two from Grant Acq Coord and 1 from PT to Full Time
Management and Grants Analyst 29 0.00 0.00 3.00 Changed from Grants Acq Coordinator
Lead Hearing Officer Referee Coord.19 1.00 0.00 0.00
Hearing Officer Referee Coord II 18 2.00 0.00 0.00
Finance Grants Administration Total 3.00 3.00 4.00
Finance Purchasing
Chief Procurement Officer 36 1.00 1.00 1.00
Deputy Chief Procurement Officer 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
City Contracts Administrator 29 1.00 1.00 1.00
Procurement Manager 29 0.00 1.00 1.00
Sr Purchasing Consultant 27 1.00 0.00 0.00
Sr Contract Development Specialist 27 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Contract Dev Spec
Procurement Specialist II 25 0.00 1.00 1.00
Procurement Specialist I 24 2.00 1.00 4.00 Changed from Contract Dev Spec
Contract Development Specialist 26 3.00 5.00 1.00
Office Facilitator II 19 1.00 1.00 1.00
Contracts Process Coordinator 17 1.00 1.00 1.00
Finance Purchasing Total 11.00 13.00 13.00
Finance Treasurer
City Treasurer 39 1.00 1.00 1.00
Deputy Treasurer 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Cash & Investment Manager 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Financial Analyst IV 32 2.00 2.00 0.00 Changed to Fin Analyst III
Financial Analyst III 30 0.00 0.00 2.00 Changed from Fin Analyst IV
Cashier Administrator 24 1.00 1.00 1.00
Financial Analyst I 22 1.00 1.00 1.00
City Payment Processor 15 2.00 2.00 2.00
Finance Treasurer's Office Total 9.00 9.00 9.00
Finance Policy, Budget and Capital Planning
Policy & Budget
City Budget Director 36 1.00 1.00 1.00
Senior Budget & Policy Analyst 32 1.00 2.00 2.00
FINANCE DEPARTMENT Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
Salt Lake City Staffing Document
286 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Financial Analyst IV 32 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Policy & Budget Analyst
Policy & Budget Analyst 29 1.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Fin Analyst IV
Capital Asset Planning
Capital Asset Planning Manager 35 0.00 1.00 1.00
Financial Analyst IV 32 0.00 1.00 1.00
CIP Impact Fee Manager 30 0.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Fin Analyst IV
Capital Improvement Program Specialist 26 0.00 1.00 1.00
Financial Analyst IV 32 0.00 0.00 1.00 Funded by Impact Fees following State Statute.
Property Control Agent 22 0.00 1.00 0.00 Moved to Finance Accounting
Finance Budget & Policy Total 4.00 9.00 8.00
FINANCE 77.00 82.00 85.00
General Fund 76.70 81.70 84.70
Risk Fund 0.30 0.30 0.30
FINANCE DEPARTMENT Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
Office of the Fire Chief
Fire Chief 41 1.00 1.00 1.00
Deputy Chief 37 1.00 1.00 0.00 1 Changed to Assistant Fire Chief
Assistant Fire Chief 35 2.00 2.00 3.00 1 Changed from Deputy Chief
Executive Assistant 24 1.00 1.00 1.00
Financial Manager I-III 33-35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Accountant I-IV 18-27 3.00 3.00 0.00 3 Changed to Financial Analyst I-IV
Financial Analyst I-IV 22-32 0.00 0.00 3.00 3 Changed from Accountant I-IV
Office of the Fire Chief Total 9.00 9.00 9.00
Operations
Battalion Chief 33 6.00 6.00 6.00
Captain 30 65.00 66.00 66.00
Fire Fighter 22-27 228.00 232.00 232.00
Fire Fighter Unfunded 22-27 10.00 10.00 10.00
Operations Total 309.00 314.00 314.00
Fire Administrative Services
Battalion Chief 33 7.00 7.00 7.00
Captain 30 14.00 15.00 15.00
Enterprise Tech Solutions Manager 36 1.00 1.00 1.00 Grade Changed from 35 to 36
FIRE DEPARTMENT Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
Salt Lake City Staffing Document
287 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Social Work Manager 29 1.00 1.00 1.00
Emergency Management Public Information Officer/JIC Manager 25 1.00 1.00 1.00
Community Health Care Paramedic 24 2.00 2.00 0.00 2 Changed to Fire Fighter
Public Education Specialist 24 1.00 1.00 1.00
Business Systems Analyst I-II 24 1.00 1.00 2.00 1 Changed from Senior Communication Tech
Emergency Mgt Training Program Specialist 25 1.00 1.00 1.00
Community Preparedness Coordinator 23 1.00 1.00 1.00
Fire Fighter 22-27 29.00 29.00 27.00
2 Changed from Community Health Care Paramedic4 Changed to Medical Response Paramedic
Medical Response Paramedic 22-27 0.00 0.00 8.00 4 Changed from Fire Fighter4 New positions
Social Worker 21-26 2.00 6.00 6.00
Recruiting/Outreach Specialist 24 1.00 1.00 1.00
Senior Communication Tech 24 1.00 1.00 0.00 1 Changed to Business Systems Analyst I-II
Fire Logistics Coordinator 19 2.00 2.00 2.00
Office Facilitator II 19 4.00 4.00 4.00
Emergency Mgt Critical Infrastructure Liaison 23 1.00 1.00 1.00
Fire Prevention Specialist 17 3.00 3.00 3.00
Office Technician I 12 1.00 1.00 1.00
Fire Administrative Services Total 74.00 79.00 83.00
FIRE DEPARTMENT TOTAL 392.00 402.00 406.00
FIRE DEPARTMENT Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
Human Resource Administrative Support
Chief Human Resource Officer 41 0.80 0.80 0.80
Deputy Chief Human Resource Officer 37 1.00 1.00 1.00
Civilian Review Board Investigator 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Human Resource Program Mgr II 34 1.00 1.00 1.00
Recruiting & Onboarding Mgr 32 1.00 1.00 1.00
HRIS Business Analyst 30 0.80 0.80 0.80
Human Resources Supervisor - Recruitment 30 1.00 1.00 1.00
HRIS Business Analyst 30 1.00 1.00 1.00
Compensation and Classification Analyst 29 1.00 1.00 1.00
Human Resources Leave Specialist 29 0.80 0.80 0.80
Senior HR Recruiter 29 1.00 1.00 1.00
Employee Marketing & Communications 25 0.00 0.00 0.00
HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
Salt Lake City Staffing Document
288 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
HR Office Administrator 25 1.00 1.00 1.00
Senior Benefits Analyst 27 1.00 1.00 1.00
Benefits Analyst 25 0.00 0.00 0.00
HR Business Partner I 25 0.00 1.00 1.00
HR Recruiter 25 3.00 3.00 3.00
Project and Policy Manager 24 0.00 1.00 1.00
HR Admin & Onboarding Specialist 21 0.00 0.00 0.00
Associate HR Recruiter 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
Senior HR Technician 19 4.00 4.00 4.00
Administrative Support Total 20.40 22.40 22.40
Departmental Consultants
Human Resource Program Mgr II 34 0.00 0.00 0.00
Employee Relations/EEO Manager 34 1.00 1.00 1.00
Employee Relations Manager 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Human Resource Business Partner II 29 7.00 7.00 7.00
Departmental Consultants Total 9.00 9.00 9.00
Training
Education Program Manager 32 1.00 1.00 1.00
Learning and Development Specialist 27 1.00 1.00 1.00
Training & Development Coordinator 24 0.00 0.00 0.00
Human Resource Management Total 2.00 2.00 2.00
Benefits
Chief Human Resource Officer 41 0.20 0.20 0.20
Human Resource Deputy Director 37 0.00 0.00 0.00
Human Resource Program Mgr II 34 1.00 1.00 1.00
HRIS Business Analyst 30 0.20 0.20 0.20
Human Resources Supervisor - Benefits 30 2.00 2.00 2.00
Human Resource Leave Specialist 30 1.20 1.20 1.20
Human Resource Business Partner II 29 0.00 0.00 0.00
Employee Marketing & Communications 25 0.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Benefits Analyst 27 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benefits Analyst 25 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benefits Total 4.60 4.60 4.60
Human Resources Total 36.00 38.00 38.00
General Fund 31.40 33.40 33.40
Risk Fund 4.60 4.60 4.60
HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
Salt Lake City Staffing Document
289 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Department Leadership and Administration
Chief Information Officer 41 1.00 1.00 1.00
Senior Innovations Consultant 32 0.00 1.00 1.00
IMS Deputy Director 39 1.00 2.00 2.00
Department Leadership and Administration Totals 2.00 4.00 4.00
Office of the CIO
Privacy Officer 34 0.00 0.00 1.00 New Position
Financial Manager I 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Financial Analyst II-III 24-29 2.00 2.00 2.00
Office Facilitator I-III 18-22 0.00 1.00 1.00
Asset Management Administrator 26 0.00 0.00 0.00
Inventory Control Specialist 24 0.00 0.00 0.00
Purchasing and Administration Totals 3.00 4.00 5.00
Infrastructure Technology Services (ITS)
Chief Information Security Officer 38 1.00 1.00 1.00
Enterprise Tech Solutions Manager 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Cybersecurity Engineer I-III 30 0.00 1.00 1.00
Network Engineering Team Manager 34 2.00 2.00 2.00
IT Systems Manager 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Network Systems Engineer I-III 27-33 14.00 14.00 14.00
INF Technology Support Manager 32 1.00 1.00 1.00
Network Support Administrator I - III 23-27 12.00 13.00 13.00
Infrastructure Technology Services Totals 32.00 34.00 34.00
Geographical Information Systems
Chief Data Officer 38 1.00 1.00 1.00
GIS Programmer Analyst 30 2.00 2.00 2.00
Geo Info Systems (GIS) Coord 30 1.00 1.00 1.00
Data/Info Specialist 30 0.00 1.00 1.00
Geographical Information Systems Totals 4.00 5.00 5.00
Software Services
Chief Technology Officer 38 1.00 1.00 1.00
Communications Director 38 0.00 1.00 1.00
Software Engineer Team Manager 37 1.00 1.00 1.00
Software Engineer Team Lead 36 1.00 1.00 1.00
DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
Salt Lake City Staffing Document
290 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Software Engineering Data Admin 36 3.00 3.00 3.00
Sr Software Engineer 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Software Lead 34 2.00 2.00 2.00
Geo Info Systems (GIS) Coord 30 0.00 0.00 0.00
Software Engineer I-III 27-33 5.00 5.00 5.00
Software Support Admin I-III 28-32 16.00 16.00 16.00
Tech Solution Manager 34 1.00 1.00 1.00
Software Support Totals 31.00 32.00 32.00
Media and Engagement Services
Video Production Manager 3 1.00 1.00 1.00
Multimedia Production Spec I-III 23-31 4.00 4.00 4.00
Social Media Specialist 23 0.00 1.00 1.00
Communications Specialist 34 0.00 1.00 1.00
Civic Engagement Program Specialist 24 5.00 5.00 5.00
Multimedia Production Services Totals 10.00 12.00 12.00
Enterprise Project Management
Technology Solution Team Lead 36 1.00 1.00 1.00
INF Tech Project Manager 35 1.00 0.00 0.00
Software Lead 34 2.00 2.00 2.00
Solution Management Totals 4.00 3.00 3.00
Innovations Team
Chief Innovations Officer 36 1.00 0.00 0.00
INF Tech Project Manager 35 0.00 1.00 1.00
Innovations Team Lead 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Senior Innovations Consultant 30 2.00 2.00 2.00
Civic Engagement Specialist 24 2.00 2.00 2.00
Solution Management Totals 6.00 6.00 6.00
INFORMATION MGMT SVCS TOTALS (IMS FUND)92.00 100.00 101.00
DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
Salt Lake City Staffing Document
291 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Justice Court
Justice Court Judge 37 5.00 5.00 5.00
City Courts Director 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Financial Manager I 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Justice Court Manager 28 2.00 2.00 2.00
Justice Court Supervisor 26 2.00 2.00 2.00
Accountant II 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
Business Systems Analyst I 19 1.00 1.00 1.00
Office Facilitator II 19 1.00 1.00 1.00
Justice Court Lead Judicial Assistant 19 1.00 1.00 2.00 1 New position
City Payment Processor 15 2.00 2.00 2.00
Justice Court Judicial Assistant III 17 0.00 0.00 0.00
Justice Court Judicial Assistant II 16 0.00 0.00 0.00
Justice Court Judicial Assistant I 15 0.00 0.00 0.00
Justice Court Judicial Assistant I-II-III 15-17 25.00 25.00 25.00
Justice Court Total 42.00 42.00 43.00
JUSTICE COURT Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
Office of the Police Chief
Chief of Police 41 1.00 1.00 1.00
Assistant Chief 39 0.00 0.00 0.00
Communications Administrative Director 37 1.00 1.00 1.00
Internal Affairs Administrative Director 37 1.00 1.00 1.00
Mental Health Professional 37 1.00 1.00 1.00
Data Science and Research Administrator 34 1.00 0.00 0.00
Lieutenant--Police 32 2.00 2.00 2.00
Financial & Admin Services Manager 32 1.00 1.00 1.00
Sergeant Police 29 4.00 5.00 5.00
Police Public Relations Director 29 0.00 0.00 0.00
Grant Acquis & Proj Fin Analyst 27 1.00 1.00 1.00
Community Programs Manager 24 0.00 0.00 0.00
Administrative Assistant Appointed 24 0.00 0.00 0.00
Executive Assistant 24 1.00 1.00 1.00
Graphic Design Specialist 23 1.00 1.00 1.00
Accountant I-III 21-27 4.00 4.00 4.00
Police Services Coordinator 20 1.00 1.00 1.00
Police Officer 19-25 7.00 8.00 8.00
Administrative Secretary I-II 18-21 1.00 1.00 1.00
POLICE DEPARTMENT Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
Salt Lake City Staffing Document
292 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Office Facilitator I-II 18-19 1.00 1.00 1.00
Office Tech I-II 12-15 1.00 1.00 1.00
Office of the Police Chief Total 30.00 31.00 31.00
Administrative Bureau
Deputy Chief--Police 37 1.00 1.00 1.00
Captain--Police 34 2.00 2.00 2.00
Lieutenant--Police 32 2.00 2.00 2.00
Emergency Mgt Program Director 31 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sergeant--Police 29 5.00 5.00 5.00
Crime Lab/Evidence Room Director 29-30 1.00 1.00 1.00
Forensic Scientist Lab Supervisor 27 1.00 1.00 1.00
Quality Assurance Manager 27 1.00 1.00 1.00
Crime Stats & Analysis Director 27 0.00 0.00 0.00
Records Director 26 1.00 1.00 1.00
Victim Advocate Program Coordinator 25 0.00 0.00 0.00
Outreach Program Administrator 25 0.00 0.00 0.00
Public Safety Tech Systems Coordinator 24 1.00 1.00 1.00
Crime Lab Supervisor 24 1.00 1.00 1.00
Emergency Management City Wide Training & Exercise Coord 24 0.00 0.00 0.00
Forensic Scientist I-II 23-26 6.00 7.00 7.00
Sr Communications Tech 2324 1.00 1.00 1.00
Sr Police Intel Specialist 23.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Evidence Supervisor 23 1.00 1.00 1.00
Community Preparedness Coord.23 0.00 0.00 0.00
Grama Coordinator 23 1.00 1.00 1.00
Information Systems Supervisor 22 5.00 6.00 6.00
Victim Advocate 22 0.00 0.00 0.00
Police Intelligence Specialist 21 0.00 0.00 0.00
Grama Coordinator/Paralegal 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
Police Officer I-III 19-25 26.00 26.00 26.00
Authorization - Early Hire Police Officer 19-25 20.00 20.00 20.00
Office Facilitator 18-19 0.00 0.00 0.00
Fleet Mgt Services Supervisor Coordinator 18 1.00 1.00 1.00
Emergency Management Asst Crit Infrastructure Liaison 18 0.00 0.00 0.00
Crime Lab Technician I-II 16-19 14.00 12.00 12.00
Evidence Technician I-II 16 6.00 6.00 6.00
Sr Police Information Specialist 15 12.00 11.00 11.00
Technical Support Specialist 15 5.00 5.00 5.00
POLICE DEPARTMENT Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
Salt Lake City Staffing Document
293 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Gang Outreach Coordinator 15 0.00 0.00 0.00
Police Information Specialist 13 16.00 15.00 15.00
Office Tech I-II 12-15 0.00 0.00 0.00
Administrative 131.00 129.00 129.00
Field Operations I Bureau
Deputy Chief--Police 37 1.00 1.00 1.00
Captain Police 34 2.00 2.00 2.00
Lieutenant--Police 32 9.00 9.00 9.00
Social Work Director 30 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sergeant--Police 29 21.00 21.00 21.00
Community Programs Manager 24 0.00 0.00 0.00
LCSW/Mental Health Counselor 24 0.00 0.00 0.00
Police Officer 19-25 164.00 170.00 170.00
Authorization - Early Hire Police Officer 19-25 0.00 0.00 0.00
Social Work Case Worker 19 0.00 0.00 0.00
Office Facilitator I-II 18-19 1.00 2.00 2.00
Administrative Secretary I 18 1.00 0.00 0.00
Civilian Response Specialist 19 12.00 16.00 16.00
Office Tech I-II 12-15 1.00 1.00 1.00
Field Operations I Bureau 212.00 222.00 222.00
Field Operations II Bureau
Deputy Chief--Police 37 0.00 1.00 1.00
Captain Police 34 2.00 2.00 2.00
Lieutenant--Police 32 8.00 8.00 8.00
Sergeant--Police 29 22.00 22.00 22.00
Police Officer 19-25 166.00 165.00 171.00 6 New positions for Airport
Sr Police Intel Specialist 23 0.00 3.00 3.00
Police Intelligence Specialist 21 0.00 3.00 3.00
Crime Stats & Analysis Director 27 0.00 0.00 0.00
Crime Stats & Analysis Supervisor 25 0.00 1.00 1.00
Data Science and Research Administrator 34 0.00 1.00 1.00
Office Facilitator I-II 18-19 1.00 1.00 1.00
Office Tech I-II 12-15 1.00 1.00 1.00
Field Operations II Bureau 200.00 208.00 214.00
Investigative Bureau
Deputy Chief--Police 37 1.00 1.00 1.00
POLICE DEPARTMENT Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
Salt Lake City Staffing Document
294 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Captain Police 34 1.00 2.00 2.00
Lieutenant--Police 32 4.00 4.00 4.00
Social Work Director 30 1.00 1.00 1.00
Sergeant--Police 29 19.00 19.00 19.00
Victim Advocate Director 29 1.00 1.00 1.00
Social Work Manager 26 3.00 3.00 3.00
Victim Advocate Program Coordinator 25 2.00 2.00 2.00
LCSW/Mental Health Counselor 24 6.00 6.00 6.00
Community Programs Manager 24 1.00 1.00 1.00
Crime Stats & Analysis Director 27 1.00 0.00 0.00
Sr Police Intel Specialist 23 3.00 0.00 0.00
Victim Advocate 22 3.00 3.00 3.00
Police Intelligence Specialist 21 3.00 0.00 0.00
Police Officer 19-25 112.00 112.00 112.00
Social Work Case Worker 19 9.00 9.00 9.00
Office Facilitator I-II 18-19 2.00 3.00 3.00
Youth Specialists 15 4.00 4.00 4.00
Office Tech I-II 12-15 1.00 0.00 0.00
Investigative Bureau 177.00 171.00 171.00
POLICE DEPARTMENT TOTAL 750.00 761.00 767.00
POLICE DEPARTMENT Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
Public Lands Administration
Parks & Public Lands Director 41 1.00 1.00 1.00
Public Lands Deputy Director 38 1.00 1.00 1.00
Deputy Director Public Lands 38 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from TNL Division
Finance Manager II 34 1.00 1.00 1.00
Financial Analyst IV 32 0.35 0.35 0.35
Communications & EngagementManager 32 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Comm/Events & Marketing Mgr (29)
Financial Analyst III 30 0.00 1.00 1.00
Business Systems Analyst II 30 1.00 1.00 1.00
Comm/Events & Marketing Mgr 29 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Communications &Engagement Manager (32)
PPL Project Manager 28 0.00 0.00 0.00
PPL Landscape Planner 28 0.00 0.00 0.00
PPL Asset Manager 27 1.00 1.00 1.00
Executive Manager 26 1.00 1.00 1.00 Grade changed from 19 to 26
Communications Coordinator 25 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Community & Building Partnership Coordinator
PUBLIC LANDS DEPARTMENT Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
Salt Lake City Staffing Document
295 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Community & Building Partnership Coordinator 25 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Communications Coordinator
Public Lands Event Manager 25 1.00 1.00 1.00
Special Events Permit Manager 25 1.00 1.00 1.00
Civic Engagement Program Specialist 24 1.00 1.00 1.00
Office Facilitator 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
Special Projects Asst 21 0.00 1.00 1.00
Special Event Permit Coordinator 18 1.00 1.00 1.00
Warehouse Specialist 18 1.00 1.00 1.00
Senior Warehouse Operator 15 0.00 0.50 0.50
Office Tech II 15 1.00 1.00 2.00 Transferred from Parks Division
Public Lands Administration Total 15.35 17.85 19.85
Parks Division
Parks Division Director 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Operations Manager 31 2.00 1.85 1.85
City Sexton 30 1.00 1.00 1.00
Regional Athletic Complex Manager 29 1.00 1.00 1.00
Operations Supervisor 27 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parks & Public Lands Project Coord 26 0.00 0.00 1.00 (1) New Position FY25 Budget
District Supervisor 25 9.00 9.00 9.00
Maintenance Supervisor 25 1.00 1.00 1.00
Maintenance Electrician IV 22 1.00 2.00 2.00
Metal Fabrication Tech 22 1.00 1.00 1.00
Events Coordinator 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
Plumber II 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
General Maintenance Worker III 21 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parks Usage Coordinator 21 1.00 0.00 0.00
Central Control Irrigation Specialist 20 2.00 3.00 3.00
Sprinkler Irrigation Tech III 20 0.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Florist 18 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Trails & Natural Lands Director (35), Transferred to TNL Division
Sprinkler Irrigation Tech II 18 0.00 0.00 0.00
Cemetery Equipment Operators 17 4.00 4.00 4.00
Graffiti Response Field Tech 16 6.00 6.00 6.00
Parks Maintenance Tech I-II-III 13-19 22.00 33.00 34.00 (1) New Position FY25 Budget
General Maintenance Worker I-III 16-20 5.00 6.00 6.00
Sprinkler Irrigation Tech I-III 16-20 8.00 9.00 9.00
Office Tech II 15 3.00 3.00 2.00 Transferred to Admin Division
Parks Groundskeeper 12 10.00 0.00 0.00
Parks Total 81.00 84.85 84.85
PUBLIC LANDS DEPARTMENT Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
Salt Lake City Staffing Document
296 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Planning & Design Division (New Division created byFY24 ordinance change separated from TNL)
Planning & Design Division Director 35 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from PlanningManager (33), Transferred from TNL Division
Senior Landscape Architect 34 0.00 0.00 2.00 (1) Transferred from Engineering Div/Public Svcs Dept, FY24 BA#2. (1) New Position FY25 Budget
Senior Public Lands Planner 31 0.00 0.00 1.00 (1) New Position FY25 Budget
Landscape Architect III 30 0.00 0.00 3.00 (3) Transferred from Engineering Div/Public Svcs Dept, FY24 BA#2,
Public Lands Planner 28 0.00 0.00 4.00 Changed from PPL Landscape Planner, Transferred from TNL Division
Planning and Design Total 0.00 0.00 11.00
Trails and Natural Lands Division
Deputy Director Public Lands 38 1.00 1.00 0.00 Transferred to Admin Division
Trails & Natural Lands Division Director 35 0.00 1.00 Changed from Senior Florist (18), Transferred from Parks Division
Operations Manager 31 1.00 1.15 1.15
Planning Manager 33 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Planning & Design Division Director (35), Transferred from TNL Division
PPL Landscape Planner 28 2.00 4.00 0.00 Changed to Public Lands Planner, Transferred from TNL Division
Recreation Trails Project Manager 28 1.00 1.00 1.00
Park Ranger Supervisor 27 1.00 1.00 1.00
Environmental Specialist 26 0.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Restoration Ecologist (22)
Natural Lands Supervisor 25 1.00 1.00 1.00
Stewardship and Education Coordinator 22 0.00 0.00 0.00
Restoration Ecologist 22 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Environmental Specialist (26)
Park Ranger Leads 21 4.00 4.00 4.00
Park Ranger 19 14.00 14.00 14.00
Special Projects Assistant 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
Sr Natural Resource Technician 16 2.00 7.00 7.00
Senior Parks Groundskeeper 16 0.00 0.00 0.00
Trails and Natural Lands Total 29.00 37.15 32.15
Urban Forestry Division
Urban Forestry Division Director 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Urban Forestry Operations Manager 28 4.00 1.00 1.00
Urban Forestry Services Supervisor 25 1.00 1.00 1.00
PUBLIC LANDS DEPARTMENT Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
Salt Lake City Staffing Document
297 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Urban Forestry Field Supervisor 24 0.00 2.00 2.00
Forest Area Service Coordinator 22 4.00 3.00 3.00
Arborist Crew Foreman 21 1.00 4.00 4.00
Arborist II 19 5.00 4.00 4.00
Arborist I 18 1.00 1.00 1.00
Office Tech 15 1.00 1.00 1.00
Urban Forestry Total 18.00 18.00 18.00
Golf Division
Golf Program - Golf Fund
Golf Division Director 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Associate Director 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Financial Analyst IV 32 0.65 0.65 0.65
Golf Professional III 30 1.00 1.00 2.00 Changed from Golf Professional I (23)
Golf Course Super 27 to 36 holes 29 1.00 1.00 1.00
Golf Course Super 18 holes 27 3.00 3.00 3.00
Golf Professional II 28 2.00 2.00 2.00
Golf Superintendent 9 Hole 25 2.00 2.00 2.00
Golf Professional I 23 3.00 3.00 2.00 Changed to Golf Professional III (30)
Player Development and Programs Mgr 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
Special Projects Assistant 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
Assistant Golf Club Professional 20 4.00 4.00 4.00
Assistant Golf Course Super 20 12.00 12.00 12.00
Senior Warehouse Operator 15 0.00 0.50 0.50
Office Facilitator II 19 0.00 0.00 0.00
Office Tech II 15 1.00 1.00 1.00
Golf Subtotal for Golf Fund 33.65 34.15 34.15
Golf Division Total 33.65 34.15 34.15
PUBLIC LANDS DEPARTMENT TOTAL 177.00 192.00 200.00
General Fund 143.35 157.85 165.85
Golf Fund 33.65 34.15 34.15
PUBLIC LANDS DEPARTMENT Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
Administrative Services
Public Services Department Director 41 1.00 1.00 1.00
Admin Services Deputy Director 38 0.00 0.00 0.00
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
Salt Lake City Staffing Document
298 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Deputy Director, Public Services 38 2.00 2.00 2.00
Safety and Security Director 37 0.00 1.00 1.00
Enterprise Tech Solutions Manager 36 1.00 1.00 1.00 Changed from E35 to E36
Financial Manager 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Communications and Administration Manager 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Business Systems Analyst Team Lead 33 0.00 0.00 0.00
Capital Asset Manager 28 1.00 1.00 1.00 Changed from CARES Policy + Program Manager
Financial Analyst IV 32 0.00 0.00 0.00
Safety Program Manager 33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Changed from E31 to E33
Data Analyst & Tech Support 28 1.00 1.00 1.00 Changed from Business Systems Analyst I
Facilities Building Admin 27 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from Facilities.
Safety Coordinator 26 1.00 1.00 1.00
Communications Coordinator 25 1.00 1.00 1.00
Executive Assistant 26 1.00 1.00 1.00 Changed from E24 to E26.
Financial Analyst II 24 0.00 0.00 0.00
Management Analyst 26 1.00 1.00 1.00 Changed from E24 to E26.
Financial Analyst I-IV 21-32 5.00 5.00 5.00
Public Outreach and Information Liaison 21 0.00 0.00 0.00
Office Facilitator II 19 0.00 0.00 0.00
Office of Director Total 18.00 19.00 20.00
Engineering
City Engineer 39 1.00 1.00 1.00
Deputy City Engineer 36 1.00 1.00 1.00
Engineer VII 36 2.00 2.00 2.00
City Architect 37 1.00 1.00 1.00 Changed from E36 to E37
Senior Project Manager 34 1.00 2.00 5.00 2 New positions, 1.0 Transferred from Facilities
Engineer VI 34 1.00 1.00 1.00
Engineer V 33 3.00 4.00 1.00
1.0 Changed to Engineering Construction Program Project Manager (E29); 1.0 Changed to Civil Engineer V (E33); 1.0 Changed to Environmental Engineer V (E33)
Civil Engineer V 33 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Engineer V
Environmental Engineer V 33 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Engineer V
GIS Manager 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Senior Architect 35 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed from E33 to E35.Changed to Licensed Architect
Senior Landscape Architect 33 2.00 2.00 0.00 Changed to Licensed Architect
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
Salt Lake City Staffing Document
299 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Engineer IV 31 6.00 6.00 4.00
1 New Position, 1.0 Changed to Engineering Tech VI (E27); 1.0 Changed to Eng I (26); 1.0 Changed to Eng II (E27)
GIS Systems Coordinator 30 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.0 Changed to Eng GIS/Asset Management Specialist (E26)
Licensed Architect 32 1.00 1.00 2.00 Changed from Sr Architect
City Surveyor 30 1.00 1.00 1.00
Engineer III 29 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0 Transferred to Streets Div; 1.0 Changed from Eng II(E27)
Landscape Architect III 29 3.00 3.00 0.00
2.0 Transferred to Public Lands Department; 1.0 Changed to Associate Landscape Architect II (E26); Transferred to Public Lands
Engineering Const Program Project Manager 29 3.00 3.00 4.00 Changed one from Engineer V (33)
Facilities Commissioning Authority 29 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from Facilities Division; changed from E30
Business Systems Analyst II 30 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0 Changed to Business Systems Analyst II (E30)
Engineer II 27 1.00 1.00 1.00
Engineering Contracts Administrator 0 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Engineering Procurements & Contracts Spec (E25)
Engineer I 0 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Engineer IV (E31)
Engineering Technician VI 27 3.00 3.00 4.00 Changed from Engineering Tech IV
Professional Land Surveyor 26 1.00 1.00 1.00
Engineering GIS/Asset Management Specialist 26 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.0 Changed from GIS Systems Coordinator (E30)
Engineering Procurement & Contracts Specialist 25 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.0 Changed to Engineering Contracts Administrator (E27)
GIS Specialist 24 2.00 2.00 2.00
Civic Engagement Program Spec 24 1.00 1.00 1.00
Engineering Tech V 24 1.00 1.00 1.00
Engineering Tech IV 23 4.00 4.00 3.00 Changed to Engineering Technician VI
GIS Tech II 23 0.00 0.00 0.00
Engineering Tech III 31 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Eng Info/Records Tech
Engineering Information and Records Specialist 20 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed to Eng Tech III
Special Projects Assistant 21 2.00 2.00 2.00 Changed from Office Facilitator (N19)
Office Facilitator II 22 2.00 2.00 1.00 Changed from N19 to N22
Engineering Total 49.00 51.00 51.00
Compliance Division
Compliance Division Director 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Compliance Div Field Supervisor 27 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.0 Changed from Compliance Swing-Shift Field Sup (N25)
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
Salt Lake City Staffing Document
300 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Compliance Swing-Shift Field Supervisor 25 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.0 Changed to Compliance Div Field Supervisor (N27)
Special Projects Assistant 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Pay Station Tech 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lead Compliance Enforcement Officer 21 3.00 5.00 5.00 Changed from 120 to 121
Crossing Guard Program & Outreach Coordinator 20 1.00 1.00 1.00 Changed from N19 to N20
Office Facilitator II 19 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking Enforcement Officer 19 16.00 16.00 16.00 Changed from 118 to 199
Office Tech II 19 2.00 2.00 2.00 Changed form 215 to 219
Crossing Guard Coordinator 13 0.00 0.00 0.00
Office Tech I 16 2.00 2.00 2.00 Changed from 212 to 216
Compliance Total 29.00 32.00 32.00
Facilities Services Division
Building Maintenance Program
Facilities Division Director 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Senior Project Manager 34 1.00 1.00 0.00 Transferred to Engineering.
Construction Operations Manager 32 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Operations Manager.
Operations Manager 31 2.00 2.00 1.00 Changed one to Construction Operations Manager.
Energy/Utilities Management Coordinator 27 1.00 1.00 1.00 Changed to PG 27
Business Systems Analyst II 30 1.00 1.00 1.00 Changed to PG30
Facilities Commissioning Authority 30 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.0 Transferred to Engineering Division
Facility Maintenance Supervisor 29 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.0 Changed to Operations Supervisor (27)
Business Systems Analyst I 28 0.00 0.00 0.00
Operations Supervisor 27 1.00 2.00 5.00 2.0 Changed from Facility Maintenance Supervisor (29)1.0 Changed from Plumber III (22)
District Supervisor 25 2.00 2.00 2.00
Maintenance Electrician IV 25 1.00 1.00 1.00 Changed from I24 to I25
Plumber III 22 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.0 Changed to Operations Supervisor (27)
Lead HVAC Technician 25 1.00 1.00 1.00 Changed from 124 to 125
Clean-Up Equipment Operator III 19 0.00 0.00 1.00 New position
HVAC Technician II 24 2.00 2.00 1.00 Changed to HVAC Technician I
Lead Bldg Maintenance Tech 21 0.00 0.00 0.00
HVAC Technician I 22 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.0 Changed from HVAC Technician II (21)
Plumber II 23 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Sprinkler Irrigation Tech III
Maintenance Specialist III 23 0.00 0.00 6.00 6.0 Changed from Maint Spec I (117)
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
Salt Lake City Staffing Document
301 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Carpenter II 23 1.00 1.00 1.00 Changed from Maintenance Specialist III
Painter II 21 1.00 1.00 1.00 Changed from 120
Clean-Up Equipment Operator II 16 0.00 0.00 2.00 New positions
Sprinkler Irrigation Tech III 20 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.0 Changed to Plumber II (21)
Gen Maint Worker IV 19 0.00 0.00 0.00
Office Facilitator II 22 1.00 1.00 1.00
Maintenance Specialist II 20 0.00 0.00 11.00 11.0 Changed from Maint Spec I (117)
Building Equipment Operator II 18 0.00 0.00 0.00
General Maintenance Worker III 18 0.00 0.00 0.00
Building Equipment Operator I 17 0.00 0.00 0.00
Maintenance Specialist I-III 17-21 17.00 21.00 0.00
11.0 Changed to Maint Spec II (120)6.0 Changed to Maint Spec III (123)4.0 Changed to Trades Apprentice Specialist (117)
Equipment Operator 17 2.00 2.00 2.00
Trades Apprentice Specialist 17 0.00 0.00 4.00 Changed from Maint Spec I
General Maintenance Worker III 16 0.00 0.00 0.00
General Maintenance Worker I 16 2.00 2.00 2.00
Senior Facilities Landscaper 16 2.00 2.00 2.00
Sprinkler Irrigation Tech 16 0.00 0.00 0.00
Office Technician II 15 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.0 Changed to Facilities Support Coordinator
Facilities Support Coordinator 26 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.0 Changed from Office Technician II
Beautification Maintenance Worker II 13 0.00 0.00 4.00 Changed from Beaut Worker I-II
Beautification Maintenance Worker I-II 12-13 7.00 7.00 3.00 Changed to Beaut Worker II
Facilities Services Total 52.00 57.00 58.00
Fleet Management Division
Fleet Mgmt Division Director 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Financial Analyst IV 32 1.00 1.00 1.00
Operations Manager 31 1.00 1.00 1.00
Business Systems Analyst I 28 1.00 1.00 1.00
Fleet Asset Manager 27 0.00 0.00 0.00
Fleet Mgmt Service Supervisor 27 2.00 2.00 2.00
Fleet Senior Mechanic 28 3.00 3.00 3.00 Changed from 127
Fleet Warehouse Super 24 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.0 Changed to Warehouse Manager (PG27)
Warehouse Manager 27 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Fleet Warehouse Super24
Fleet Metal Fabrication Tech 25 1.00 1.00 1.00 Changed from 124
Fleet Customer Service Advisor Lead 23 1.00 1.00 1.00 Changed from (21 to 23)
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
Salt Lake City Staffing Document
302 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Fleet Customer Service Advisor 21 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.0 Changed from (PG19)
Fleet Mechanic 24 25.00 25.00 29.00 Changed from Fleet Trainee; 3 new FTEs added in BA4
Special Projects Assistant 21 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0 Changed from Fleet Trainee (PG17)
Office Facilitator II 19 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.0 Changed to Special Projects Assistant (PG 21)
Fleet Mechanic Trainee 17 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.0 Changed to Fleet Mechanic (PG124)
Fleet Senior Warehouse Operator 20 1.00 1.00 1.00 Changed from 19
Fleet Parts Warehouse Support Worker 18 3.00 3.00 3.00 Changed from 17
Fleet Parts Delivery Driver 11 1.00 1.00 1.00
Fleet Management Total (FLEET FUND)46.00 46.00 49.00
Streets Division
Streets Division Director 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Operations Manager 31 3.00 3.00 3.00
Business Systems Analyst II 30 1.00 1.00 1.00
Engineer III 29 0.00 1.00 1.00
Operations Supervisor 27 2.00 2.00 6.00 4.0 Changed from Maintenance Supervisor (25)
Streets Operations Maintenance Supervisor 27 1.00 1.00 1.00
Streets Response Team Field Supervisor 24 1.00 1.00 1.00
Maintenance Supervisor 25 4.00 4.00 0.00 4.0 Changed to Operations Supervisor (N27)
Traffic Signal Lead 24 1.00 1.00 1.00
Traffic Signal Tech II 23 4.00 4.00 1.00
Response Team Leader 21 0.00 0.00 0.00
Streets Maintenance Lead 24 6.00 6.00 10.00 4.0 Changed from Asphalt Equipment Operator II (119)
Traffic Maintenance Lead 24 2.00 2.00 2.00 Changed from 23
Traffic Signal Tech I 21 1.00 1.00 6.00 3.0 Changed from Traffic Signal Tech II (323), 2 converted PT to FT
GIS Technician I 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
Special Projects Assistant 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
Concrete Finisher 22 10.00 10.00 10.00 Changed from 121
Senior Asphalt Equipment Oper 22 12.00 11.00 12.00
1.0 Changed to Fleet Maintenance Coordinator (125) 1.0 Changed from Lead Equipment Operator (20)
Lead Equipment Operator 20 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.0 Changed to Senior Asphalt Equipment Operator (122)
Office Facilitator II 22 1.00 1.00 1.00 Changed to 122
Streets Response Team Member II 19 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 Changed to Streets Response Team Member I (118)
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
Salt Lake City Staffing Document
303 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Asphalt Equipment Oper II 19 37.00 37.00 29.00
3.00 Changed to Asphalt Equipment Operator I (115) 4.0 Changed to Streets Maintenance Lead (124)
Concrete Saw & Grinder Oper 19 2.00 2.00 2.00 Changed to 119
Streets Response Team Member I 18 1.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 Changed from Streets Response Team Member II (19)
Traffic Maintenance Operator II 19 11.00 11.00 9.00 2.00 Changed to Traffic Maintenance Operator I (115)
Communication and GIS Coordinator 18 0.00 0.00 0.00
Streets Equipment Operator II 19 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 Changed from Equipment Operator (17)
Asphalt Equipment Oper I 15 1.00 1.00 4.00 3.0 Changed from Asphalt Equipment Operator II (119)
Traffic Maintenance Operator I 15 1.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 Changed from Traffic Maintenance Operator II (119)
Office Tech II 19 0.00 0.00 1.00 New position converted PT to FT
Fleet Maintenance Coordinator 25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0 Changed from Senior Asphalt Equipment Operator (20)
Streets Total 114.00 114.00 116.00
PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT TOTAL 308.00 319.00 326.00
General Fund 262.00 273.00 277.00
Fleet Management Fund 46.00 46.00 49.00
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
Administration
Director--Public Utilities 41 1.00 1.00 1.00
Deputy Director-Public Utilities 39 2.00 2.00 2.00
Executive Assistant 26 1.00 1.00 1.00 Grade changed from 24 to 26
Public Utilities Policy & Public Affairs Director 32 1.00 1.00 1.00
GIS Info Tech Systems Admin 36 1.00 1.00 1.00
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Mgr 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Safety Program Manager 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Utilities Water Rights, Contracts and Property Manager 31 1.00 1.00 1.00 Grade changed from 30 to 31, Transferred from Water Resources
PU Communications Engagement Manager 32 1.00 1.00 1.00
GIS Programmer Analyst II 30 1.00 1.00 1.00
PU Surveyor 33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Grade changed from 30 to 33
GIS Programmer Analyst I 28 3.00 3.00 4.00 1 Changed from GIS Specialist (24)
Engineering Tech VI 27 2.00 2.00 2.00
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
Salt Lake City Staffing Document
304 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Water Rights & Property Agent 27 0.00 0.00 2.00 2 Transferred from Water Resources; Grade changed from 26 to 27
Safety Coordinator 26 0.00 1.00 1.00
Talent Management Coordinator 25 0.00 1.00 1.00
Utility Planner & Development Coordinator 25 1.00 2.00 2.00
Locator Supervisor 25 1.00 1.00 1.00
Public Relations Coordinator 25 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Communications Specialist (27)
GIS Specialist 24 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 Changed from GIS Technician I (21); 1 Changed to GIS Programmer Analyst I (28)
Safety Inspector 24 1.00 2.00 2.00
PU Records Prog Specialist 23 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from Water Resources
GIS Leak Detection Tech II 23 2.00 2.00 2.00
Communications Specialist 27 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Public Relations Coordinator (25)
GIS Technician I 21 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to GIS Specialist (24)
Mobile Inventory Specialist & Technician 21 0.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Office Technician II (219)
Records Technician 21 0.00 0.00 2.00 2 Changed from Office Facilitator II (19)
Util Dev Review Specialist 19 4.00 4.00 4.00
Senior Utility Locator 19 8.00 8.00 9.00 1 Changed from Utility Locator (17)
Office Facilitator II 19 2.00 2.00 0.00 2 Changed to Records Technicians (221)
Office Technician II 19 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Mobile Inventory Specialist & Technician (21)
Utility Locator 17 0.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Senior Utility Locator (19)
Administration Total 39.00 45.00 48.00
Maintenance
Operations Maint Superintendent 36 1.00 1.00 1.00
Water Distribution System Mgr 34 1.00 1.00 1.00
Computer Operation Manager 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Maint Support Manager 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Water Maintenance Manager 33 0.00 1.00 1.00
Storm Water Maint Manager 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
WW Collection Manager 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Irrigation Canal Systems Manager 30 1.00 1.00 1.00
Water System Maintenance Super 27 4.00 4.00 4.00
Water System Operation Super 27 2.00 2.00 2.00
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
Salt Lake City Staffing Document
305 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Electrical Operations Supervisor 27 1.00 1.00 1.00
Warehouse Manager 27 0.00 1.00 1.00
Technical System Analyst III-IV 26-28 3.00 3.00 3.00
Water Service Coordinator 25 1.00 1.00 1.00
Waste Water Collection Supervisor 26 2.00 2.00 2.00
Lift Station Maintenance Supervisor 26 1.00 1.00 1.00
Storm Water Maintenance Supervisor 25 2.00 2.00 2.00
Water Meter Maintenance Supervisor 25 1.00 1.00 1.00
Maintenance Office Supervisor 25 1.00 1.00 1.00
Warehouse Supervisor 24 1.00 1.00 1.00
Senior Water Meter Tech 25 1.00 1.00 1.00 Grade changed from 21 to 125
Fleet Maint Coord Public Util 23 1.00 1.00 1.00 Grade changed to 323 from 21
Office Facilitator II 22 1.00 Changed from Office Facilitator I (18)
Office Facilitator I 18 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Office Facilitator II (22)
Warehouse Specialist 18 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sr Warehouse Operator 15 1.00 1.00 1.00
Warehouse Office Tech II 15 1.00 1.00 1.00
Sr. Utilities Rep. Office/Technical 15 2.00 2.00 2.00
Sr. Communications Coordinator-Public Util 15 6.00 6.00 6.00
Industrial Electrician IV 26 6.00 6.00 6.00
Metal Fabrication Technician 22 3.00 3.00 3.00
Senior Water Dist System Operator 21 16.00 16.00 16.00
Senior Water System Maint Operator 21 16.00 16.00 16.00
Waste Water Collection Lead Maint Worker 21 6.00 6.00 6.00
WW Lift Station Lead Worker 21 4.00 4.00 4.00
Drainage Maintenance Lead Worker 21 3.00 3.00 3.00
General Maintenance Worker III 23 1.00 1.00 1.00 Grade changed from 21 to 123
Senior Pumps Maint Tech 20 1.00 1.00 1.00
Concrete Finisher 22 1.00 1.00 1.00 Grade changed from 20 to 122
Senior Irrigation Operator 22 4.00 4.00 4.00 Grade changed from 20 to 122
Waste Water Lift Station Lead Wkr 20 0.00 0.00 0.00
Water System Maintenance Operator I-II 17-19 27.00 27.00 27.00
Water Meter Tech I-III 18-19 6.00 6.00 6.00
Waste Water Coll Maint Worker II 19 12.00 12.00 12.00
Drainage Maintenance Worker III 19 9.00 11.00 11.00
Pumps Maintenance Technician 18 1.00 1.00 1.00
Senior Facility/Building Maint Wkr 18 1.00 1.00 1.00
Fleet Maintenance Coordinator 18 0.00 0.00 0.00
Waste Water Lift Station Maint Wkr 18 4.00 4.00 4.00
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
Salt Lake City Staffing Document
306 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Irrigation Operator II 17 4.00 4.00 4.00
Landscape Restoration Lead Wkr 17 1.00 1.00 1.00
Maintenance Landscaper 16 1.00 1.00 1.00
Facility/Building Maintenance Wkr 15 2.00 2.00 2.00
Water Distribution Valve Operator 15 8.00 8.00 8.00
Water Maintenance Support Wkr 14 2.00 2.00 2.00
Custodian II 11 2.00 2.00 2.00
Maintenance Total 180.00 184.00 184.00
Water Reclamation Plant
Water Reclamation Manager 36 1.00 1.00 1.00
Water Reclamation Facility Operations Manager 33 1.00 Changed from WRF Operations & Maint Manager (33)
WRF Operations & Maint Manager 33 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Water Reclamation Facility Operations Manager (33)
Regulatory Compliance Manager 34 1.00 1.00 1.00
WRF Maintenance Manager 31 1.00 1.00 1.00
Laboratory Program Manager 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Industrial Pretreatment Program Coordinator 30 1.00 1.00 1.00 Grade changed from 29 to 30
Maintenance Project Manager 31 1.00 1.00 1.00
Waste Water Business Manager 27 1.00 1.00 1.00
W.W. Plant Maintenance Coordinator 28 1.00 1.00 1.00 Grade changed from 27 to 28
Water Reclamation Facility Process Control Analyst 27 1.00 1.00 1.00
Employee Development Manager 26 1.00 Changed from WRF Office Administrator (21)
WRF Office Administrator 21 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Employee Development Manager (26)
Safety Coordinator 26 1.00 1.00 1.00
WRF Operations Supervisor 27 4.00 4.00 4.00
Water Reclamation Facility Lead Operator 26 0.00 0.00 0.00
Fats, Oils & Grease Program Supervisor 27 1.00 1.00 1.00
Water Reclamation Planner Scheduler 26 1.00 1.00 1.00
Instrumentation and Controls Technician II-IV 25-28 3.00 3.00 3.00
Senior Laboratory Chemist 30 1.00 1.00 1.00
Industrial WW Pretreat Program Sr Permit Writer 26 6.00
2 Changed from Senior Industrial WW Pretreat Program (25); 4 Changed from Pretreatment Inspect/Permit Writer (23)
Senior Industrial WW Pretreat Program 25 2.00 2.00 0.00 Changed to Industrial WW Pretreat Program Sr Permit Writer (26)
Lab Chemist 26 2.00 2.00 2.00 Grade changed from 24 to 326
Warehouse Supervisor 24 1.00 1 Changed from Sr. Warehouse Operator (15)
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
Salt Lake City Staffing Document
307 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Water Reclamation Facility Operator IV 26 4.00 4.00 4.00 Grade changed from 23 to 126
Pretreatment Inspect/Permit Writer 23 4.00 4.00 0.00 4 Changed to Industrial WW Pretreat Program Sr Permit Writer (26)
Pretreatment Sr Sampler Inspect 19 2.00 4.00 0.00 4 Changed to Industrial WW Pretreat Program Sr Sampler (26)
Office Facilitator II Non Union 20 0.00 0.00 0.00
Industrial WW Pretreat Program Sr Sampler 26 4.00 Changed from Pretreatment Sr Sampler Inspect (19)
Senior Warehouse Operator 20 2.00 2.00 1.00 1 Changed to Warehouse Supervisor (26); Grade changed from 15 to 220
Sr Utilities Representative- Office /Technical 15 2.00 2.00 2.00
Industrial Electrician IV 26 2.00 2.00 2.00
HVAC Technician II 25 1.00 1.00 1.00 Grade changed from 21 to 125
Waste Water Plant Maint. Operator IV 25 8.00 8.00 8.00 Grade changed from 21 to 125
Water Reclamation Facility Operator III 25 17.00 17.00 17.00 Grades 120 - 125
Painter II 20 0.00 0.00 0.00
CMMS/Utilities Administrator 29 1.00 1.00 1.00
Water Reclamation Plant Total 69.00 71.00 71.00
Finance
Finance Administrator 39 1.00 1.00 1.00
Deputy Finance Administrator 37 1.00 Changed from Financial Analyst IV (32)
Financial Manager III 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Financial Analyst IV 32 3.00 4.00 3.00 1 Changed to Deputy Finance Administrator (37)
Utility Revenue Operations Manager 31 1.00 Changed from Water Metering Technologies Manager (27)
Customer Service Manager Public Utilities 29 1.00 1.00 0.00 Change to Customer Service Accts/Coll Invest (23)
Accountant IV 29 1.00 2.00 2.00
Financial Analyst III 30 3.00 2.00 2.00
Water Metering Technologies Manager 27 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Utility Revenue Operations Manager (31)
Accountant III 27 1.00 0.00 0.00
Water Metering Technologies Supervisor 27 1.00 1.00 1.00 Grade changed from 25 to 27
Billing Office Supervisor 27 1.00 1.00 1.00 Grade changed from 25 to 27
Customer Services Supervisor 27 1.00 1.00 1.00 Grade changed from 25 to 27
Customer Service Accts/Coll Invest 23 6.00 22.00 23.00 Grade changed from 18 to 223; 1 Changed from Customer Service Manager (29)
Sr. Utilities Rep. - Generalist 15 9.00 0.00 0.00
Sr. Utilities Rep. - Customer Service 15 7.00 0.00 0.00
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
Salt Lake City Staffing Document
308 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Senior Advanced Metering Infrastructure 21 0.00 4.00 4.00 Grade changed from 21 to 125
Advanced Metering Infrastructure Tech II 19 7.00 3.00 3.00 Grade changed from 19 to 120
Water Meter Reader III 18 2.00 2.00 2.00 Grade changed from 18 to 223
Water Meter Reader II 15 5.00 5.00 5.00 Grade changed from 15 to 114
Finance Total 51.00 51.00 51.00
Water Quality & Treatment
Water Quality & Treatment Administrator 37 1.00 1.00 1.00
Water Treatment Plant Systems Manager 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Water Treatment Plant Systems Assistant Manager 31 1.00 1.00 1.00
L&C Cross Connection Control Manager 31 1.00 1.00 1.00 Grade changed from 30 to 31
Regulatory Program Manager 31 1.00 1.00 1.00 Grade changed from 30 to 31
Watershed Program Manager 31 1.00 1.00 1.00 Grade changed from 30 to 31
Storm Water Quality Program Manager 31 1.00 1.00 1.00 Grade changed from 30 to 31
Water Treatment Plant Assistant Manager 30 0.00 0.00 0.00
Lead and Copper X Connection Supervisor 27 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Water Quality Supervisor (E28)
Project Manager 27 0.00 0.00 0.00
Water Treatment Plant Facility Manager 30 3.00 3.00 3.00
Watershed Operations Supervisor 28 1.00 1.00 1.00 Grade changed from 27 to 28
Water Quality Supervisor 28 2.00
1 Changed from Storm Water Compliance Specialist (25); 1 Changed from Lead and Copper X Connection Supervisor (27)
Storm Water Compliance Specialist 25 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Water Quality Supervisor (E28)
Cross Connection Control Manager 26 0.00 0.00 0.00
Water Treatment Plant Lead Oper 26 0.00 0.00 0.00
Watershed Special Projects Coordinator 26 1.00 1.00 1.00
Water Quality Coordinator 24 4.00
1 Changed from Cross Connections Control Coord (23); 3 Changed from Storm Water Quality Coord (23)
Storm Water Quality Coordinator 23 3.00 3.00 0.00 3 Changed to Water Quality Coordinator (24)
Cross Connections Control Coord 23 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Water Quality Coordinator (24)
Storm Water Technician II Union 22 2.00 2.00 0.00 2 Changed to Water Quality Technician (22)
Lead and Copper Technician 21 2.00 2.00 0.00 2 Changed to Water Quality Technician (22)
Water Quality Technician 22 0.00 0.00 5.00
2 Changed from Storm Water Technician Union (22); 2 Changed from Lead and Copper Technician (21); 1 Changed from Cross Connections Control Technician (21)
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
Salt Lake City Staffing Document
309 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Cross Connections Control Technician 21 1.00 1.00 0.00 1 Changed to Water Quality Technician (22)
Quality Assurance Sr Sampler Cl Water 23 2.00 2.00 2.00 Grade changed from 17 to 23
Lead Watershed Ranger 23 4.00 4.00 2.00 2 Changed to Watershed Ranger (20)
Watershed Ranger 20 4.00 4.00 6.00 2 Changed from Lead Watershed Rangers (23)
Water Plant Operator II 24 25.00 25.00 25.00 25 Grade changed from 21 to 24
Water Quality & Treatment Admin Total 58.00 58.00 58.00
Water Resources
Water Resources Manager 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Utilities Water Rights, Contracts and Property Manager 30 1.00 1.00 0.00 Transferred to Administration
PU Sustainability Manager 30 1.00 1.00 1.00 Grade changed from 29 to 30
Sustainability Program Manager 28 0.00 0.00 0.00
Water Conservation Program Manager 31 1.00 1.00 1.00 Grade changed from 30 to 31
Water Resources Eng/Scientist 27 1.00 1.00 1.00
Hydrologist I 28 1.00 1.00 1.00 Grade changed from 27 to 28
Water Rights & Property Agent 26 1.00 2.00 0.00 2 Transferred to Administration
Property & Water Contracts Asst 20 1.00 0.00 0.00
Hydrology Specialist Union 23 1.00 2.00 2.00
Conservation Technician 23 1.00 1.00 1.00 Grade changed from 26 to 23
PU Records Prog Specialist 23 1.00 1.00 0.00 Transferred to Administration
Water Resources Total 11.00 12.00 8.00
Engineering
Chief Engineer - Public Utilities 37 1.00 1.00 1.00
Engineer III-VII 29-36 23.00 25.00 25.00
Sr Water Treatment Engineer 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Project Control Specialist 31 1.00 1.00 1.00
Engineering Construction Program/Projects Manager 29 1.00 1.00 1.00
Project Coordinator 29 0.00 1.00 1.00
Engineering Tech II - VI 19-27 19.00 19.00 19.00
Engineering Tech IV- VI 23-27 0.00 0.00 0.00
Engineering Tech III-V 21-24 0.00 0.00 0.00
Eng Contracts Coord Public Util 22 2.00 2.00 2.00
Engineering Tech III 21 0.00 0.00 0.00
Engineering Tech II 19 0.00 0.00 0.00
Document Controls Specialist 18 0.00 0.00 0.00
Administrative Secretary 18 1.00 1.00 1.00
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
Salt Lake City Staffing Document
310 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Engineering Tech I 17 0.00 0.00 0.00
Contracts Process Coordinator 17 1.00 1.00 1.00
Contracts Technician 15 0.00 0.00 0.00
Engineering Total 50.00 53.00 53.00
Street Lighting
Engineer V 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Engineering Tech IV 23 0.00 0.00 0.00
Engineering Tech III 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
Engineering Tech I 17 0.00 0.00 0.00
Street Lighting Total 2.00 2.00 2.00
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPT TOTAL 460.00 476.00 475.00
Street Lighting Fund 2.72 2.57 2.35
Water Utility Fund 288.16 298.21 295.99
Sewer Utility Fund 127.65 130.80 130.88
Storm Water Utility Fund 40.47 43.42 45.78
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
Salt Lake City Staffing Document
311 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Waste & Recycling Division Refuse Fund
Waste & Recycling Div Director 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Financial Manager I 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Waste & Recycling Operations Manager 31 1.00 1.00 1.00
Maintenance Program Manager 28 0.00 0.00 0.00
Special Projects Analyst and Safety Coordinator 28 1.00 1.00 1.00
W&R Operations Supervisor 27 2.00 2.00 2.00
Maintenance Supervisor 25 0.00 0.00 0.00
W & R Permit Coordinator 19 1.00 1.00 1.00
W & R Education & Permits Lead 20 0.00 0.00 0.00
WR Program Lead 20 2.00 2.00 2.00
Waste & Recycling Equip Op II 18 29.00 29.00 29.00
Senior Equipment Operator 19 4.00 4.00 4.00
Lead Equipment Operator 20 3.00 3.00 3.00
Office Facilitator II 19 1.00 1.00 1.00
W & R Education Specialist I-II 16-19 0.00 5.00 5.00
Office Tech II 15 3.00 3.00 3.00
W & R Education Specialist 15 5.00 0.00 0.00
Container Maintenance Worker 14 2.00 3.00 3.00
Waste & Recycling Total 56.00 57.00 57.00
Environ & Energy Division Refuse Fund
Sustainability Envir Director 41 1.00 1.00 1.00
Sustainability Deputy Director 37 1.00 1.00 1.00
Sr Energy Climate Program Mgr 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Sustainability Program Manager 29 3.00 3.00 3.00
Sustainability Community Manager 28 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sustainability Community Projects Manager 26 0.00 1.00 1.00
Sustainable Business Prog Coor 24 0.00 0.00 0.00
Special Projects Assistant 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
Office Facilitator II 19 0.00 0.00 0.00
Environ & Energy Division Refuse Fund 7.00 8.00 8.00
SUSTAINABILITY DEPARTMENT (Refuse Fund) TOTAL 63.00 65.00 65.00
DEPARTMENT OF SUSTAINABILITY Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
Salt Lake City Staffing Document
312 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Redevelopment Agency
Director - Redevelopment Agency 41 1.00 1.00 1.00
Deputy Director - Redevelopment Agency 37 1.00 1.00 1.00
Senior Project Manager 35 2.00 4.00 5.00 1 New position(s)
Financial Analyst IV 32 0.00 1.00 1.00
Project Manager 33 7.00 4.00 5.00 1 New position(s)
RDA Communications and Outreach Manager 32 1.00 1.00 1.00
Communications Coordinator 25 0.00 1.00 1.00
Property Administrator 26 1.00 0.00 0.00
Redevelopment Agency Property Manager 30 0.00 1.00 1.00
Project Coordinator 28 1.00 4.00 2.00 2 Position(s) eliminated
Office Manager 21 2.00 1.00 1.00
Special Projects Assistant 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
Office Facilitator II Non-Union 20 1.00 1.00 1.00
Redevelopment Agency Total 19.00 21.00 21.00
Gallivan Plaza
Plaza & Comm Events Div Director 32 1.00 1.00 1.00
Operations Manager 31 1.00 1.00 1.00
Facilities Maintenance Supervisor 25 0.00 0.00 0.00
Gallivan Event Adv/Mktg Manager 25 2.00 2.00 2.00
Plaza Marketing/Activities Supr 23 1.00 0.00 0.00
Event Coordinator II 23 0.00 1.00 1.00
Office Facilitator II Non-Union 22 1.00 1.00 1.00
General Maintenance Worker I 16 5.00 2.00 1.00 1 Changed to General Maintenance Worker II (18)
General Maintenance Worker II 18 0.00 1.00 1.00
1 Changed from General Maintenance Worker II (16), 1 Changed to General Maintenance Worker III (21)
General Maintenance Worker III 21 0.00 2.00 3.00 1 Changed from General Maintenance Worker II (18)
Office Technician I 19 1.00 1.00 1.00
Custodian II 11 1.00 1.00 1.00
Gallivan Plaza Total 13.00 13.00 13.00
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TOTAL 32.00 34.00 34.00
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Grades FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Changes from FY2024 to FY2025
Salt Lake City Staffing Document
313 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
This page intentionally left blank
Salt Lake City Staffing Document
314 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Appendix
This page intentionally left blank
The City Library
Proposed Budget
Fiscal Year 2025
2 Salt Lake City Public Library Proposed Budget, Fiscal Year 2025
Contents
Another happy patron at the Anderson-Foothill Branch.
Budget Overview
• General Fund Proposed Budget - $36,446,370
• Increase of $3.2M or 9.6%
• Higher due to Capital Projects
• Debt Service Fund Proposed Budget - $986,000
• Capital Project Fund Proposed Budget - $4,194,000
Contents and Budget Overview .........................................2
Letter from the Executive Director .....................................3
Staffing Profiles .............................................................6-7
General Fund Revenues ................................................8-9
General Fund Expenditures .......................................10-12
Debt Service Fund .........................................................13
Capital Project Fund .......................................................14
Branch Locations ...........................................................15
3Salt Lake City Public Library Proposed Budget, Fiscal Year 2025
Adam Weinacker
Library Board President
Noah Baskett
Executive Director
It is with pride and gratitude that I present this proposed budget for the Salt Lake City Public Library for fiscal year 2025. Having
stepped into the role of Executive Director in January 2024, I am humbled by the opportunity to further this 125-year-old institution’s
mission alongside a committed team of staff, and the broad trust of our city’s residents.
This budget focuses on strengthening the role that the Library plays in our city as a whole, and the unique and distinct
neighborhoods served by our eight locations.
April 2024
Mayor Mendenhall, City Council Members, and Residents of Salt Lake City,
Our operational priorities are:
• Making progress toward optimal staffing levels across the system – ensuring that we are fully equipped to serve all
patrons with excellence.
• Staff compensation and training – fairly compensating and supporting our staff who serve our residents with deep
commitment and care.
• Increasing the investment in our collection – extending access to books and other materials for our growing number
of residents.
Our capital priorities are:
• Improving our safety and security infrastructure – ensuring all patrons feel safe at the Library.
• Completing ongoing maintenance projects – maintaining our facilities for effective operations.
• Our Library Facilities Plan – building the groundwork for future growth and facilities to better serve city residents.
We created these priorities in alignment with the City’s Four Pillars, and feel as if we are marching in step toward a brighter future for
all of Salt Lake City.
This budget will allow us to deepen our connections to the communities we already serve and expand our reach – stepping into the
places where there are unmet needs. We’re already deeply embedded in SLC neighborhoods, but as the city grows, we must continue
to invest in the Library system so we can be active in contributing to a flourishing Salt Lake City. I’m confident that this budget
propels us toward the City’s collective goals.
A letter from the Executive Director
& Board President
We thank you for your close partnership and continued support!
4 Salt Lake City Public Library Proposed Budget, Fiscal Year 2025
T-shirt magic is made in the Main Library's Creative Lab.
Seed Libraries are now available at every branch!
5Salt Lake City Public Library Proposed Budget, Fiscal Year 2025
Birdwatching with a City Library Binocular Kit.Reading with a child.
The City Library's beekeeper examines a honeycomb.
6 Salt Lake City Public Library Proposed Budget, Fiscal Year 2025
Staff Position FY24 FY25 FY25 − FY24
Difference
Accountant 1 0 -1
Accountant/Payroll Coordinator 0 1 1
Accounting Specialist 1.45 1.45 —
Administrative Assistant 0.475 1 0.525
Administrative Manager 1 3 2
Assistant Director 7 6 -1
Assistant Manager 4 10 6
Associate Librarian 20.8 21.35 0.55
Audio Visual Specialist 1 1 —
Cataloger 1 1 —
Circulation Supervisor 2 2 —
Community Garden Associate 0.45 0.45 —
Copy Editor & Public Relations 1 1 —
Creative Director 1 1 —
Custodial Manager 1 0 -1
Custodial Supervisor 2 2 —
Custodian 15.7 13.7 -2
Data Analyst 1 1 —
Delivery Driver 1 1 —
Deputy Director 1 1 —
Development & Donor Director 0 1 1
Equity Coordinator 1 1 —
Event Associate 1.45 1.45 —
Executive Administrative Assistant 1 1 —
Executive Director 1 1 —
Facility Manager 0 1 1
Graphic Designer 1 1 —
Help Desk Tech 1 1 —
Human Resource Associate 3.475 2.475 -1
Human Resource Project Manager 0 1 1
IT Tech 1 0 -1
Junior Designer 1 0 -1
Junior Project/Account Manager 0.475 0 -0.475
Librarian 42 41 -1
Library Aide 19.775 19.325 -0.45
Library Assistant 42.725 42.625 -0.1
Licensed Clinical Social Worker 1 0 -1
Literacy Initiatives Project Manager 0 1 1
Literary Project Specialist 1 0 -1
Logistics Coordinator 1 1 —
Maintenance Manager 1 0 -1
Maintenance Technician 5 6 1
Maintenance Supervisor 1 1 —
Manager 14 15 1
The FY25 Budget adds 8.425 FTE in new positions.
Proposed Staffing Additions:
• Four Assistant Managers
• Three part-time Library Assistants
• One Safety Associate
• One Social Worker
• One Development & Donor Coordinator
Staffing Profile
The annual Firefighter Storytime program.
SLCPL’s social worker Nicole Campolucci.
7Salt Lake City Public Library Proposed Budget, Fiscal Year 2025
Staff Position FY24 FY25 FY25 − FY24
Difference
Marketing & Comm Assistant 0 0.475 0.475
Marketing & Comm Project Manager 1 1 —
Network & Systems Engineer 1 1 —
Network Administrator I 0 1 1
Organizational Development Coordinator 1 1 —
Passport Agent 0.9 1.8 0.9
Passport Supervisor 1 1 —
Procurement & Contracts Manager 1 1 —
Project Manager/Assistant Facilities
Manager 0 1 1
Safety Associate 8.9 10.9 2
Safety Manager 1 0 -1
Safety Supervisor 2 2 —
Senior Graphic Designer 0 1 1
Senior Network Support Technician 1 1 —
Senior Software Support Engineer 1 1 —
Service Coordinator 3 3 —
Social Media Manager & Photographer 1 1 —
Social Services Coordinator 0 1 1
Social Worker 0 1 1
Staff Development Coordinator 1 1 —
Substitute Supervisor 1 0 -1
Tech Services Specialists 2 2 —
Technology Assistant 2.25 2.25 —
Technology Associate 2.425 1.425 -1
Technology Librarian 1 1 —
Technology Maintenance Tech 0 1 1
Technology Coordinator 1 0 -1
Trainer 1 1 —
Web Developer 1 1 —
Total 241.25 249.675 8.425
Sta ffing Profile ContinuedStaffing Profile
The Plot Community Garden at the Main Library.
EOD Manager Rita Christensen served on
the ALA’s Caldecott Awards committee.
Summertime Gardening Fundamentals
workshop.
8 Salt Lake City Public Library Proposed Budget, Fiscal Year 2025
Charges for Services
Printer Revenues 24,070 25,000 20,000 (5,000)(20.0%)
Passport Services 215,571 181,500 145,000 (36,500)(20.1%)
Non-Resident Fees 17,179 16,000 16,000 0 0.0%
Subtotal 256,820 222,500 181,000 (41,500)(18.7%)
Intergovernmental Revenues
Grants - Federal 0 0 400,000 400,000 100.0%
Reimbursements - E Rate 21,424 23,700 20,000 (3,700)(15.6%)
Grants - State 49,921 47,000 44,000 (3,000)(6.4%)
RDA Rebate 849,099 900,000 850,000 (50,000)(5.6%)
Subtotal 920,444 970,700 1,314,000 343,300 35.4%
Tax Revenues FY23
Actual
FY24
Revised Budget
FY25
Proposed Budget
FY25 − FY24
Difference
Percentage
Change
Current Year Property Taxes 22,209,135 22,971,395 27,931,859 4,960,464 21.6%
Personal Property Taxes 2,465,830 1,944,825 2,284,361 339,536 17.5%
Property Taxes – Pass Through 987,705 800,000 1,280,000 480,000 60.0%
Delinquent Property Taxes 522,290 450,000 450,000 0 0.0%
Motor Vehicle Taxes 834,225 800,000 800,000 0 0.0%
Judgment Levy 141,026 293,205 100,000 (193,205)(65.9%)
Property Taxes (Contingency)0 0 1,878,000 1,878,000 100.0%
Subtotal 27,160,211 27,259,425 34,724,220 7,464,795 27.4%
Tax Year
2019
Tax Year
2020
Tax Year
2021
Tax Year
2022
Tax Year
2023
Tax Year
2024 est.
Certified
Tax Rate .000741 .000680 .000649 .000615 .000580 .000710
Residential
Property $40.76 $37.40 $35.70 $33.83 $31.90 $39.06
Commercial
Property $741.00 $680.00 $649.00 $615.00 $580.00 $710.00
This chart reflects the estimated property tax amount for each $100,000 of residential property
value and each $1,000,000 of commercial property value.
Tax Year 2024 amounts are based on FY25 budgeted real and personal property tax revenue less
estimaged new growth and a five percent increase in 2023 property values.
Tax Revenues
The Library’s primary source of funding is
property taxes. Current Year Property Tax
revenue has been budgeted at the amount
generated by the 2023 certified tax rate plus
an estimated amount for new growth of
$300,000 and a proposed increase of $5.3
million. The Library’s current property tax
rate is 0.000580, which is 58.0 percent of
the ceiling established by the Utah State
statute. If the proposed tax rate increase is
adopted, the 2024 estimated tax rate would
be 0.000710.
The Library is also required to budget for
property tax revenues collected by Salt Lake
County that are paid directly to other
government entities without coming directly
to the Library. An offsetting transfer from
the Library equal to this revenue is reflected
in the Transfers from the Library. The
amount of this transfer for FY25 is
estimated at $1,280,000.
General Fund Revenue
General Fund Revenue Overview
Revenue categories have been budgeted based on historical trends, current year
projections, and economic considerations. The color-coded explanations compare
the FY24 and FY25 budgets.
9Salt Lake City Public Library Proposed Budget, Fiscal Year 2025
Total Revenues FY23
Actual
FY24
Revised Budget
FY25
Proposed Budget
FY25 − FY24
Difference
Percentage
Change
Subtotal 29,044,448 33,012,370 36,446,370 3,434,000 10.4%
Fund Balances Appropriated
Fund Balance - Appropriated 0 4,023,640 0 (4,023,640)(100.0%)
Subtotal 0 4,023,640 0 (4,023,640)(100.0%)
Contributions & Transfers
Donations 9,294 2,500 2,500 0 0.0%
Subtotal 9,294 2,500 2,500 0 0.0%
Miscellaneous Revenues
Interest Earnings 644,411 445,000 150,000 (295,000)(66.3%)
Rents - Facilities 9,309 9,500 9,500 0 0.0%
Rents - Commercial Space 9,910 33,105 30,000 (3,105)(9.4%)
Sundry Revenues 14,369 26,000 15,150 (10,850)(41.7%)
Subtotal 677,999 513,605 204,650 (308,955)(60.2%)
Charges for Lost/Damaged Items FY23
Actual
FY24
Revised Budget
FY25
Proposed Budget
FY25 − FY24
Difference
Percentage
Change
Charges for Lost/Damaged Items 19,680 20,000 20,000 0 0.0%
Subtotal 19,680 20,000 20,000 0 0.0%
Intergovernmental Revenues
The FY25 budget for Intergovernmental Revenues is higher because
of an anticipated federal grant.
Charges for Services
Revenues from Charges for Services is anticipated to decrease
slightly, leveling off following post-pandemic increases as the Library
reopened and demand for services such as passports was
temporarily high.
Charges for Lost/Damaged Items
Revenue from Charges for Lost/Damaged Items is anticipated to
remain at consistent levels with FY24.
Miscellaneous Revenues
Miscellaneous revenue is budgeted to decrease as interest earnings
are projected to decline if interest rates settle and some of the
Library’s fund balances being used to fund capital projects.
Contributions & Transfers
The FY25 budget does not propose using any of the General Fund
balance, as projects in recent years have drawn down some of these
funds for one-time expenditures and capital projects. Transfers from
the General Fund include $3,894,000 for capital projects and
$986,000 to make payments on bonds for the Marmalade and
Glendale branches.
Showing love for the Great Salt Lake with a writing and crafting program.
10 Salt Lake City Public Library Proposed Budget, Fiscal Year 2025
General Fund Expenditures
Materials & Supplies
Subscriptions & Memberships 32,031 45,705 46,063 358 0.8%
Publicity 229,540 203,570 249,700 46,130 22.7%
Travel & Training 179,258 213,485 221,384 7,899 3.7%
Office Supplies & Expense 13,346 14,000 14,000 0 0.0%
Postage 29,221 30,500 31,850 1,350 4.4%
Special Department Supplies 301,910 402,930 435,476 32,546 8.1%
Printer Copier Paper 8,769 8,000 9,000 1,000 12.5%
Printer Copier Toner 54,120 57,000 65,000 8,000 14.0%
Subtotal 848,195 975,190 1,072,473 97,283 10.0%
Personnel FY23
Actual
FY24
Revised Budget
FY25
Proposed Budget
FY25 − FY24
Difference
Percentage
Change
Salaries & Wages - Regular 11,788,485 12,858,000 14,177,986 1,319,986 10.3%
Overtime - Regular 26,264 0 15,000 15,000 100.0%
Salaries & Wages - Flex 178,385 146,000 155,345 9,345 6.4%
Social Security - Regular 880,148 984,900 1,084,616 99,716 10.1%
Social Security - Flex 13,615 11,170 11,390 220 2.0%
Employee Insurance 1,663,774 2,316,500 2,746,835 430,335 18.6%
Retiree Insurance 20,400 20,400 60,020 39,620 194.2%
State Retirement 1,653,728 1,777,300 2,125,631 348,331 19.6%
Workers Compensation 23,789 38,600 43,073 4,473 11.6%
Unemployment Insurance 2,784 3,000 3,000 0 0.0%
Other Employee Benefits 83,403 119,065 97,565 (21,500)(18.1%)
Employee Appreciation 9,550 13,000 13,400 400 3.1%
Subtotal 16,344,325 18,287,935 20,533,861 2,245,926 12.3%
The City Library will continue to offer a high
deductible health plan and a contribution to
each employee’s health savings account.
The FY25 budget reflects a projected 10
percent increase in premiums. The Library
covers 100 percent of employee coverage
and 90 percent of employee plus dependent
premiums. The Library’s contributions to
health savings accounts are as follows:
$1,000 for single coverage and $2,000 for
employee plus dependent coverage.
For details on the Library’s staffing, refer to the
Staffing Profile on pages 6-7.
Personnel Overview
Personnel expenditures account for
approximately 70 percent of the Library’s
overall operating budget (General fund less
Transfers to the Capital and Debt Service
funds and Payments to Other Governments),
which is consistent with recent fiscal years.
The FY25 budget proposes a 5.5 percent
salary increase for all Library staff which
consists of a 4.0 percent cost of living
adjustment and a 1.5 percent longevity
adjustment.
General Fund
Expenditures
Overview
The color-coded explanations
compare the FY24 and FY25
expenditures.
11Salt Lake City Public Library Proposed Budget, Fiscal Year 2025
Services
Professional & Technical Services 137,352 123,700 451,436 327,736 264.9%
Security Contracts 54,066 45,250 53,400 8,150 18.0%
Technology Contracts 494,799 592,765 850,202 257,437 43.4%
City Administrative Charges 0 30,500 30,500 0 0.0%
Cataloging Charges 102,069 102,000 117,000 15,000 14.7%
Staff Training & Development 42,200 64,040 98,186 34,146 53.3%
Programming 265,557 304,895 307,345 2,450 0.8%
Board Development 12,549 7,000 10,000 3,000 42.9%
Interlibrary Loans 633 500 650 150 30.0%
Subtotal 1,109,225 1,270,650 1,918,719 648,069 51.0%
Buildings, Grounds, & Equpipment FY23
Actual
FY24
Revised Budget
FY25
Proposed Budget
FY25 − FY24
Difference
Percentage
Change
Fuel 10,511 12,000 12,000 0 0.0%
Maintenance - Equipment & Furniture 235,281 312,390 360,752 48,362 15.5%
Maintenance - Vehicles 8,384 10,500 10,500 0 0.0%
Maintenance - Buildings & Grounds 669,670 748,440 729,650 (18,790)(2.5%)
Utilities - Boiler Operations 99,643 115,000 115,000 0 0.0%
Utilities - Electricity 424,572 439,000 439,000 0 0.0%
Utilities - Natural Gas 273,640 199,500 199,500 0 0.0%
Utilities - City Services 93,827 94,500 94,500 0 0.0%
Utilities - Garbage 37,829 39,600 39,600 0 0.0%
Utilities - Telecommunications 94,176 76,855 109,963 33,108 43.1%
Subtotal 1,947,533 2,047,785 2,110,465 62,680 3.1%
Materials & Supplies
Overview
Funding for publicity, travel and training, and
printing supplies are proposed to increase by
approximately 10 percent to increase visibility
and awareness of library services, provide
staff with opportunities for professional
development, and adequately meet patron
demand for programming and services.
Buildings, Grounds, &
Equipment Overview
This budget category is proposed to
increase slightly by three percent to
address equipment and furniture
maintenance needs.
Services Overview
Services are budgeted to increase due to the
expansion and cost of technology hardware
and software service contracts.
Other Charges Overview
An increase in property and liability insurance
is being proposed in this category.
Other Charges
Insurance 372,901 439,100 559,572 120,472 27.4%
Rents 0 0 0 0 0.0%
Sundry Expense 70,600 25,400 31,230 5,830 23.0%
Executive Discretion 4,043 20,000 20,000 0 0.0%
Staff Innovation 0 0 0 0 0.0%
Subtotal 447,544 484,500 610,802 126,302 26.1%
12 Salt Lake City Public Library Proposed Budget, Fiscal Year 2025
Total Expenditures FY23
Actual
FY24
Revised Budget
FY25
Proposed Budget
FY25 − FY24
Difference
Percentage
Change
Subtotal 28,254,599 33,012,370 35,417,920 2,405,550 7.3%
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures 789,849 0 1,028,450 --
Transfers, Grants, & Donations
Transfer to Capital Project Fund 2,271,500 5,841,700 3,894,000 (1,947,700)(33.3%)
Transfer to Debt Service Fund 936,925 985,500 986,000 500 0.1%
Payments to Other Governments 987,705 800,000 1,280,000 480,000 60.0%
Grants - Federal 0 0 0 0 0.0%
Grants - State 50,421 47,000 47,000 0 0.0%
Donations 6,202 0 0 0 0.0%
Subtotal 4,252,753 7,674,200 6,207,000 (1,467,200)(19.1%)
Collections & Capital Outlays FY23
Actual
FY24
Revised Budget
FY25
Proposed Budget
FY25 − FY24
Difference
Percentage
Change
Land 1,279,479 0 0 0 0.0%
Buildings 2,710 0 0 0 0.0%
Improvements 0 660 0 (660)(100.0%)
Equipment 11,737 6,450 0 (6,450)(100.0%)
Furnishings 6,645 0 0 0 0.0%
Technology 2,499 0 9,600 9,600 100.0%
Print Materials 653,608 745,000 885,000 140,000 18.8%
Audio Materials 45,176 50,000 95,000 45,000 90.0%
Visual Materials 184,455 285,000 325,000 40,000 14.0%
Databases 214,589 210,000 250,000 40,000 19.0%
E-Books & Audio 814,782 875,000 1,300,000 425,000 48.6%
Newspapers & Magazines 89,344 100,000 100,000 0 0.0%
Subtotal 3,305,024 2,272,110 2,964,600 692,490 30.5%
Ge neral Fund Exp nditures ContinuedGeneral Fund Expenditures
Collections & Other Capital Outlays
Overview
The collections budget is proposed to increase by $750,000
compared to the prior fiscal year. In addition to other collection
items, this allocation will improve the Library’s ability to provide
access to popular electronic materials and reduce wait times.
Transfers, Grants, & Donations
Overview
The transfer to the Capital Projects fund consists of the annual
transfer of $1,500,000 for designated facilities and technology as
well as $2,394,000 for other capital projects.
13Salt Lake City Public Library Proposed Budget, Fiscal Year 2025
Expenditures
Interest Payments 218,708 181,850 176,500 (5,350)(2.9%)
Principal Payments 765,000 801,600 805,000 3,400 0.4%
Administrative Fees 3,475 4,000 4,500 500 12.5%
Fund Balance - Unappropriated 0 0 0 0 0.0%
Subtotal 987,183 987,450 986,000 (1,450)(0.1%)
Revenues FY23
Actual
FY24
Revised Budget
FY25
Proposed Budget
FY25 − FY24
Difference
Percentage
Change
Interest 4,345 0 0 0 0.0%
Transfers 936,925 985,500 986,000 500 0.1%
Fund Balance - Appropriated 0 1,950 0 (1,950)(100.0%)
Subtotal 941,270 987,450 986,000 (1,450)(0.1%)
Debt Service Fund Budget
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures FY23
Actual
FY24
Revised Budget
FY25
Proposed Budget
FY25 − FY24
Difference
Percentage
Change
Subtotal (45,913)0 0 0 -
Debt Service Overview
Funds necessary to meet the lease payments on the Glendale and
Marmalade branches are derived from a portion of the Library’s
certified tax rate designated for such. The designated revenues are
deposited in the General fund.
Granite School District’s youth Powwow group Li’l Feathers perform at Main during Native American Heritage Month.
The amount needed to meet the lease payment is then transferred
to the Debt Service fund. The Library is funding the lease payment
one year ahead of schedule — the FY25 transfer will cover the
payment for FY26.
14 Salt Lake City Public Library Proposed Budget, Fiscal Year 2025
Capital Project Fund Budget
Expenditures
Cap Outlay - Buildings 913,474 9,200,335 899,000 (8,301,335)(90.2%)
Cap Outlay - Improvements 99,544 78,445 470,000 391,555 499.1%
Cap Outlay - Equipment 154,620 17,935 0 (17,935)(100.0%)
Cap Outlay - Furnishings 18,977 298,910 19,000 (279,910)(93.6%)
Cap Outlay - Technology 541,609 1,524,230 900,000 (624,230)(41.0%)
Cap Outlay - Foothill Branch Restricted 0 0 0 0 0.0%
Cap Outlay (Contingency Projects)5,500 0 1,878,000 1,878,000 100.0%
Fund Balance - Unappropriated 0 0 28,000 28,000 0.0%
Subtotal 1,733,724 11,119,855 4,194,000 (6,925,855)(62.3%)
Revenues FY23
Actual
FY24
Revised Budget
FY25
Proposed Budget
FY25 − FY24
Difference
Percentage
Change
Interest 277,698 0 0 0 0.0%
Sundry Revenues 2,104 0 0 0 0.0%
Transfer From General Fund 2,271,500 5,841,700 3,894,000 (1,947,700)(33.3%)
Fund Balance - Appropriated 0 5,278,155 300,000 (4,978,155)(94.3%)
Subtotal 2,551,302 11,119,855 4,194,000 (6,925,855)(62.3%)
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures FY23
Actual
FY24
Revised Budget
FY25
Proposed Budget
FY25 − FY24
Difference
Percentage
Change
Subtotal 817,578 0 0 0 -
• Repair of gutters and downspouts at
Anderson-Foothill Branch
• Parking lot refurbishment at Sweet
Branch
• New self-checkout machines
• Intrusion detection system
replacement
• Door replacement in Creative Lab
• Refurbish tenant unit for events
• Emergency exit door alarm bar
upgrade
• Bathroom renovations
• Conference room lighting
improvement at Day-Riverside Branch
• Stairwell and bathroom hallway
lighting at Chapman Branch
• Bookdrop safety upgrades
• Grant-funded projects including tree,
garden and shade structures
• Elevator access card installation
• Crescent wall roof renovations
• Smoke evacuation system repairs
• Safety IT system updates
• Computers, servers, and network
equipment
• Crash bar replacements
• Renovations and improvements to
Ballpark location
• IT network infrastructure upgrade
and data rewiring for branches
• Power box cover replacements
• HVAC system
• Exterior building tile replacement at
Marmalade Branch
• Tree removal and replacement
• Fire system upgrades
• Continuation of Library Facilities Plan
• Crescent wall light replacement
• Exterior paint and stain at Glendale
Branch
• Sorter upgrades
Revenues Overview
Funding for capital projects accounted for
in the Capital Projects fund comes from
three sources: a transfer from the General
fund, interest earnings on the cash balance
in the fund, and the Capital Projects fund.
The fund balance is a result of unspent
money accumulated from prior years. The
transfer from the General fund to the
Capital Projects fund includes the annual
$900,000 of designated facilities
maintenance funds and $600,000 of
designated technology-related funds.
Expenditures Overview
Budgeted capital projects are unique from
year to year based on needs and requests.
The list to the right features of some of the
proposed capital projects for FY25:
15Salt Lake City Public Library Proposed Budget, Fiscal Year 2025
400 S
20
0
E
13
0
0
E
2100 S
70
0
E
30
0
w
500 S
California Ave.
Co
n
c
o
r
d
S
t
.
90
0
w
500 N
F
S
t
.
9th Ave.
1300 S
600 N
500 S
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
D
r
.
H
i
g
h
l
a
n
d
D
r
.
1000 N
Sprague
Branch
Foothill
Branch
Ballpark
Branch
Glendale
Branch
Chapman
Branch
Main Library
Sweet
Branch
Marmalade
Branch
Day-Riverside
Branch
Pages 8-9
Revenue
Pages 10-12
Expenditures
Page 13
Debt Service
Fund
Page 14
Capital
Projects
Fund
Main Library
210 East 400 South
801-524-8200
Glendale Branch
1375 South Concord
801-594-8660
Anderson-Foothill Branch
1135 South 2100 East
801-594-8611
Marmalade Branch
280 West 500 North
801-594-8680
Chapman Branch
577 South 900 West
801-594-8623
Sprague Branch
2131 South 1100 East
801-594-8640
Day-Riverside Branch
1575 West 1000 North
801-594-8632
Corinne & Jack Sweet Branch
455 F Street
801-594-8651
The City Library Locations
333 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
334 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
335 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
336 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
337 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
This page intentionally left blank
338 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Overview of Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Major Funding Sources
General Fund Dollars
(Most flexible funding source; can be spent on any project)
These are the City’s most flexible unrestricted funds available to be spent on any CIP project. The Council
transfers a portion of General Fund revenues into the CIP Fund as part of each annual budget in June.
The City collects a variety of revenue sources that all go into the General Fund such as property taxes,
sales taxes, franchise taxes, building permits and license fees, and many others. A Council audit identified
9% of ongoing General Fund revenues as an ideal funding level to help ensure the City keeps up with
capital investment needs. The City reached that 9% funding level in FY2023. In the prior two decades the
City’s annual General Fund transfer into the CIP Fund averaged closer to 7%.
Funding Our Future 0.5% Local Salt Lake City Option Sales Tax
(Critical need categories: housing, public transit, streets, and public safety; a fifth category of parks
maintenance was added in FY2023)
The 0.5% sales tax increase was authorized by the Legislature only for the capital city as part of the
State prison relocation from Draper. The City’s local option sales tax was increased as part of the
FY2019 annual budget and was branded “Funding Our Future” along with a Streets Reconstruction
Bond approved by voters (all those bond funds have now been budgeted). Prior to enacting the sales
tax increase the City conducted impact research, public hearings, open houses, workshops, letters,
online information, and other extensive outreach. The funds from the sales tax are limited to the
critical need categories as determined by the Council. The definition of the critical need categories
has evolved over the times such as expanding public safety from only police to also include 911
dispatch, fire, medical, and social workers. The number of categories was originally four and a fifth
category, parks maintenance, was added in FY2023. There is no legal limitation to the categories
which are subject to the Council’s annual appropriation process and subject to change.
Class C Funds
(State gas tax)
Class C funds are generated by the Utah State Tax on gasoline. The state distributes these funds to local
governments on a center lane mileage basis. The City’s longstanding practice has been to appropriate
Class C funds for the general purpose of street reconstruction and asphalt overlays. The Roadway
Selection Committee selects specific street segment locations as recorded in the Engineering Division’s Six
Year Pavement Plan which is regularly updated. Note that there is overlap in eligible uses between this
funding source and the County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Transportation and Streets Funding.
Per state law, Class C funds may be used for:
1. All construction and maintenance on eligible Class B & C roads
2. Enhancement of traffic and pedestrian safety, including, but not limited to: sidewalks, curb and
gutter, safety features, traffic signals, traffic signs, street lighting and construction of bicycle
facilities in the highway right-of-way
3. Investments for interest purposes (interest to be kept in fund)
4. Equipment purchases or equipment leases and rentals
5. Engineering and administration costs
6. Future reimbursement of other funds for large construction projects
7. Rights of way acquisition, fencing and cattle guards
8. Matching federal funds
9. Equipment purchased with B & C funds may be leased from the road department to another
department or agency
10. Construction of road maintenance buildings, storage sheds, and yards. Multiple use facilities
may be constructed by mixing funds on a proportional basis
11. Construction and maintenance of alleys
12. B & C funds can be used to pay the costs of asserting, defending, or litigating
13. Pavement portion of a bridge (non-road portions such as underlying bridge structure are not
eligible)
County Quarter Center (0.25%) Sales Tax
(Limited to transportation and streets eligible uses per state law)
The County fourth quarter-cent transportation funding is an ongoing sales tax funding source dedicated
to transportation and streets. The City has taken a progressive view of transportation beyond a vehicle-
focused perspective and uses a multi-modal, more inclusive approach (walking, biking, public transit,
accessibility and ADA, ride-share, trails, safety, scooters, etc.). The Wasatch Front Regional Council
summarized eligible uses for this funding as “developing new roads or enhancing (e.g., widening) existing
roads; funding active transportation, including bike and pedestrian projects; or funding transit
enhancements. It can also be used for maintenance and upkeep of existing facilities.” (SB136 of 2018
Fourth Quarter Cent Local Option Sales Tax Summary June 22, 2018). Revenue from the 0.25% sales tax
increase is split 0.10% for the Utah Transit Authority or UTA, 0.10% for cities and 0.05% for Salt Lake
County as of July 1, 2019 and afterwards. Note that there is overlap in eligible uses between this funding
source and Class C funds.
Impact Fee Eligibility
(Four types: fire, parks, police, and transportation / streets)
Impact fees are one-time charges imposed by the City on new development projects to help fund the cost
of providing infrastructure and services to that new development. This is part of the City’s policy that
growth should pay for growth. A project, or portion of a project, must be deemed necessary to ensure the
level of service provided can continue with the additional impacts of the new developments (such as
serving more residents or workers). As a result, it’s common for a project to only be partially eligible for
impact fee funding (the growth-related portion) so other funding sources must be found to cover the
difference. It is important to note that per state law, the City has six years from the date of collection to
spend or encumber under a contract the impact fee revenue. After six years, if those fees are not
encumbered or spent then the fees are returned to the developer with interest.
General Impact Fee Guidelines:
1. Impact fees are to be used to keep a current level of service for new growth to a City.
2. Cannot be used to cure deficiencies serving existing development.
3. May not raise the established level of service in existing development.
4. Cannot include an expense for overhead, such as any cost for staff/administration, operation, and
maintenance.
5. Impact fees can only be used to pay for the portion of the project directly attributable to growth
(it’s uncommon for projects to be 100% eligible for impact fees).
6. Must be incurred or encumbered within 6 years from the date they are collected, or they shall be
returned to the developer with interest payments per state law.
7. Must use an adopted Impact Fees Facilities Plan to determine the public facilities needed to serve
new growth and set fees costs by development type.
8. Repair and replacement projects are not growth related.
9. Upgrade projects are not growth related.
10. Repair, replacement, or upgrades can be included as part of a mixed project where the scope will
create increased capacity to serve projected growth.
11. Impact fees must be spent in the same geographic boundary (service area) in which they are
collected. The City’s Impact Fee Facilities Plan designates the entire city as the service area. The
Transportation section was updated in 2020. The other three sections were adopted in 2016.
Pre-
Encumbrances
Budgetary
Balance
Recapture
Funding?
YES / NO / TBD
Status / Next Steps / Expected Completion Time / NotesCIP Appropriations as of 4/30/24
3000 CIP General Fund
Budget Encumbrances Expenditures
8315027-CC11009-3000-PRG10042 Bikeway - Close the Gap
8316026-CC11009-3000-PRG10030 Six Traffic Signal Upgrades, 9
8316046-CC11009-3000-PRG10042 1300 S Bicycle Bypass (pedestrian)
8316070-CC30004-3000-PRG10042 Warm Springs Park, 840 N 300 W
8317025-CC30004-3000-PRG10042 500/700 S Reconstruction
8317029-CC11009-3000-PRG10042 Bus Stop Enhancements
8317043-CC30004-3000-PRG10042 Parks and Public Lands Compreh
8317049-CC30004-3000-PRG10042 UTA TIGER GRANT MATCH
8317055-CC10504-3000-PRG10042 Capital Facilities Plan
8318028-CC30004-3000-PRG10043 Bridge Maintenance
8318044-CC30004-3000-PRG10042 East West Connections Study
8318045-CC11009-3000-PRG10031 Bikeways Urban Trails
8318047-CC30004-3000-PRG10032 Rose Park Pedestrian Byway
8318048-FY24B2A4-3000-Miller Park Trail Access Improvements & Historic
Structures Preservation
$25,335.87
$2,125.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.12
$2,125.00
$0.00
$44,783.60
$111,728.57
$0.00
$0.00
$116,682.52
$0.00
$3,577.97
$0.00
$18,802.40
$15,386.50
$277.30
$12,460.08
$2,125.00
$12,875.67
-$2,125.00 Negative?
$103,181.93
$57,978.20
$636,768.27
$16,990.39
$7,343.15
$138,316.68
$4,928.32
$76,503.76
$970.74
$0.00 $103,181.93 This project was completed as part of 1300 South reconstruction Phase 2?
$0.00
$48,806.84
$16,990.30
$0.00
$5,262.61
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$8,048.47
$112,560.30
$13,194.60
$476,232.86
$0.09
$7,343.15
$16,371.55
$4,928.32
$72,925.79
$970.74
Being used to create the CAP?
$69,550.21
$152,283.00
$365,012.40
$42,699.34
$24,336.20
$0.00 $364,735.10 Original appropriation in 2018, then rescoped in 2024, is construction on schedule for this summer?
8318049-CC30004-3000-PRG10042 Jordan R. Flood Control
8318053-CC30004-3000-PRG10042 Parks and Rec HVAC
8319301-CC30005-3000-PRG10042 Delong & Parks Yard Improvement
8319401-CC30004-3000-PRG10042 Glendale Park Playground Path
8319403-CC30004-3000-PRG10042 RAC Shade Structure and Playgr
8319405-CC30004-3000-PRG10042 Rose Park Multiloop Trail
8319406-CC30004-3000-PRG10042 11th Ave Pavilion and Signage
8319621-CC11009-3000-PRG10030 Traffic Signals Upgrade
8319701-CC30005-3000-PRG10042 Library Parking Equipment
8319741-CC11009-3000-PRG10024 Westside Multimodal GF
8320401-CC30004-3000-PRG10042 Liberty Park 7 Cany Fountain
8320402-CC30004-3000-PRG10042 Hidden Hollow Water Enhancemen
8320404-CC30004-3000-PRG10042 10 E Senior Center Retaining Wall
8320405-CC30004-3000-PRG10042 Libert Prk Drainage Fueling S.
8320406-CC30004-3000-PRG10042 Community Parks Signage
8320407-CC30004-3000-PRG10042 Three Creeks Con Phase III
8320442-CC30004-3000-PRG10042 Match UT FHA Foothill Trails
8320602-CC11009-3000-PRG10030 Bus Stop Signal Enhancements
8320603-CC11009-3000-PRG10042 McClelland Str Phase 2a
8320701-CC30004-3000-PRG10035 Sorensen Unity Connecting Corr
8321400-CC30004-3000-PRG10040 Facilities Cap ReplacementFY21
8321401-CC30004-3000-PRG10046 Parks Critical Asset Renewal
8321402-CC30004-3000-PRG10031 Foothills Trail System Master Plan
8321405-CC30004-3000-PRG10042 Water Park Demolition, Fence & Sec
8321601-CC11009-3000-PRG10028 TransportationSafetyImprovmnt
8321602-CC11009-3000-PRG10030 Traffic Signals Upgrade 21
8321603-CC11009-3000-PRG10028 Transit Route Improvements
8619402-CC35001-3000-PRG10042 City-wide Park Walkway Safety
8619409-CC35001-3000-PRG10042 Fairmont Stream Access Beautiful
8619411-CC35001-3000-PRG10042 Westside Trail Connections
8619602-CC35001-3000-PRG10043 Bridge Maintenance
$9,869.79
$9,900.00
$28,726.80
$43,476.17
$3,405.83
$148,007.23
$47,079.30
$17,081.00
$150,296.57
$29,657.50
$270.27
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$5,436.88
$0.00
$7,811.71
$0.00
$1,977.25
$0.00
$7,553.33
$13,162.82
$90,720.00
$0.00
$270.00
$168,674.81
$0.00
$0.00
$10,241.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$4,432.91
$9,900.00
$20,915.09
$43,476.17
$1,428.58
$0.00 $148,007.23 This project was completed so funds can be recaptured?
Negative?
$73.25
$6,572.50
$44,084.89
$669.20
$0.00
$160,463.38
$0.00
$39,452.72
-$2,654.32
$15,491.68
$28,988.30
$0.27
$60,547.12
$2,378.51
$94,837.45
$245,188.40
$389,685.31
$2,378.51
$94,837.45
$273,068.00
$492,800.00
$144,106.12
$772,948.19
$132,699.30
$875,000.00
$178,408.57
$168,497.19
$58,747.56
$57,212.57
$125,987.44
$370,071.20
$557,789.95
$5,886.33
$17,599.86
$249,922.91
$150,000.00
$53,075.86
$250,000.00
$2,648,507.00
$300,000.00
$32,748.00
$0.00
$17,638.60
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00 $492,800.00
$0.00 $144,106.12
Adjacent autoshop owner is not selling so funds can be recaptured?
This project has been cancelled?
$0.00 $217,030.18
$7,959.30 $30,524.75
$0.00
$11,840.29
$25,519.11
$0.00
$53,730.68
$11,110.60
$2,904.00
$298,980.92
$500.00
$555,918.01
$94,215.25
$0.00 $875,000.00
$160,691.92
$137,002.89
$0.00
$0.00
$87,146.84
$5,876.36
$5,975.19
$58,747.56
$3,481.89
$27,730.00
$0.00 $367,167.20
$17,500.00 $241,309.03
$5,386.33
$10,763.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00 $249,922.91
$6,836.86
$0.00
$0.00
$17,753.59
$0.00
$0.00 $2,054,880.00
$0.00 $0.00 $300,000.00
$32,723.00
$0.00 $150,000.00
8619624-CC11009-3000-PRG10042 1700 S Lane Reconfiguration
8620621-CC11009-3000-PRG10043 Bridge Maintenance
8621600-FY24B1D5-3000-Bridge Rehabilitation Jordan River
8621601-CC11009-3000-PRG10043 Bridge Maintenance FY21
8621602-CC11009-3000-PRG10050 Rail Adj Pavement 21
3023 CIP Transportation Fund
$0.00
$0.00 $250,000.00
$593,627.00
$35,322.27
$0.00 $25.00
8321620-CC11009-3023-PRG10028 Bus Service 600 N 1000 N
8321623-CC11009-3023-PRG10031 Urban Trails
8321624-CC11009-3023-PRG10033 Complete Streets Reconstructio
$741,875.25
$1,161,246.69
$483,102.36
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$20,757.25
$58,390.78
$0.00
$21,453.58
$102,883.62
$699,664.42
$999,972.29
$0.00 $483,102.36
8321625-CC11009-3023-PRG10035 Corridor Transformations
8321626-CC11009-3023-PRG10048 Alleyway Repaving
3031 CIP CDBG
$877,848.57
$122,938.48
$0.00
$0.00
$11,079.00
$0.00
$405.89 $866,363.68
$19,450.68 $103,487.80
8319062-CC30004-3031-PRG10044 Deteriorated or Missing Concre
3033 CIP Class C
$623.68 $0.00 $413.79 $0.00 $209.89
8314031-CC11009-3033-PRG10042 Driver Feedback Signs
8317359-CC30004-3033-PRG10042 Gladiola to Indiana 900S Seq C
8318023-CC30004-3033-PRG10042 Gladiola 900 S Imp
8321501-CC11009-3033-PRG10033 Street Reconstruction & Overlays 21
3037 CIP Impact fee Parks
$86,320.00
$112,657.56
$38,047.09
$891,249.27
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$47,760.00 $38,560.00
$0.00 $112,657.56
$0.00
$204,080.84
$38,047.09
$445,716.87$241,451.56
8416005-CC30004-3037-PRG10042 9 Line Park $1,733.03
$274,870.29
$327,678.45
$1,055.97
$9,350.26
$2,945.50
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2,588.33
$0.00
$0.00
$274,763.28
-$855.30
$107.01
Negative?
8417011-CC30004-3037-PRG10042 Marmalade Park Block Phase II
8417012-CC30004-3037-PRG10042 Parley's Trail Design & Constr
8417013-CC30004-3037-PRG10042 Rosewood Dog Park
8417014-CC30004-3037-PRG10042 Redwood Meadows Park Dev
8417017-CC11002-3037-PRG10042 Jordan R Trail Land Acquisitn
8417018-CC30004-3037-PRG10042 Jordan R 3 Creeks Confluence
8418002-CC30004-3037-PRG10042 Cwide Dog Lease Imp
8418005-CC11009-3037-PRG10042 Bridge to Backman
8419103-CC11009-3037-PRG10042 Imperial Park Shade Accounting
8419150-CC11009-3037-PRG10042 Pioneer Park
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00 $327,678.45
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,055.97
$9,350.26
$2,945.50
$1,569.60
$261.73
$1,569.60 $0.00 Adjacent autoshop owner is not selling so funds can be recaptured?
$23,261.73
$262,043.30
$6,397.50
$3,052,937.63
$2,637.66
$404,139.04
$149,953.09
$12,431.49
$431,859.61
$54,807.56
$120,893.14
$240,239.26
$125,740.11
$132,208.33
$21,830.00
$23,000.00
$10,285.46$0.00
$0.00
$0.00 $1,292,205.37
$0.00 $251,757.84
$0.00 $6,397.50
$232,188.77 $1,528,543.49
$0.00
$7,773.75
$148,344.68
$0.00
$10,461.27
$0.00
$0.00 $120,893.14
$133,125.00
$0.00
8419204-CC10504-3037-PRG10042 Park's Consultant's Contract
8420134-CC30004-3037-PRG10042 Jordan Park Event Grounds
8420136-CC30004-3037-PRG10042 9Line Orchard
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2,595.66
$17,131.22
$8,755.52
$4,328.20
$23,401.96
$0.00
$0.00
$133,125.00
$42.00
$379,234.07
-$7,147.11
$8,103.29
$397,996.38
$54,807.56
Being used to update the Parks section of the Impact Fee Plan?
Negative?
8420138-CC30004-3037-PRG10042 Rich Park Comm Garden
8420142-CC30004-3037-PRG10042 Wasatch Hollow Improvements
8420406-CC30004-3037-PRG10042 IF Prop Acquisition 3 Creeks
8420420-CC30004-3037-PRG10042 UTGov Ph2 Foothill Trails
8420424-CC30004-3037-PRG10042 County #1 Match 3 Creek Confluen
8420430-CC30004-3037-PRG10042 FY20 Bridge to Backman
8421401-CC30004-3037-PRG10042 Fisher House Exploration Center
8421403-CC30004-3037-PRG10042 Trailhead Prop Acquisition
3038 CIP Impact fee Streets
Adjacent autoshop owner is not selling so funds can be recaptured?
-$26,010.74
$95,133.22
-$15,115.95
$21,830.00
Negative?
Negative?
$240.01
$50,308.00
$30,366.88
$97,016.28
$0.00$0.00
8406001-CC30004-3038-PRG10042 Gladiola Street $15,168.98
$124,593.18
$42,832.69
$181,303.30
$22,744.01
$29,816.67
$46,882.65
$18,699.37
$386,297.86
$241,134.98
$790,235.70
$625,000.00
$0.00 $12,924.65
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00 $124,593.18
$0.00
$116,620.34
$0.00
$0.00
$5,480.00
$0.00
$43,651.89
$9,775.18
$2,244.33
8412002-CC11009-3038-PRG10042 Indiana Ave/900 S Rehab Design
8416004-CC11009-3038-PRG10042 1300 S Bicycle Bypass (pedestr
8418003-CC11009-3038-PRG10031 Bikeway Urban Trails
8418016-CC11009-3038-PRG10042 500 to 700 S
8419203-CC10504-3038-PRG10042 Street's Consultant's Contract
8420110-CC11009-3038-PRG10028 Transp Safety Improvements
8420120-CC11009-3038-PRG10042 Complete Street Enhancements
8420125-CC11009-3038-PRG10033 Street Improve Reconstruc 20
8421500-CC11009-3038-PRG10028 Transportation Safety Improvements IF
8421501-CC11009-3038-PRG10030 Traffic Signal Upgrades
8421502-CC11009-3038-PRG10033 IF Complete Street Enhancement
3039 CIP Sale of Property
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$42,832.69
$64,682.96
$22,744.01
$12,374.31
$29,582.65
$18,699.37
$339,285.69
$117,067.34
$17,442.36
$11,820.00
$0.00
$3,360.28
$114,292.46
$55,845.95
$0.00
Being used to update the Transportation section of the Impact Fee Plan?
$0.00 $734,389.75
$0.00 $625,000.00
8318100-CC30004-3039-PRG10042 Fire Training Center
8381600-CC11002-3039-PRG10042 Regional Sports Complex land p
3041 CIP Insurance Proceeds
$19,313.38
$729,836.03
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$240,000.00
$0.00
$0.00 $489,836.03
$19,313.38 Are these funds being moved to the Surplus Land Fund?
Are these funds being moved to the Surplus Land Fund?
8320706-CC30004-3041-PRG10042 EQ DMG Life Safety $590,918.96 $0.00 $104,752.67 $241,108.88 $245,057.41 What is this; the label is unclear?
Capital Asset Plan (CAP) Council Requests from January 2019
1.Policy Goals and Metrics – Council Members requested high-level cost estimates for the City
to implement the below policy goals as well as any metrics. The Administration was invited to
recommend policy goals to the Council. Three cost estimates are included based on prior
discussions but may not represent the best currently available information. The table is intended
for discussion purposes and does not represent a comprehensive list of policy goals for Council
consideration.
Potential Policy Goals Potential Metrics High-level Cost
Estimate
Bring all facilities out of
deferred maintenance
Appropriations vs. funding
need identified in Public
Services’ Facilities Dashboard
that tracks each asset
$6.8 million
annually or $68
million over ten
years
Expand the City's urban trail
network with an emphasis on
East-West connections
Total paved/unpaved network
miles; number and funding
for improved trail features;
percentage of 9-Line
completed
$21 million for 9-
Line
implementation
Increase the overall condition
index of the City's street
network from poor to fair
Overall Condition Index
(OCI); pavement condition
survey every five years
$133 million cost
estimate (in addition
to existing funding
level)
Implement the Foothill Trails
Master Plan
Distance of improved trails
completed; number and
funding for improved
trailheads
$TBD
Advance the City's
sustainability goals through
building energy efficiency
upgrades
Energy savings; carbon
emission reductions $TBD
Focus on renewal and
maintenance projects over
creating new assets
Number, funding level and
ratio of renewed assets vs.
new assets
$TBD
2.Project Location Mapping – Council Members requested a map of all CAP projects. The idea
of multiple maps based on dollar value was discussed such as $50,000 - $999,999, $1 million - $5
million, and over $5 million.
3.Measure CAP to CIP Alignment – Council Members expressed support for annually
measuring the alignment of how many CIP Funding Log projects were previously listed in the
CAP and how many CIP projects receiving appropriations were previously listed in the CAP. A
high alignment would indicate the CAP is successfully identifying the City’s capital needs.
4.Council Adoption of CAP – The question arose if the Council should adopt the CAP each year
with the annual budget or potentially in the summer when reviewing project specific funding.
Does the Administration have a preference?
Regular CIP Project Costs; General Rules of Thumb
NOTE: Costs are estimates based on most recent information available (could be out of date), vary by project, and do not include ongoing maintenance
Parks
Restrooms (dependent on site and utility work)
Trailside Pit Toilet
Portland Loo (each) Existing Sewer Line
4 Seat Each Gender. Existing Sewer Line
8 Seat Each Gender. Existing Sewer Line
Studies
2019 Estimate 2021 Estimate 2022 Estimate 2023 Estimate
$150,000
$200,000
$350,000
$168,000 $200,000 $220,000
$224,000
$450,000
$700,000
$270,000
$550,000
$850,000
$290,000
$585,000
$915,000$550K - $600K
Site Master Plan $50K - $75K $75,000-$100,000
$75,000-$150,000
$200,000-$300-000
$90,000-$115000
$90,000-$175,000
$230,000-$350,000
$75,000-$115,000
$75,000-$175,000
$200,000-$350,000
Cultural Landscape Report
City-wide Comprehensive Study
Drinking Fountains
$150K - $250K
Installed with sewer connection
Playground Replacement
New Playground
$15K - $30,000
$150K - $250K
$150K - $250K
$35000- $50,000
$250,000-$350,000
$450,000-$550,000
$45,000-$62,500
$300,000-$450,000
$550,000-$650,000
$45,000 -$65,000
$325,000-$455,000
$585,000-$715,000
Multi-purpose Field Improvements
Native soil field $150,000
$400,000
$200,000
$400,000-$500,000
$1,000,000
$450,000-$550,000
$1,200,000
$525,000-$650,000
$1,300,000Sand-based field
Softball/Baseball Field Improvements (Each Field)
Fencing (6 ft. vinyl coated chain link)
Tennis Court Improvements (2 Courts)
Patch, repair and paint
$250,000
$45.00-$55.00/LF
$300,000
$54.00-$65.00/LF
$325,000
$58.00-$70.00/LF
$150,000
$250,000
$168,000
$300,000
$210,000
$360,000
$220,000
$400,000New post tension court
Path/ Trail Improvements
$25.00-$30.00/LF $30.00-$35.00 $32.50-$40.00/LFHand-built natural surface single track trail (40" width)
Machine-built natural-surface trail (40" width)
Asphalt Trail
Concrete Trail (6" thick)
Soft Surface - Crushed stone
$6-12/LF
$20-25/LF
$3.50/SF
$4.50/SF
$2.50/SF
$10.00-$15.00/LF
$5.00/SF
$8.00/SF
$6.00-$10.00/ SF
$13.00-$18.00
$7.00/SF
$13.00-$20.00/LF
$10.00/SF
$12.00/SF $15.00/SF
$8.00-$13.00/SF
$330,000-$460,000
85000+
$600
$135,000-$250,000
$10.00-$15.00/SF
$365,000-$500,000
$90,000+
$750
$145,000-$275,000
Off-leash Dog Parks
Irrigation Systems Per Acre
Tree Replacements (Each 2-inch caliper)
Natural Area Restoration Per Acre
$250K - $350K $ 280,000-$392,000
$52,000+
$350
$75,000 +
$750
$100K - $200K $ 112,000- $224,000
Transportation 2019 Estimate 2021 Estimate
$600,000+
2022 Estimate
$700,000
2023 Estimate
$746,000Bike - One Mile Cycle Track/Lane Mile (3 lane miles = 1.5
actual miles)
Bike - One Lane Mile (2 lane miles = 1 mile actual mile)
Bike - Protected Lane Mile (200 West 2015)
Traffic Signals - New
$500,000+
$ 2,000+
$400,000
$250,000
$250,000
$130,000
$60,000
$2,500+
$500,000-1,000,000
$350,000
$4,000
$750,000-$1,250,000
$400,000
$4,300
$799,000-$1,331,000
$426,000
Traffic Signals - Upgrades $350,000
$150,000
$75,000
$400,000
$175,000
$85,000
$426,000
$350,000
$90,000
HAWK Signals
Crosswalk - Flashing
Crosswalk - School Crossing Lights $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $37,000
Crosswalk - Colored/Stamped varies based on width of
road
Driver Feedback Sign
Speed Table / Raised Crosswalk
Pedestrian Refuge Island
$18,000-$27,000 $20000 - $30000 $21,500 - $32,000$15K - $25K
$8,000 $9,500
$30,000
$12,000
$11,000
$40,000
$15,000
$12,000
$43,000
$16,000
$25,000
$10,000
Curb Extension at Intersection
Crosswalk
$20,000 $25,000
$1,800
$30,000
$2,000
$32,000
$2,200$1,600
Streets
Asphalt Overlay (Lane Mile)
Crack Seal (Lane Mile)
2019 Estimate
$280,000
$5,000
2021 Estimate
$335,000
$6,000
2022 Estimate
$360,000
$8,000
2023 Estimate
$587,000
$11,000
Road Reconstruction - Asphalt (Lane Mile)
Road Reconstruction - Asphalt to Concrete (Lane Mile)
Sidewalk slab jacking (per square foot)
Sidewalk replacement (per square foot)
$500,000 $600,000 $700,000 $761,000
$700k - $1.2 M $840,000 - $1,440,000 $1,000,000 - $1,700,000 $1,088,000 - $1,811,000
$4
$ 7 - $10
$5
$8 - $12
$6
$9 - $15
$7
$ 12 - $17
Note: Last updated July 2023
Livable Streets Program Progress – Summary
From the Transportation Division
During the first two years of the Livable Streets Program, staff were hired and trained, and public
involvement and conceptual designs were completed for Livable Streets Zones 2-9. Engineering designs
will soon be complete for Zones 2-4 and Phase 2 of Zone 1. Construction is expected for Zones 1-4 this
Summer/Fall. Engineering Design is planned for Zones 5-9, this coming Summer/Fall.
$3.6M has been appropriated the past two fiscal years for the program, with an additional $500K for
Quick Build projects. Of this, almost all Quick Build funding has been spent, and $155K of the zone-based
programmatic funds have been spent. Design and engagement are low-cost relative to construction, so
we will see the spend down accelerate as these zones go to construction starting this summer. We
expect the remainder of the previous funding appropriation to cover construction of Zones 2-4 and
Phase 2 of Zone 1 this Summer/Fall. We don’t expect the remainder of this appropriation to be sufficient
to cover the entire construction needs of Zones 5-9, which could occur as early as Spring/Summer 2025.
Livable Streets Progress to Date
Zone 1 (Capitol Hill)
•Phase 1 - Construction Completed Summer/Fall 2023 – CCIP Funding
•Phase 2 – Construction Scheduled for Summer 2024 - Livable Streets Funding.
Zone 2 (Central Sugar House), Zone 3 (Glendale at the Sorenson), and Zone 4 (Poplar Grove at the
Chapman Library)
•Public Involvement Completed in Fall 2023
•100% Design Drawing to be Distributed for Review this Week
•Construction to Begin Summer 2024
Zone 5 (Bees in the Ballpark), Zone 6 (Jordan Meadows), Zone 7 (Fairpark West), Zone 8 (Central City
at Richmond Park), and Zone 9 (Edison in Poplar Grove)
•Public Involvement Completed May 2024
•Engineering Design to Begin Summer 2024
•Construction Expected Spring/Summer 2025 – Scope Based on Available Funding
Zones 10-19
•Public Involvement Summer/Fall 2024
•Engineering Design to Begin Winter 2024/2025
•Construction 2025 or 2026 - Based on Available Funding
West Sugar House Traffic Calming
•Livable Streets Funds Used to Complete this Constituent Project in Winter 2023/2024
Quick-Build Safety Projects
•Purchase Traffic Counters for Livable Streets Projects
•Replace Delineators on 300 S & 200 W Protected Bike Lanes
•1300 S/2100 E Safety Project
•Emery St Safety Project (700 S – Indiana Ave)
•400 E Safety Project (Downingtown Ave – Hollywood Ave)
•2150 E Westminster Ave School Crosswalk Improvements
•700 S 1300 E - West Leg Crosswalk Improvements
•600 West, Hollywood Ave & South Temple St Traffic Circle Improvements
•In-Roadway “Stop for Pedestrians” Signs at Seven Locations
•Westmoreland Dr 1500 E Safety Project
•Kensington Ave/Ken Rey St/Bryan Ave Safety Project
•1700 S 1000 E Safety Project
•1240 E Westminster Ave Safety Project
•Navajo St Harris Ave Intersection Safety Project (June 2024)
•1700 S 400 E Intersection Safety Project (June 2024)
•Downtown Sidewalk Restrictions signs (June 2024)
•Jordan River Trail Speed Limit Signs and Yielding Rules Signs (June 2024)
Note, the color coded prioritization map on the following page is from the Livable Streets Program 2022
Final Report page 13. Council staff added zone numbers one through seven to help compare the two
maps. An interactive version of the zones map is available on the Transportation Division’s website here:
https://www.slc.gov/transportation/plans-studies/livable-streets/#LivableStreetsProjects
1
2
3
4
5
6 7
89
10
1
Capital Improvement Projects FY24-25 Budget
Presented by Rachel Molinari and Mike Atkinson
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FY24-25 BUDGET PROPOSAL
Presented by Rachel Molinari and Mike Atkinson
FY25 Application Map
2
https://maps.slcgov.com/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=64074a434d9b4e5f86000306b65813a2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FY24-25 BUDGET PROPOSAL
Presented by Rachel Molinari and Mike Atkinson
FY25 Application Summary
3
Overview
Total # of Applications 72
# of Internal Applications 32
# of Constituent Applications 40
Total # of Projects Recommended 31
Total $ Funding Requested $90,390,096
Total $ Funding Recommended
*includes 2 Mayor added projects $41,559,290
# of Constituent Projects Recommended 9
Total Constituent $ of Recommended $2,824,200
$0 $10,000,000 $20,000,000 $30,000,000 $40,000,000
Arts Council
Engineering
Fire
Police
Public Lands
Public Services
Transportation
Requested Funding
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FY24-25 BUDGET PROPOSAL
Presented by Rachel Molinari and Mike Atkinson
2025 Requests – Constituent ~$18,000,000
4
$-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
$4,000,000
$4,500,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 CW
$1,335,000 ,
7%$650,000 , 4%
$7,790,496 ,
44%
$8,021,000 ,
45%
Engineering Art focused Public Lands Transportation
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FY24-25 BUDGET PROPOSAL
Presented by Rachel Molinari and Mike Atkinson
2025 Requests – Internal ~$72,600,000
5
$-
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
$30,000,000
$35,000,000
$40,000,000
$45,000,000
$50,000,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 CW
$500,000 , 1%
$17,750,000 , 25%
$2,269,100 , 3%
$950,000 , 1%
$27,891,700 , 38%
$7,732,800 , 11%
$15,500,000 , 21%
Arts Council Engineering Fire
Police Public Lands Public Services
Transportation
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FY24-25 BUDGET PROPOSAL
Presented by Rachel Molinari and Mike Atkinson
Ongoing Expense Estimates ~$16,000,000
7
Project Total
D
e
b
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Sales Tax Bonds $8,725,477
ESCO Debt Service $923,600
Fire Station #3 $677,575
Fire Station #14 $498,550
Debt Service Projects Total $10,825,202
O
n
g
o
i
n
g
Crime Lab $600,000
City Leases $560,000
Facilities Maintenance $350,000
Urban Trails Maintenance (1/4 Cent)$200,000
Public Lands Maintenance $250,000
Public Lands Maintenance (FOF)$683,152
Community and Neighborhoods- Surplus Land RES $700,000
Ongoing Projects Total $3,693,152
O
t
h
e
r
O
n
g
o
i
n
g
Public Services- ESCO County Steiner $155,300
Public Services - Memorial House $20,000
FY25 Landfill $1,500,000
Other Ongoing Total $1,675,300
Estimated Total $16,193,654
2025 Available Funding
General
Fund Class C Parks Impact
Fee FOF Street FOF Other FOF Transit ¼ Cent Tax Capital
Maintenance Total
Available (est.)$7,330,000 $4,250,000 $20,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,154,490 $1,000,000 $8,000,000 $15,000,000 $57,734,490
Recommended $7,330,000 $4,250,000 $3,824,800 $1,000,000 $1,154,490 $1,000,000 $8,000,000 $15,000,000 $41,559,290
Remaining $0 $0 $16,175,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,175,200
8
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FY24-25 BUDGET PROPOSAL
Presented by Rachel Molinari and Mike Atkinson
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FY24-25 BUDGET PROPOSAL
Presented by Rachel Molinari and Mike Atkinson
FY25 Mayor Recommendations
9
$-
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 CW
Council District
$2,824,200 , 7%
$38,735,090 , 93%
Constituent Internal
10
Mayor Recommendations
Dept/Div
Council
District Application Title
Total
Recommended
Funding CDCIP Score
Fire 2 Stabilize the Fire Training Tower Deterioration $858,800 76.48
Engineering 2 400 South Jordan River Bridge Reconstruction $4,000,000 74.16
Public Lands 5 Liberty Park Greenhouse Restoration $124,000 67.44
Engineering CW Complete Streets Reconstruction 2025 $3,500,000 65.09
Public Lands 5
Liberty Park Greenhouse Design and Construction
Documents $921,700 60.34
Engineering CW Complete Streets Overlay 2025 $2,750,000 59.57
Engineering CW Public Way Concrete 2025 $500,000 59.49
Public Services CW Facilities Replacement and Renewal Plan $1,366,350 59.06
Public Services 4 Plaza 349 HVAC Improvements - Phase I $2,200,000 57.47
Transportation CW Transit Capital Program / Funding Our Future Transit $750,000 56.89
Transportation CW Safer Crossings Citywide $300,000 56.43
Public Lands 7 Sugar House Park – Two Pavilion Replacements $480,000 55.03
Public Lands CW
Transitioning to Regionally-Appropriate Landscapes, Adapting
Irrigation Systems, and Reducing Water Use $500,000 54.48
Public Services 4 HVAC Control Replacement at PSB $1,300,000 53.49
Public Lands CW
Citywide Park Restroom Planning Study/Fairmont Restroom
Conceptual Design $100,000 53.44
Transportation CW Neighborhood Byways Program $970,000 53.18
10
Mayor Recommendations continued
Dept/Div
Council
District Application Title
Total
Recommended
Funding CDCIP Score
Public Lands CW Courts & Playgrounds $549,150 52.34
Engineering 2 700 South (Phase 7, 4600 West to 5000 West) Additional Funding $4,500,000 51.54
Transportation CW Traffic Signal Replacement and Upgrades Program $730,000 51.08
Public Lands 3
Memory Grove Park Urgent Repairs + Preservation & Maintenance
Plan $1,910,000 51.04
Public Lands 2 Amplifying Our Jordan River Revitalization: Doubling Bond Investment $1,300,000 49.60
Arts Council 4 Art Barn Failing Infrastructure and Accessibility Improvement Request $500,000 48.84
Public Lands CW Green Loop Implementation $3,140,000 41.86
Public Lands 1 Riverside Park Pathway Loop $530,000 38.81
Public Lands 7 Fairmont Park Basketball Court $754,000 37.69
Public Lands CW Street Futsal Courts $350,000 36.31
Engineering CW Alleyway Improvements and Mitigation 2025 $500,000 36.30
Public Lands CW Playground Shade $500,000 34.00
Public Lands 2 Pocket Park Community Space - Jake Garn Way $330,000 28.69
Public Lands CW Equal Grounds Project (Calisthenics-Fitness Area)$86,200 26.75
Public Lands 2 5th West Commons Conversation Center(s)$50,000 24.31
Mayor’s Office CW Historical Signs/Markers $30,000 NA
Engineering CW Concrete Replacement $750,000 NA
Total $41,559,290
11
Capital Asset Planning: 1 FTE
Justification
The CAP Team is requesting a dedicated FTE to manage and report on Impact Fees. A
formal request for funding will be made in a future Budget Amendment.
This position is necessary to comply with the new level of detail required by the State
Auditor for the annual Impact Fee Report.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FY24-25 BUDGET PROPOSAL
Presented by Rachel Molinari and Mike Atkinson
Item Cost Type
(1) FTE $143,258 Ongoing, Impact Fees
Total $143,258
1
Financing for Maintenance of Capital Assets &
Newly Acquired Assets
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FY24-25 BUDGET PROPOSAL
Presented by Rachel Molinari and Mike Atkinson
12
One of the top priorities for the Administration is maintaining our existing properties. Therefore, the
new Capital Asset Planning Committee over the next several months will be reviewing all unfunded
maintenance for the entire General Fund.
a.They will assess and evaluate those needs based on the Captial Asset Planning matrix.
b.Once the maintenance needs are scored and assessed,the committee will come back to the
Administration and then the Council with funding options for these maintenance needs.
Examples of New Properties that need Maintenance
New Properties Delivery Date Project Delivery
Dept.
FY25 Pro Rated
Unfunded
FY25 Pro Rated
FOF Funded
Annualized
Costs
Glendale Park Phase I May-25 Public Lands $317,500 $198,900
9 Line Trail Mar-24 Transportation $41,500 $41,500
Backman Community Open Space Mar-24 Public Lands $32,800 $32,800
Marmalade Plaza Feb-25 RDA $50,400 $120,000
Life on State July-24 Transportation $75,500 $75,500
Sunnyside Ave Ped Improv.July-23 Transportation $11,400 $11,400
300 West Path/Landscaping Oct-23 Transportation $125,500 $125,500
700 East Pathway Oct-24 UDOT $54,000 $72,000
1000 W. 700 S. Roundabout Oct-24 Transportation $11,250 $15,000
I Street Bike Park Existing Public Utilities $25,000 $25,000
East Bench Property Apr-24 Public Lands $10,000 $10,000
Foothill Minor Trailheads Oct-24 Public Lands $10,000 $10,000
Complaint Based Weed Abate Existing Mayor’s Office $100,000 $100,000
Total $547,350 $317,500 $837,600
8
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FY24-25 BUDGET PROPOSAL
Presented by Rachel Molinari and Mike Atkinson
•LOOKING FORWARD
•Workday Integration/New Software
•IFFPs are in the process of being updated
•Need to revise Resolution 29 of 2017 and Cost Overrun
•FY25 CIP APPLICATION MATERIALS
•Dropbox link has been shared with Council Staff
Considerations
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FY24-25 BUDGET PROPOSAL
Presented by Rachel Molinari and Mike Atkinson
12
THANK YOU
Presented by Rachel Molinari and Mike Atkinson
SALT LAKE CITY RESOLUTION
NO._________OF 2024
(Adopting Capital Improvement Program Allocations for fiscal year 2024-2025.)
A resolution adopting the attached Capital Improvement Program Allocations for the
fiscal year 2024-2025.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 46 of 2024, the Salt Lake City
Council (“City Council”) adopted a final budget for the Salt Lake City Corporation (“City”)
fiscal year 2024-2025; and
WHEREAS, the budget adopted by the City included a budget for the capital
improvement program; and
WHEREAS, the City Council now wishes to formalize the appropriations for the capital
improvement program.
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this resolution is to adopt the capital
improvement allocations for the City for fiscal year 2024-2025.
SECTION 2. Adoption of Capital Improvement Allocations. The capital improvement
allocations for fiscal year 2024-2025, which were included within the 2024-2025 budget, shall be
and hereby are adopted according to the specific terms and conditions set forth on Exhibit A
attached hereto.
SECTION 3. Capital Improvement Program Allocation Contingency: Contingency for
Green Loop Funding includes a public space management plan for the three blocks of 500 West.
The public space management plan will address site amenities, programming opportunities,
public safety, and neighborhood context for those three blocks. This management plan will
provide the framework for future projects along the Green Loop and Downtown.
SECTION 4. Public Inspection. The City budget officer is hereby authorized and
directed to certify and file copies of these capital improvement program allocations in the office
of said budget officer and in the office of the City Recorder, which allocations shall be available
for public inspection during regular business hours.
SECTION 5. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect upon adoption.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of _____________, 2024.
2
Approved As To Form
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date __________8/27/2024____________________
Sign ______________________________
Jaysen Oldroyd
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
_______________________ _______________________________
CITY RECORDER CHAIRPERSON
Approved As To Form
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date ______________________________
Sign ______________________________
Jaysen Oldroyd
SALT LAKE CITY RESOLUTION
NO._________OF 2024
(Adopting Capital Improvement Program Allocations for fiscal year 2024-2025.)
A resolution adopting the attached Capital Improvement Program Allocations for the
fiscal year 2024-2025.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 46 of 2024, the Salt Lake City
Council (“City Council”) adopted a final budget for the Salt Lake City Corporation (“City”)
fiscal year 2024-2025; and
WHEREAS, the budget adopted by the City included a budget for the capital
improvement program; and
WHEREAS, the City Council now wishes to formalize the appropriations for the capital
improvement program.
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this resolution is to adopt the capital
improvement allocations for the City for fiscal year 2024-2025.
SECTION 2. Adoption of Capital Improvement Allocations. The capital improvement
allocations for fiscal year 2024-2025, which were included within the 2024-2025 budget, shall be
and hereby are adopted according to the specific terms and conditions set forth on Exhibit A
attached hereto.
SECTION 3. Public Inspection. The City budget officer is hereby authorized and
directed to certify and file copies of these capital improvement program allocations in the office
of said budget officer and in the office of the City Recorder, which allocations shall be available
for public inspection during regular business hours.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect upon adoption.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of _____________, 2024.
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
_______________________ _______________________________
CITY RECORDER CHAIRPERSON
SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL
1 8*4 1
To: Start Date: Date Sent to Council:
Salt Lake City Council Chair 06/21/2024 06/25/2024
Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency Chair
From:
Employee Name:E-mail
Gliot,Stephanie Stephanie.Gliot@slcgov.com
Department
Public Services
Department Director Signature Chief AdministratorOfficer's Signature*
Director Signed Date Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date
06/21/2024 06/25/2024
Subject:
Request to release CIP funds from FY2023 BA5
Additional Staff Contact: Presenters/Staff Table
Jorge Chamorro,jorge.Chamorro@slcgov.com
Nate Kobs,Nate.Kobs@slcgov.com
Document Type*Budget Impact* Budget Impact:
Information Item Yes 123,132.79
No
Recommendation:
Formally requested to release$123,132.79 from the Capital Improvement Program(CIP).
Background/Discussion:
It is being formally requested to release$123,132.79 from the Capital Improvement Program(CIP)holding account for physical security
improvements to City Hall,and the upgrade of the City's emergency notification system to all employees.These funds were originally allocated
through Budget Amendment(BA)5 of FY2023.
Please review the March 21,2023 Motion Sheet as reference for BA5's approval during FY2023.
Requests
1.Physical security improvements:
a.The current camera system(hardware and software)in use throughout the City and City Hall,manufactured by Pelco,is outdated and its
software license is set to expire at the end 2024.Due to the outdated technology and expiring license,the cameras and servers they operate on
require replacement.The City will be migrating to Milestone's system for use in City Hall.Milestone has already
enhanced
been successfully implemented by
the SLC Police Department in the Public Safety Building(PSB).Transitioning to Milestone will ensure security and uniformity across the
City's infrastructure.
b.Cost:$83,732.79
2.Emergency notification system upgrade:
a.Emergency Management will be transitioning from the current RAVE emergency notification platform to Titan HST.The Emergency
Management Division will cover the subscription cost;however,there is a hardware component associated with this change that needs funding.
The necessary hardware will be initially installed at City Hall,Plaza 349,and the PSB to support this new system.This first phase will inform future
deployments of hardware at other buildings.
b.Cost:$39,400
Conclusion
The dual transition to the Milestone camera platform and Titan HST for emergency notifications represents a significant enhancement to the
City's security and emergency management infrastructure.By addressing the immediate need to replace outdated hardware and adopting these
advanced solutions,we will greatly improve our surveillance capabilities and emergency response effectiveness.This proactive approach will
ensure the safety and security of the community,positioning the City to better handle current and future challenges.
Prompt approval of this fund release is crucial for initiating these upgrades,which will ensure no lapse in the City's security capabilities or its
enhancement of the emergency notification system.
Will the City Council need to hold a public hearing for this item?*
Yes
No
Public Process
Chief Administrator Officer's Comments
MEMORANDUMttit;i G4 rtty Y
x ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
DEPARTMENT of PUBLIC SERVICES
ttttt, „tttt,
TO:City Council
FROM:Nate Kobs,Director of Security,Department of Public Services
DATE:June 20,2024
RE: Request to release CIP funds from FY2023 BA5
Executive Summary
It is being formally requested to release $123,132.79 from the Capital Improvement Program
CIP)holding account for physical security improvements to City Hall, and the upgrade of the
City's emergency notification system to all employees.These funds were originally allocated
through Budget Amendment(BA)5 of FY2023.
Please review the March 21, 202 Motion Sheet as reference for BA5's approval during FY2023.
Requests
1. Physical security improvements:
a. The current camera system(hardware and software)in use throughout the City
and City Hall,manufactured by Pelco,is outdated and its software license is set to
expire at the end 2024. Due to the outdated technology and expiring license,the
cameras and servers they operate on require replacement.The City will be
migrating to Milestone's system for use in City Hall. Milestone has already been
successfully implemented by the SLC Police Department in the Public Safety
Building(PSB).Transitioning to Milestone will ensure enhanced security and
uniformity across the City's infrastructure.
b. Cost: $83,732.79
2. Emergency notification system upgrade:
a. Emergency Management will be transitioning from the current RAVE emergency
notification platform to Titan HST. The Emergency Management Division will
cover the subscription cost;however,there is a hardware component associated
with this change that needs funding.The necessary hardware will be initially
installed at City Hall, Plaza 349, and the PSB to support this new system.This
first phase will inform future deployments of hardware at other buildings.
b. Cost: $39,400
Conclusion
The dual transition to the Milestone camera platform and Titan HST for emergency notifications
represents a significant enhancement to the City's security and emergency management
infrastructure. By addressing the immediate need to replace outdated hardware and adopting
these advanced solutions,we will greatly improve our surveillance capabilities and emergency
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET WWW.SLCGOV.COM
P.O BOX 145470,SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111 TEL:8015357964
response effectiveness.This proactive approach will ensure the safety and security of the
community,positioning the City to better handle current and future challenges.
Prompt approval of this fund release is crucial for initiating these upgrades,which will ensure
no lapse in the City's security capabilities or its enhancement of the emergency notification
system.
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET WWW.SLCGOV.COM
P.O BOX 145470,SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111 TEL:8015357964
This page has intentionally been left blank
Insert Agenda Item # Here)
00 MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY23
I
TO: City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke and Sylvia Richards
Budget Analysts
DATE: March 21,2023 UPDATED 6:55 PM
RE: Budget Amendment Number Five FY2023
MOTION i—CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT MOST REMAINING ITEMS
I move that the Council close the public hearing and adopt an ordinance amending the Fiscal Year 2023
final budget of Salt Lake City including the employment staffing document only for items as shown on
the motion sheet.
Staff note: Council Members do not need to read the individual items being approved below; they are
listed for reference. The budget amendment is still open and the Council may consider remaining items
at a future date.
A-1: Rapid Intervention Team Trailer($25,000 from General Fund Balance to the Fleet Fund)
A-2:City Hall Earthquake Repairs($2.65 Million from General Fund Balance to the CIP Fund)
A-3:Fiber Conduit to Improve Connections between City Facilities as part of the 200 South
Reconstruction Project($242,285 from the IMS Fund)
A-5: Public Safety Radio Replacements Cost Increases($2.4 Million from the IMS Fund)
A-6: Consulting to Create Enterprise Bill System Replacement for Public Utilities Billing System(PUBS)
250,000 from the IMS Fund)
A-7: Lindsey Gardens CIP Project Rescope($459,36o in the CIP Fund)
A-8:Anonymous Donation for the Avenues City Cemetery($1 Million Donation)
A-9: One-time Retention Bonuses and Ongoing Hiring Bonuses for Police Officers($4.3 Million from
ARPA and$1,201,976 from General Fund Balance)
A-11: Study to Create Downtown Main Street Pedestrian Mall Additional Funding($1oo,000 from
General Fund Balance)
D-1:Interest on General Obligation Series 2019A,Series 202o and Series 2021 ($6o6,325 in the CIP
Fund)
D-3:300 West Roadway Bond Adjustments($2.15 Million in the CIP Fund)
D-4: Insurance Funds for City and County Building/Earthquake Damage ($7,252,300 in the CIP Fund)
D-5:IMS Budget for New General Fund Positions($207,000 in the IMS Fund)
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 304 SLCCOUNCIL.COM f-1
P.O.BOX 145476,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5476 TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 la1
D-6: Real Property Purchase—CIP Budget Associated with BA#4 Council-Added Initiative
D-7:Move Cost of Bond Issuance Costs from CIP to Debt Service Fund Class
Council Consent Agenda No.5
G-1: Know Your Neighbor Grant Program,Open Society Foundation-Salt Lake County($61,000 from
Miscellaneous Grants)
G-2:Utah State Office of Education,Child and Adult Care Food Program-Youth After School Programs
46,000 from Miscellaneous Grants)
Section G: Council Consent Agenda No.6
G-1:U S Department of Justice,Community Oriented Policing Services(COPS),FY22 Community Police
Development(CPD)Grant
I-1: Downtown Streets Enhanced Activation for 2023 Summer($500,00o from General Fund Balance)
I-2:Technology Upgrades in the Committee of the Whole,Formal Chamber,and Cannon Rooms,and
Removable ADA Ramps to the Formal Chamber Dais ($40,000 from General Fund Balance)
I-3: Physical Security Improvements to City Hall($1 Million from General Fund Balance to CIP Fund
Holding Account),The Council requests that the Administration provide a written review of potential
physical security improvements before the funds are released
Council Member Mano may now be recused
MOTION 2—ADOPT ITEM A-io
I move that the Council adopt an ordinance amending the Fiscal Year 2023 final budget of Salt Lake City
including the employment staffing document only for item A-1o.
A-1o: Real Property Purchase($200,000 from General Fund Balance to the CIP Fund)
Council Member Mano may now return
MOTION 3—ADOPT ITEM I-4
I move that the Council adopt an ordinance amending the Fiscal Year 2023 final budget of Salt Lake City
including the employment staffing document only for item I-4.
I-4: "Lockhart Alley"Reconstructing Three Sections($208,373 from General Fund Balance to CIP
Fund)
MOTION 4—CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
I move that the Council close the public hearing and refer the item to a future date for action.
MOTION 5—CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING
I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future date.
MOTION 6 —CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING and NOT ADOPT
I move that the Council close the public hearing and proceed to the next agenda item.
This page has intentionally been left blank
Item C5
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Nick Tarbet
Policy Analyst
DATE:August 27, 2024
RE: MOTION SHEET – Text Amendment: Sports, Entertainment, Cultural, and Convention
District Text
PLNPCM2024-00441
MOTION 1
I move that the Council adopt the ordinance
MOTION 2
I move that the Council reject the ordinance.
MOTION 3
I move that the Council defer action to a future Council meeting.
COUNCIL STAFF
REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Nick Tarbet, Policy Analyst
DATE: August 27, 2024
RE:Text Amendment: Sports, Entertainment,
Cultural, and Convention District
Text Amendments
PLNPCM2024-00441
PROJECT TIMELINE:
Briefing 1: July 2, 2024
Briefing 2: August 13, 2024
Set Date: July 2, 2024
Public Hearing: August 13, 2024
Potential Action: August 27
New Information
August 13 Work Session Summary
During the August 13 work session briefing the Council conducted a series of straw polls that provided
direction for changes to the final draft of the ordinance. These changes have been incorporated into the
final draft ordinance. Staff proposes a check in during the August 27 work session to make sure all the
Council’s concerns are addressed. Then, during the formal meeting, the council may consider taking action
on the proposed ordinance.
August 13 Straw Polls Results
•Design review and maximum height
o YES, for 600' max height. Projects above 200' must be approved through
design review by the planning commission. Council is open to changing to staff
review during the development agreement process.
•Allow exceeding the established maximum front yard setback for the D-4 district for the purpose of
adding a plaza.
▪YES
Page | 2
•Setbacks from adjacent properties/uses (example is JCC)
o Planning staff recommend addressing in development agreement
▪YES
•Sign Regulation Standards
o Support planning staff’s proposals: sign overlay – orient signs towards public streets, have
certain requirements for how long images can be displayed before the image changes (dwell
time) and how fast the image can change (twirl time) as well as brightness regulations for
signs that face residential uses. Limit display hours via development agreement
o Allow signage reciprocity within the overlay blocks
o Signs may include advertising any business, facility, sponsor, or event that is located within
the boundaries of the sports arena and convention center sign regulations overlay.
▪YES
August 13 Public Hearing Summary
Numerous people spoke during the public hearing, expressing both support for and opposition to the
proposed zoning changes. The comments included the following themes:
•Sign overlay will conflict with some of the cultural parts of the district such as Abravanel Hall.
•Design review of any projects must go through the standard process that includes the Planning
Commission
•Projects should not have special treatment, need planning commission review
•The proposal is moving too quickly
•Future projects need to be deliberate and need public input
•Public input can help produce a better product
•Addressing impacts to 100 south must be a priority, meetings with the community going forward
are essential
•Setbacks and good design should be a priority
•Affordable housing should be part of the development
•The Council should save Abravanel Hall
•More density though higher developments are needed to help with the future growth of the city
•Encourage the Council to vote no on the sales tax and zoning proposal
The following information was provided for the August 13 briefing and public hearing. It
is provided again for background purposes.
NEW INFORMATION
At the July 2 briefing, the Council asked planning staff to come back with recommendations to include the
following items in the final draft of the ordinance:
1. Standards to mitigate the impact of additional height on adjacent properties. This could include
setback and step back requirements.
2. Sign regulations standards such as dimmable, dwell, twirl, etc. This may also include considering a
process that would require the City to review and approve a comprehensive plan for the signs on
the project blocks.
3. Allow signage reciprocity within the overlay blocks.
Page | 3
The Council also provided guidance on the following issues:
1. Supported Planning recommendation for maximum height and at what height design review will be
required to build higher.
2. Concerned about allowing off premise signs via this petition since it is beyond the scope of the
petition. However, the Council expressed an openness to consider it separately.
Below is list of proposed changes staff is seeking feedback on from the Council. Staff proposes, as the
Council considers these in the work session briefing, a series of straw polls be conducted to provide
direction for which changes the Council supports including in the final ordinance.
Attachment A Guidance for City Council is the Planning Division’s response to the Council’s
questions listed above. They also included an updated ordinance which incorporates requested changes. A
summary of their responses is provided below. Please see the attachment for a full analysis. Attachment A
also includes Planning’s responses to SEG’s requested changes outlined below.
Changes included in the Draft Ordinance
1.Capping the maximum allowed building height at 600 feet. The provision requiring design review
for buildings over 75 feet in height is still in this version of the ordinance
•The council may consider SEG’s request to modify the design review height to 250 feet.
For reference, the D1 zoning district requires all buildings over 200 feet to go through
the design review process.
2.Clarifies what constitutes on premise advertising within the sign overlay so that future signs can
advertise other events and commercial activities that occur within the Overlay’s boundaries.
3. Adds regulations to the sign overlay so that signs oriented towards public streets have certain
requirements for how long images can be displayed before the image changes (dwell time) and
how fast the image can change (twirl time), as well as brightness regulations for signs that face
residential uses.
• Please note that this overlay allows some signs to show video. Those signs would not
have to comply with dwell and twirl times.
Items for further Council Discussion
1.The Council also asked for recommendations addressing the impact of tall buildings next to
historic cultural buildings. In considering this potential impact, this issue appears to be site
specific. As such, and knowing that there will be a development agreement that applies to a
portion of the blocks that currently house the Salt Palace Convention Center, the Planning
Division recommends that this be addressed in a development agreement because not enough
information about the site plan is known to determine what impacts from tall buildings may be.
Attachment B – SEG Requested Changes, outlines the changes Smith Entertainment Group (SEG)
would like the City to consider including in the final ordinance. Planning Staff have reviewed these
requests. Please see Attachment A for their response to SEG’s recommended changes.
1. Front and corner setbacks are not required for plazas and other similar places
o The current proposal does not consider this issue.
o The existing code allows modifications to setbacks through the design review process.
Existing plazas and buildings that exceed the maximum setback requirements are allowed
Page | 4
to be modified under the existing code. However, new buildings, parks, and open areas like
plazas would be subject to the applicable zoning codes.
2. Maximum building height of 600 feet
o The current draft proposes a permitted height of 75 feet, and up to 600’ with design
review.
3. Design Review required starting at 250 feet.
o The current draft is that anything above 75 feet requires design review.
SEG proposes the following language be added to require buildings taller than 75 feet to include at
least one of the following standards currently outlined in code:
3. Buildings taller than two hundred fifty feet are subject to the following regulations.
The building includes must include at least one of the following options:
(1) Midblock A midblock walkway is provided on the property. The or applicable
block on which the property is located and the midblock walkway connects to an
existing or planned street, midblock walkway, or publicly accessible public space and
exceeds all the required dimensions of Section 21A.30.010.G by at least five feet;
(2) The building is utilizing affordable housing incentives identified in chapter
21A.52 of this title;
(3) The building exceeds the minimum requirement for ground floor uses identified
in Chapter 21A.37 (Design Standards) of this title, specifically:
(A) For Subsection 21A.37.050.A.1 (Design Standards Defined, Ground Floor
Use Only), the requirement must be increased to one hundred percent (100%). This
option requires that the entire ground floor use of a building consists of retail good
establishments, retail service establishments or restaurants, public service portions
of businesses, department stores, art galleries, motion picture theaters, performing
art facilities or similar uses that encourages walk-in traffic through an active use.
Vehicle entry and exit ways, necessary for access to parking and loading and
unloading areas required by this title are exempt from this requirement provided
these areas do not exceed 20% of the length of a building façade that faces a public
street or public space; or
(B) For Subsection 21A.37.050.A.2 (Design Standards Defined, Ground Floor Use
and Visual Interest), the ground floor use requirement must be increased to seventy
five percent (75%) and the visual interest requirement must be increased to twenty
five percent (25%).
(4) The applicant provides a restrictive covenant on a historic building, a building that
is fifty (50) years or older, or a building that is a nationally recognized property, located
outside of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District for the purpose of preserving the
structure for a minimum of fifty (50) years.
(5) The proposal includes a privately owned, publicly accessible open space on the
property or on another property within the geographic boundaries of the Downtown
Plan. To qualify for this provision, a restrictive covenant in the favor of the city shall be
recorded against the open space portion of the property. The space shall be a minimum
of five hundred (500) square feet and include enough trees to provide a shade canopy
that covers at least sixty percent (60%) of the open space area.
4. Allow expedited review and designate city staff as reviewing/approval authority
Page | 5
o The current proposal follows the City design review process, which includes Planning
Commission review/approval
5. Allow deviations to sign standards through a development agreement reviewed by the Planning
Commission and approved by the City Council.
o Current proposal does not consider this issue
The following information was provided for the July 2 briefing. It is provided again for
background purposes.
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will receive a briefing on a proposed ordinance that would amend the D4 Secondary Central
Business District (D4) zoning district to support the creation of a Sports, Entertainment, Culture, and
Convention district. This proposal was initiated by Mayor Erin Mendenhall in response to SB 272 Capitol
City Revitalization Act, which established the process and timeline for creating a revitalization district
centered around the Delta Center and Convention Center Blocks of Downtown Salt Lake City.
The proposed text amendments would make the following changes to the D4 zoning district:
1. Modify the maximum height allowed through design review from 125 feet to 600 feet.
• The height provisions that apply to a portion of block 67 would also be removed because
they would no longer be necessary if the maximum height is removed.
2. Modify the required front and corner yard setback requirements to clarify that buildings with
plazas and other similar public spaces are allowed to exceed the maximum setback.
• Change the table of allowed uses for the D4 zoning district would change as follows:
•Stadiums change from conditional use to a permitted use.
•Commercial parking would be changed from conditional use to a permitted use.
(A current requirement prohibiting the demolition of a building for principal use
parking on the property would remain.)
3. Expand the existing sign overlay that applies to the Delta Center block to the blocks that contain
the Salt Palace. This allows more flexibility for signs related to the entertainment venues within the
overlay and allows modifications to signs through the design review process for buildings that are
subject to design review.
This briefing will be held in conjunction with the Council’s discussion about the proposed participation
agreement which is on the agenda for potential adoption during the July 2 formal meeting.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Division recommended the Planning Commission adopt the proposed amendments.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 12, 2024, and forwarded a negative
recommendation. They included the following reasons for their negative recommendation:
•Does not comport with the downtown master plan
•Does not comport with existing purpose of the zone
•Do not have enough info about community benefits
•Do not like the timeline of the process
Additionally, the Commission recommended the Council consider the following:
Page | 6
•Abravanel Hall be kept at its present site, and include a modest renovation with sales tax
•Buffer around Japantown (Japanese Church of Christ, adjacent garden and Buddhist Temple) to
minimize impact on historic structures.
POLICY QUESTIONS
•As noted below, there are two active petitions that relate to sign overlay districts for the County
owned Salt Palace blocks.
o Does the Council wish to provide directions on which sign overlay standards
they prefer to move forward with, the County or City initiated petition?
•In the discussion about increased building height, Planning staff suggested the Planning
Commission could consider the following options to help mitigate impact from the increased
height. These options could be addressed in a development agreement if the Council is interested in
pursuing them.
▪Apply an increased setback from certain buildings, such as the Japanese Church of
Christ
▪Require landscaped buffers that match the width of the existing garden on 100
South
o The Council may wish to discuss these recommendations or other potential
standards with Planning staff to determine if they would like to include
changes in the final draft of the ordinance.
•Planning staff recommended standards for electronic signs be considered that may help mitigate
the impact on residential properties. These standards may include dimming and prohibiting
animation between the hours of 11:00 PM and 7:00 AM for signs that directly face residential uses.
(Page 9, Planning Commission Staff report)
o Does the Council wish to discuss these types of conditions with Planning
Staff?
D4 Zoning Map
page 10 of the Planning Commission Staff report
Page | 7
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Sign Overlay Petitions
In March 2023 Salt Lake County initiated a petition that would create a sign overlay as it applies to the Salt
Palace Convention Center (PLNPCM2023-00154).
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed sign overlay for the Salt Palace. However, they
recommended excluding the Abravanel Hall and UMOCA properties from the overlay. The City initiated
petition currently includes these properties in the proposed overlay district.
This proposal could be considered less permissive than the sign overlay the Delta Center Block currently
has. The proposal would include the following standards:
•awning canopy signs limited to 3 square feet per linear foot of building face; 75 square feet
maximum.
•Flat Sign (Storefront Orientation) limited to one per building entry
•Flat Sign Display, Electronic Changeable Copy may not be larger than 1400 square feet per sign
•Monument Signs limited to 1 square foot per linear foot of street frontage and no more than 5 per
city block
•Parking Entrance Blade Sign (Projecting Parking Entry Sign) limited to 16 square feet per side; 32
square feet total with the noted location limitations
•Special Event Sign may not cover more than 40% of the building.
Page | 8
The Planning Commission forwarded a favorable recommendation with following conditions for Council to
consider
•UMOCA and Abravanel Hall be removed from the overlay; and
•The City Council carefully considers limitations and regulations around illumination of signs,
projecting signs and displays, LCD displays and projected images.
Key Considerations
Pages 4-8 of the Planning Commission staff report outline four key considerations. Below is a short
summary of each issue. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for full analysis.
1. Building Height
•The proposal would modify the maximum height allowed through design review from 125
feet to 600 feet.
•Lots of public feedback was focused on how additional height would impact existing
buildings such as the Japanese Church of Christ, Buddhist Temple and County owned
properties such as Abravanel Hall and the Museum of Contemporary Art (UMOCA)
•Planning noted zoning regulation can be used to reduce the impact to adjacent properties.
This may include limiting building height, increasing setbacks, including spacing of towers
when they exceed a certain height, and other similar regulations.
2. Changing Heliports from a Conditional Use to a Permitted Use
•The original request included making heliports a permitted use. Based on input received,
this has been dropped from the proposal.
3. Sign Regulations Consideration
•The proposal would expand the arena sign overlay to the Salt Palace blocks and could result
in more nighttime light emission that could impact some adjacent and nearby land uses,
such as light trespass into residential uses, flashing lights, and other similar impacts
created by digital signs.
•The applicant for the district authorized under SB272 (Smith Entertainment Group) has
indicated they would like to allow off premise advertising within the district.
▪A change like this would require the city to modify the current prohibition on new
billboards within the city.
▪It would be a major policy change for the city. Therefore, the proposal is focused on
“on-premise” advertising.
•As noted above, in March 2023 Salt Lake County initiated a petition that would create a
sign overlay as it applies to the Salt Palace Convention Center. Please see the section
above for more detailed information.
4. Benefits of proposed text amendment
•Planning staff outline how the surrounding blocks with the D4 zoning designation may be
impacted by the changes to the D4 zone. Ultimately, the proposal could lead to many
changes on these blocks that could help facilitate and support a sports, entertainment,
culture and convention district.
5. Public Input.
Page | 9
•Many of the public comments expressed concern and support for the preservation of
Abravanel Hall, the proposed sales tax increase and using public money for professional
sports.
V3 Page 1 of 8
Project Title: Entertainment District Code Changes
Petition No.: PLNPCM2024-00441
Version: 3
Date Prepared: August 22, 2024
Planning Commission Action: Not Recommended 6/12/2024
This proposed ordinance makes the following amendments (for summary purposes only):
Amends Section 21A.30.045 to clarify front yard setback requirements and modify
building height within the D-4 zoning district subject to design review and other
provisions.
Amends Section 21A.33.050 to allow “Parking, commercial”, and “Stadium” as
permitted uses.
Amends Section 21A.46.110.A.3.b by expanding the location of the Arena Sign Overlay
to include the Salt Palace blocks, provides a process to amend sign specific regulations
within the overlay, and specifically prohibit off-premise advertising signs.
Underlined text is new; text with strikethrough is proposed to be deleted. Modifications made as
part of the Planning Commission recommendation are highlighted in yellow. All other text is
existing with no proposed change. Text with double underline is in response to the City
Council’s July 2, 2024 direction.
1. Amends Section 21A.30.045.D as follows: 1
D. Yard Requirements: 2
1. Front and Corner Side Yards: No minimum yards are required., however, a 3
maximum front yard setback of eight feet (8') is allowed. If a front or corner side 4
yard is provided, the maximum setback shall be eight feet, except for plazas and 5
other similar spaces. 6
a. If a yard is provided, The yard must be designed with the usability as a 7
consideration. Development that implements the maximum the yard is 8
required to have at least one of the following elements: 9
(1) Seating at a ratio of at least one bench for every five hundred (500) square 10
feet of yard space; 11
(2) Landscaping that includes an increase of at least twenty five percent 12
(25%) in the total number of trees required to be planted on the site; or 13
(3) Awning or a similar form of weather protection that covers at least five 14
feet (5') in width and length from all street-facing building entrances. 15
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date: ___________________________
By: ____________________________
Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney
August 22, 2024
V3 Page 2 of 8
b. Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized through the design review 16
process, subject to the requirements of Chapter 21A.59 of this title. . 17
c. The planning director, in consultation with the transportation director, may 18
modify this requirement to accommodate a wider sidewalk if the adjacent 19
public sidewalk is less than fifteen feet (15') wide and the resulting 20
modification to the setback results in a more efficient public sidewalk. The 21
planning director may waive this requirement for any addition, expansions, or 22
intensification, which increases the floor area or parking requirement by less 23
than fifty percent (50%) if the planning director finds the following: 24
(1) The architecture of the addition is compatible with the architecture of the 25
original structure or the surrounding architecture, or 26
(2) The addition reduces the extent of the noncompliance of the existing 27
building. 28
d. Regardless of the setback provided, doors shall be setback a minimum 29
distance to allow the door to operate without swinging into a right of way or 30
midblock walkway. 31
2. Interior Side Yards: No minimum side yard is required except a minimum of ten 32
feet (10') is required when the side yard is adjacent abutting to a zoning district 33
with a maximum permitted height of thirty five feet (35') or less. 34
3. Rear Yard: No minimum rear yard is required except a minimum of ten feet (10') 35
is required when the rear yard is abutting to a zoning district with a maximum 36
permitted height of thirty five feet (35') or less. 37
38
2. Amends Section 21A.30.045.E as follows: 39
40
E. Building Height: Buildings in the D-4 zoning district shall comply with the 41
following provisions: 42
1. The permitted building height shall not exceed seventy five feet (75') 600 feet. 43
2. Buildings taller than seventy-five feet (75') 200 feet and up to one hundred twenty 44
feet (120') may and up to 600 feet shall only be authorized through the design 45
review process, subject to the requirements of Chapter 21A.59 of this title and the 46
following regulations. 47
a. Additional Height: Additional height may be authorized up to one hundred 48
twenty feet (120') if the street facing facades contain ground floor commercial 49
uses other than parking for at least seventy five percent (75%) of the street 50
facing facades according to Chapter 21A.37 and subject to approval through 51
the design review process in Chapter 21A.59. 52
V3 Page 3 of 8
b. Additional Permitted Height Location: Additional height greater than one 53
hundred twenty feet (120') but not more than three hundred seventy five feet 54
(375') in height is permitted in the area bounded by: 55
(1) The centerlines of South Temple, West Temple, 200 South, and 200 West 56
Streets; and 57
(2) Beginning at the Southeast Corner of Block 67, Plat 'A', Salt Lake City 58
Survey, and running thence along the south line of said Block 67, 59
N89°54'02"W 283.86 feet; thence N00°04'50"E 38.59 feet; thence 60
N10°46'51"W 238.70 feet; thence N24°45'15"W 62.98 feet; thence 61
S89°54'02"E 355.45 feet to the east line of said Block 67; thence along 62
said east line S00°06'35"W 330.14 feet to the point of beginning. Contains 63
102,339 square feet, or 2.349 acres, more or less. 64
65
3. Buildings in excess of one hundred twenty feet (120') up to three hundred seventy 66
five feet (375') may be authorized subject to the following provisions: 67
a. Approval is subject to Chapter 21A.59 Design Review; 68
b.a. Shall include a minimum stepback of five feet (5') or other architectural 69
feature that can deflect snow and ice from falling directly onto a sidewalk, 70
V3 Page 4 of 8
midblock walkway, or other public space. The stepback may be located above 71
the height of the first floor and below one hundred twenty feet (120') in height 72
above the sidewalk or public space. Buildings that are clad in glass that totals 73
less than fifty percent (50%) of the total wall surface area are exempt from 74
this requirement; Buildings with less than fifty percent (50%) of the total 75
façade surface cladded in glass are exempt from this requirement; and 76
c. The additional height is supported by the applicable master plan; and 77
db. The building includes at least one of the following five options: 78
(1) Midblock walkway is provided on the property and the. The midblock 79
walkway connects to an existing or planned street, midblock walkway, or 80
publicly accessible public space and exceeds all the required dimensions 81
of Section 21A.30.010.G by at least five feet;. This option allows for 82
additional height in return for exceeding the midblock walkway 83
requirements; 84
(2) The building is utilizing affordable housing incentives identified 85
in chapter 21A.52 of this title.; 86
(3) The property where the building is located exceeds the minimum 87
requirement for ground floor uses identified in Chapter 21A.37 (Design 88
Standards) of this title, specifically: 89
(A) For Subsection 21A.37.050.A.1 (Design Standards Defined, 90
Ground Floor Use Only), the requirement must be increased to one hundred 91
percent (100%). This option requires that the entire ground floor use of a 92
building consists of retail good establishments, retail service establishments or 93
restaurants, public service portions of businesses, department stores, art 94
galleries, motion picture theaters, performing art facilities or similar uses that 95
encourages walk-in traffic through an active use. Vehicle entry and exit ways, 96
necessary for access to parking and loading and unloading areas required by 97
this title are exempt from this requirement provided these areas do not exceed 98
20% of the length of a building façade that faces a public street or public 99
space; or 100
(B) For Subsection 21A.37.050.A.2 (Design Standards Defined, Ground Floor 101
Use and Visual Interest), the ground floor use requirement must be increased 102
to seventy five percent (75%) and the visual interest requirement must be 103
increased to twenty five percent (25%). This option requires for an increased 104
percentage of ground floor space to be used for an active use, and an increased 105
percentage of the building to provide visual interest; 106
(4) The applicant provides a restrictive covenant on a historic building, a 107
building that is fifty (50) years or older, or a building that is a nationally 108
recognized property, located outside of the H Historic Preservation 109
V3 Page 5 of 8
Overlay District for the purpose of preserving the structure for a minimum 110
of fifty (50) years.; or 111
(5) The proposal includes a privately owned, publicly accessible open space 112
on the property or on another property within the geographic boundaries 113
of the Downtown Plan. To qualify for this provision, a restrictive covenant 114
in the favor of the city shall be recorded against the open space portion of 115
the property. The space shall be a minimum of five hundred (500) square 116
feet and include enough trees to provide a shade canopy that covers at 117
least sixty percent (60%) of the open space area. This option allows for 118
additional height in return for the designation of open public open space. 119
ec. Exception: The first fifty feet (50') of height shall not be set back from the 120
street front more than five feet except that setbacks greater than five feet (5') 121
may be from the front property line, unless approved through the design 122
review process or, has when otherwise allowed by this code. 123
3. Amends the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts in Section 124
21A.33.050 only as to the “Parking, Commercial” and “Stadium” uses, with no other 125
changes to the table, as follows: 126
127
Use Permitted and Condition Uses By District
D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4
Parking, commercial C19 P19 C19 PC19
Stadium C C PC
128
129
4. Amends Section 21A.46.110.A.3.b as follows: 130
131
b. Sports Arena and Convention Center Sign Regulations. Located on the Block 132
Between South Temple and 100 South Between 300 and 400 West Streets. The following 133
signs shall be permitted on the blocks that contain the sports arena and convention center, 134
described as follows: beginning at the southwest corner of the intersection of South 135
Temple and West Temple Streets, heading south to the intersection of 200 South and 136
West Temple Streets, thence west to the intersection of 200 South and 200 West Streets, 137
thence north to the intersection of 100 South and 200 West, thence west to the 138
intersection of 100 South and 400 West Streets, thence north to the intersection of South 139
Temple and 400 West, thence east to the point of beginning. Modifications to sign 140
regulations within this overlay may be approved as part of the design review process for 141
any building that is subject to 21A.59. Signs shall not include off-premise advertising. 142
For the purpose of this section, signs may include advertising any business, facility, event 143
or event or facility sponsor which are located within the boundaries of the sports arena 144
and convention center sign regulations overlay. 145
V3 Page 6 of 8
STANDARDS FOR THE SPORTS ARENA AND CONVENTION CENTER. LOCATED ON 146
THE BLOCK BETWEEN SOUTH TEMPLE AND 100 SOUTH BETWEEN 300 AND 400 147
WEST STREETS 148
Types of Signs
Permitted7, 8, 9
Maximum Area
per Sign Face
Maximum Height
of Freestanding
Signs1
Minimum
Setback2
Number of Signs
Permitted per
Sign Type
Awning/canopy
signs
5 square feet per
linear foot of
canopy length
(sign area only)
Shall not be located
above the second
floor level of the
building for both
awning and canopy
signs
May extend 6
feet from face
of building but
not within 2
feet from back
of curb
1 per first floor
window/door,
may be combined
with adjacent
doors/ windows
Flat sign
(general
building
orientation)
5 square feet per
linear foot of
building face
See note 1 n/a 1 per building
face
Flat sign
(storefront
orientation)
Flat sign
(storefront
orientation)
See note 1 n/a 3 per business
storefront
Flat sign
display,
electronic
changeable
copy3
No larger than
1,400 square
feet per sign
See note 1 n/a 5 per city block
Freestanding
sign, electronic
changeable
copy4
Not more than
1,600 square
feet per sign,
which may be
located in a
continuous
round display
45 feet n/a 2 per city block
Monument sign 3 square feet per
linear foot of
street frontage
20 feet None 5 per street
frontage
Private
directional sign5
100 square feet 20 feet No setback No limit
V3 Page 7 of 8
Roof sign 5 square feet per
linear foot of
building
frontage
20 feet above the
roof line or parapet
wall
n/a 1 per building
Roof surface
sign
30,000 square
feet6
n/a n/a 1 per roof surface
Special event
light pole sign
10 square feet 20 feet n/a 2 per light pole
Special event
sign
Sign may cover
up to 60% of
total building
face7
May not exceed the
height of building
n/a 1 per street
frontage
Window sign 90% of total
frontage window
area (interior or
exterior) for
sports arena
events, not to
exceed 6 months
in duration for
each calendar
year unless
otherwise
allowed by the
zoning
administrator.
No Limit n/a No Limit
Notes: 149
1. For height limits on building signs, see Subsection 21A.46.070.J of this chapter.Reserved 150
2. Public property lease and insurance required for projection over property line. 151
3. Flat sign, electronic changeable copy may display static or rotating messages or operate 152
as outdoor television monitors. 153
4. An advertising face on a freestanding sign with electronic changeable copy that is not 154
oriented to a public street may be operated to allow full motion video display. Displays 155
oriented to a public street must not allow animation, may change no more frequently than 156
every 8 seconds and must complete each transition within 1 second. 157
5. Private directional sign may include electronic changeable copy within the sign area. 158
V3 Page 8 of 8
6. To be located on the horizontal plane of a roof surface, primarily viewable from planes 159
and surrounding buildings located above the arena. 160
7. Advertising or corporate logos are limited to on premises advertising of sports arena 161
events and sponsors only. 162
8. Dwell and Twirl time: Text, images, or graphics on an electronic message center shall not 163
change more than once every eight (8) seconds. Twirl time between subsequent static 164
text, images, or graphics shall not exceed one-fourth (0.25) second. Outdoor television 165
monitors are exempt. 166
9. Brightness: No electronic message center shall exceed a brightness level of three-tenths 167
(0.3) foot-candle as measured at a pre-set distance. The measurement distance shall be 168
determined based on the area of the electronic message center using the following 169
formula: the square root of (the electronic message center area times 100). Fractions shall 170
be rounded to the nearest foot. 171
172
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
Planning Commission June 12, 2024
PLNPCM2024-00441
SPORTS, ENTERTAINMENT,
CULTURAL, AND
CONVENTION DISTRICT
CODE CHANGES
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
WHERE IS THE D4
ZONE?
•D1 zone
•No height limit
•Extends to 300 West on South Temple
•Extends to 200 West at 200 South and
400 South
•Recently expanded to west side of 200
West at 500 South.
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
CURRENT
ALLOWED HEIGHT
Orange: 125 feet
Blue: 180 feet
Yellow: 375 feet
Red: no limit
Design review:
Orange and yellow: 75 feet
Blue: 90 feet
Red: 200 feet
375 feet
No Limit
125 feet
No Limit
180 feet
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
ISSUES
•Height
•Opposed to height
•Blocking views
•Shadows from tall buildings
•Heliports
•Will remain conditional use
•Signs
•Light impacts
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
PROPOSED HEIGHT
Initial proposal:
•No maximum height
•Design review above 75 feet
Modified proposal
•Permitted height: 75 feet
•600 feet: with design review
•Lower than D1, higher than
other parts of downtown
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
HEIGHT IMPACTS
Downtown plan defines view corridors
•Public views, not private views
Shadows:
•Provides shade from heat
•Colder in winter
Historic Buildings
•No locally protected buildings in D4
•May consider:
•Increased setbacks
•Stepbacks at certain heights
•Design review includes impact standards
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
LAND USE CHANGES
•Parking (commercial): change to
permitted
•Stadium: change to permitted
•Proposal has changed:
•Heliports stay conditional
•Off site parking: already
permitted
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
SIGN REGULATIONS
•Extend Arena Overlay to Salt
Palace blocks
•D1 and D4 have same sign
regulations, no changes
proposed
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
SIGN REGULATIONS
•Overlay allows different types
and sizes of signs
Flat Sign: Building Orientation
1 per building face
5 square feet for every foot of building frontage
Flat Sign: Storefront Orientation
3 per storefront
2 square feet per linear foot of storefront
Roof Sign
20 feet above roofline
5 square feet per building frontage
One per building
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
SIGN REGULATIONS
Freestanding Electronic Changeable
Copy Signs
45 feet in height (includes structure)
1600 square feet max
2 per city block
No off site advertising
Special Event Signs
60% of building façade
1 per street frontage
Window Sign
90% of window area
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
DOWNTOWN PLAN
•High Rise Core
(CBD):
•Grow to the
south and
west
•D1 zone=CBD
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
DOWNTOWN PLAN: 5 KEY MOVES
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
DOWNTOWN PLAN
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
DOWNTOWN PLAN
“The desired result is a 24-hour downtown fueled by significant
numbers of new employees, residents and visitors, both day
trip and overnight guests.
In partnership with the arena and adjacent stakeholders, city
hall should develop strategies to support this growth.”
Downtown Plan, page 88
Different name in 2016
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
SALT PALACE DISTRICT VISION
“Active street fronts”
“artistic entertainment
opportunities”
“well connected”
“The Salt Palace does
not turn its back to the
streets”
Downtown Plan, pg 100
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
HOUSING POLICIES
Locate family housing in areas
with good access to schools (West
High is a 10-15 minute walk)
Modify zoning regulations to
encourage a variety of housing
types
Align city hall programs with other
financing programs to implement
affordable housing near transit.
Downtown Plan, pg 40
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
ALTERNATIVES: JAPANESE CHURCH OF
CHRIST
•Increase setbacks from the
church
•Limit height of buildings
immediately adjacent to
current height.
•Maintain and expand
existing garden around
property
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
ALTERNATIVES: SMITH
ENTERTAINMENT GROUP
•Design review above 400 feet
•Off premise advertising allowed
in sign overlay
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
RECOMMENDATION
Planning Commission Recommendation: Not Adopt, but:
•FUNDING RENOVATIONS OF ABRAVANEL HALL IN CURRENT LOCATION AND FORM;
•BUFFER JAPANESE CHURCH OF CHRIST, ADJACENT GARDEN, AND BUDDHIST TEMPLE TO AVOID IMPACTS;
•REQUIRE A COMMUNITY BENEFIT
Staff Recommendation: Adopt as follows
•INCREASE ALLOWED HEIGHT TO 600 FEET IN D4 ZONE
•Maintain design review above 75 feet
•STADIUMS AND COMMERCIAL PARKING BE A PERMITTED USE
•Heliports to remain a conditional use
•EXTEND THE ARENA SIGN OVERLAY TO THE SALT PALACE BLOCKS
•No off-premise advertising at this time
1
______________
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
jill love 06/18/2024
jill love (Jun 18, 2024 17:01 MDT)Date Received:
Jill Love, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: 06/18/2024
TO:Salt Lake City Council DATE: 06/18/2024
Victoria Petro, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods
_
SUBJECT:PLNPCM2024-00441 Sports, Entertainment, Cultural, and Convention District Text
Amendments
STAFF CONTACT: Nick Norris, Planning Director, nick.norris@slcgov.com 801-535-6173
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council review the recommendation from the Planning
Commission and the Planning Division and consider adopting an ordinance that supports the
zoning changes to implement the Downtown Plan. The Planning Commission recommended not
adopting the proposal or a modified proposal, while the Planning Division is recommending
adopting the proposal.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This proposal was initiated by Mayor Erin Mendenhall in
response to SB 272 Capitol City Revitalization Act which was adopted by the Utah Legislature
earlier this year. SB 272 established a process for creating a “project area” to support the
development of an entertainment district around a stadium that is home to a professional sports
franchise. One of the requirements of the act is that the zoning to support the project area be in
place by September 1, 2024. The proposed zoning changes are intended to satisfy the deadline in
State Code and expand the development potential within the D4 Secondary Central Business
Zoning District.
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
2
D-4 PROPOSED CHANGES
The proposed text amendments include the following general changes to the D4 Secondary Central
Business District:
•Modify the maximum height allowed through design review from 125 feet to 600 feet.
•Modifying the required front and corner yard setback requirements are changing to clarify
that buildings with plazas and other similar public spaces are allowed to exceed the
maximum setback.
•Change the table of allowed uses for the D4 zoning district would change as follows:
o Stadiums change from a conditional use to a permitted use.
o Commercial parking would be changed from a conditional use to a permitted use.
(A current requirement prohibiting the demolition of a building for principal use
parking on the property would remain.)
•Expand the existing sign overlay that applies to the Delta Center to extended to the blocks
that contain the Salt Palace. This allows more flexibility for signs related to the
entertainment venues within the overlay and allows modifications to signs through the
design review process for buildings that are subject to design review.
o The Planning Commission recently reviewed a proposed sign overlay for the Salt
Palace (PLNPCM2023-00154). That proposal is like the existing arena sign overlay
and would allow additional sign types and larger signs. The Planning Commission
recommended adoption of that proposal with modifications that included removing
the land where the Utah Museum of Contemporary Art and Abravanel Hall from
the sign overlay and recommending limitations on illuminated signs. The council
has not yet discussed the Salt Palace sign overlay. The proposal associated with
the Sports, Entertainment, Culture, and Convention District would extend the sign
overlay that applies to the arena to the Salt Palace blocks, resulting in one overlay
instead of two. The council may want to consider both of those proposals at the
same time or extend the sign overlay to only one block directly east of the Delta
Center.
o The D1 and D4 zones currently have the same base sign regulations. The arena
overlay mostly increases the size of the allowed signs. Digital signs are already
allowed within the overlay and within the base sign regulations.
The details of the proposed text changes can be found in the attached ordinance.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning Division recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the proposed
amendments. The staff report presented to the commission identified several options that the
commission may consider for amending the proposal. The Planning Commission, however,
recommended that the council not adopt the proposal. The Commission did not offer modifications
to the proposal for consideration, but did recommend that the City Council consider:
•Maintaining Abravanel Hall in its current location and current form and allocating funds
for its renovation.
•A buffer be applied to the Japanese Church of Christ and adjacent garden and the Buddhist
Temple to avoid impacting historic buildings.
•That the City Council require a community benefit.
3
The motion passed unanimously. The reasons cited include the proposal not complying with the
Downtown Plan or the purpose statement of the D4 zoning district and that the process was moving
too quickly.
PUBLIC PROCESS: This proposal included an online open house, an in-person open house,
and a public hearing with the Planning Commission. A mailed notice was sent to all property
owners and known occupants of each building and dwelling unit within the D4 zoning district, to
all owners and occupants within 300 feet of the boundary of the D4 zoning district, and the
Planning Division email list. The public hearing was also posted on the Utah Public Notice
website and the Planning Commission website. In addition, notice was also sent to the
Downtown and Capitol Hill Community Councils.
Due to the September 1, 2024 deadline, the city utilized City Zoning Code section
21A.10.015.B.4 which allows for an exemption from the 45-day public input period under
certain circumstances. This proposal utilized exemption a.(1) of 21A.10.015.B.4 which
authorizes code amendments that are subject to an adoption deadline or action date set forth in
legislation adopted by the Utah Legislature. The exemption utilized allowed the commission to
make a recommendation within the required 45-day notification period. The notification period
started on April 29th when all required notice of the 45-day notice period was mailed. The 45-
day period ended on June 14, 2024. The Planning Commission made a recommendation on June
11, 2024.
A summary of the public engagement, along with all written public comment received through
noon on June 11, 2024 can be found in the Planning Commission staff report. Two email
comments were received after noon on June 11, 2024. Those comments were read into the record
of the Planning Commission.
Planning Commission (PC) Records
Due to the deadline in Utah Code, this transmittal provides a link to where the planning
commission records will be placed. The minutes of the meeting will not be posted until they are
approved by the Planning Commission, which is likely to happen after the transmittal is
forwarded to the City Council.
a)PC Agenda of June 12, 2024 (Click to Access)
b)PC Minutes of June 12, 2024 (Click to Access, will not be posted until approved)
c)Planning Commission Staff Report of June 12, 2024 (Click to Access Report)
EXHIBITS:
1) Ordinance
2) Project Chronology
3) Notice of City Council Hearing
4) Petition Initiation Request
5) Public Comment Received After PC Public Hearing
6) Mailing list
4
1. Ordinance
5
Project Title: Ente1tainment District Code Changes
Petition No.: PLNPCM2024-00441
Version: I
Date Prepared: June 18, 2024
Planning Commission Action: Not Recommended 6/12/2024
This proposed ordinance makes the following amendments (for summa1y purposes only):
•Amends Section 21A.30.045 to clarify front yard setback requirements and modify
building height within the D-4 zoning district subject to design review and other
prov1s10ns.
•Amends Section 21A.33.050 to allow "Parking, commercial", and '"Stadium" as
permitted uses.
•Amends Section 21A.46.110.A.3.b by expanding the location of the Arena Sign Overlay
to include the Salt Palace blocks, provides a process to amend sign specific regulations
within the overlay, and specifically prohibit off-premise adve1tising signs.
Underlined text is new; text with strikethrough is proposed to be deleted. Modifications made as
part of the Planning Commission recommendation are highlighted in yellow. All other text is
existing with no proposed change.
1 J. Amends Section 21A.30.045.D as follows:
2 D.Yard Requirements:
3 1. Front and Comer Side Yards: No minimum yards are required.:., ho1Ne>1er, a
4 ma:x:imll:Hl froat yanl seteaek of eight feet (8') is allov,•ed. If a front or comer side
5 yard is provided, the maximum setback shall be eight feet except for plazas and
6 other similar spaces.
7 a. If a yard is provided, The )'El:fft IBtiSt ee desigHed vrith the llSaeihty Effi a
8 soDBiaeratioa. De:r;elOf):EBeBt t;aat imf>lemeats the H:l-HEB. the yard is
9 required to have at least one of the following elements:
10 (1) Seating at a ratio of at least one bench for every five hundred (500) square
11 feet of yard space;
12 (2) Landscaping that includes an increase of at least twenty five percent
13 (25%) in the total number of trees required to be planted on the site; or
14 (3) Awning or a similar form of weather protection that covers at least five
15 feet (5') in width and length from all street-facing building entrances.
VI Page 1 of 8
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney's Office
Date:
By: _----------------------------------------'I
Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney
6
16 b. Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized through the design review
17 process, subject to the requirements of Chapter 21A.59 of this title. .
18 c. The planning director, in consultation with the transportation director, may
19 modify this requirement to accommodate a wider sidewalk if the adjacent
20 public sidewalk is less than fifteen feet (15') wide and the resulting
21 modification to the setback results in a more efficient public sidewalk. The
22 planning director may waive this requirement for any addition, expansions, or
23 intensification, which increases the floor area or parking requirement by less
24 than fifty percent (50%) if the planning director finds the following:
25 (1) The architecture of the addition is compatible with the architecture of the
26 original structure or the surrounding architecture, or
27 (2) The addition reduces the extent of the noncompliance of the existing
28 building.
29 d. Regardless of the setback provided, doors shall be setback a minimum
30 distance to allow the door to operate without swinging into a right of way or
31 midblock walkway.
32 2. Interior Side Yards: No minimum side yard is required except a minimum of ten
33 feet (10') is required when the side yard is adjacent abutting to a zoning district
34 with a maximum permitted height of thirty five feet (35') or less.
35 3. Rear Yard: No minimum rear yard is required except a minimum of ten feet (10')
36 is required when the rear yard is abutting to a zoning district with a maximum
37 permitted height of thirty five feet (35') or less.
38
39 2. Amends Section 21A.30.045.E as follows:
40
41 E. Building Height: Buildings in the D-4 zoning district shall comply with the
42 following provisions:
The permitted building height shall not exceed seventy five feet (75') 600 feet.
Buildings taller than seventy-five feet (75') and up to one hundred twenty feet
(120') may and up to 600 feet shall only be authorized through the design review
process, subject to the requirements of Chapter 21A.59 of this title and the
following regulations.
a. Additional Height: Additional height may be authorized up to one hundred
twenty feet (120') if the street facing facades contain ground floor commercial
uses other than parking for at least seventy five percent (75%) of the street
facing facades according to Chapter 21A.37 and subject to approval through
the design review process in Chapter 21A.59.
Page 2 of 8
43 1.
44 2.
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
V1
VI Page 3 of 8
7
53 b..Additioeal PeHIHtted Height Loeatioe: 1-..dditioeal height greater thae oee
54 B-Mnarna tweet,' Feet (12Q') ettt est HlBt"e i½aH tB£ee B-Mnarea se1,eet,r H1,e Feet
55 (375') Hl: height is peHB:itted ffl the area 00Uflded by:
56 (1) The eenterhees of South Temple, West Temple, 200 South, flfl:d 200 ·west
57 Strnets; flfl:d
58 (2) BegHl::Elffig at the Soatheast Comer of Block a7, Plat 'A', Salt Lake City
59 gHP,'e;r, BH@ fl¼l½BH)g theeee a,l,seg the seath li.He of saia Bleek 07,
60 N89°54'02"Vl 283.86 feet; thence N00°04'50"E 38.59 feet; thence
61 Nl0°46'5l"Vl 238.70 feet; theeee N24°45'15"Vl 62.98 feet; theeee
62 sg9°54'02"E 355.45 feetto the east hee of said Block a7; theace a.loeg
63 said east hee S00°06'35"\V 330.14 feet to the poi.Ht ofbegiaemg. Cnetai.Hs
64 102,339 sqttat"e Feet, or 2.3 49 a.eres, Htore or less.
65
66 3. BailB:Hlgs Hl e (eess of oee hmulred tv,,enty feet (120') llfl to thrne hllfld:J.ed sev,eHty
67 fi¥e feet (375') Hltlry" be authorized subject to the fullowHl:g ptw.;iuions:
68 a. Af)prn>tal is sttbjeet to Chapter 2L<\.59 Design Re>ti:ew;
69 &.-a.Shall include a minimum stepback of five feet (51) or other architectural
70 feature that can deflect snow and ice from falling directly onto a sidewalk,
V1 Page 4 of 8
8
71 midblock walkway, or other public space. The stepback may be located above
72 the height of the first floor and below one hundred twenty feet (120') in height
73 above the sidewalk or public space. Buildings that are clad in glass that totals
74 less than fifty percent (50%) of the total wall surface area are exempt from
75 this requirement; Buildings with less than fifty percent (50%) of the total
76 façade surface cladded in glass are exempt from this requirement; and
77 c. The additional height is supported by the applicable master plan; and
78 db. The building includes at least one of the following five options:
79 (1) Midblock walkway is provided on the property and the. The midblock
80 walkway connects to an existing or planned street, midblock walkway, or
81 publicly accessible public space and exceeds all the required dimensions
82 of Section 21A.30.010.G by at least five feet;. This option allows for
83 additional height in return for exceeding the midblock walkway
84 requirements;
85 (2) The building is utilizing affordable housing incentives identified
86 in chapter 21A.52 of this title.;
87 (3) The property where the building is located exceeds the minimum
88 requirement for ground floor uses identified in Chapter 21A.37 (Design
89 Standards) of this title, specifically:
90 (A) For Subsection 21A.37.050.A.1 (Design Standards Defined,
91 Ground Floor Use Only), the requirement must be increased to one hundred
92 percent (100%). This option requires that the entire ground floor use of a
93 building consists of retail good establishments, retail service establishments or
94 restaurants, public service portions of businesses, department stores, art
95 galleries, motion picture theaters, performing art facilities or similar uses that
96 encourages walk-in traffic through an active use. Vehicle entry and exit ways,
97 necessary for access to parking and loading and unloading areas required by
98 this title are exempt from this requirement provided these areas do not exceed
99 20% of the length of a building façade that faces a public street or public
100 space; or
101 (B) For Subsection 21A.37.050.A.2 (Design Standards Defined, Ground Floor
102 Use and Visual Interest), the ground floor use requirement must be increased
103 to seventy five percent (75%) and the visual interest requirement must be
104 increased to twenty five percent (25%). This option requires for an increased
105 percentage of ground floor space to be used for an active use, and an increased
106 percentage of the building to provide visual interest;
107 (4) The applicant provides a restrictive covenant on a historic building, a
108 building that is fifty (50) years or older, or a building that is a nationally
109 recognized property, located outside of the H Historic Preservation
V1 Page 5 of 8
9
110 Overlay District for the purpose of preserving the structure for a minimum
111 of fifty (50) years.; or
112 (5) The proposal includes a privately owned, publicly accessible open space
113 on the property or on another property within the geographic boundaries
114 of the Downtown Plan. To qualify for this provision, a restrictive covenant
115 in the favor of the city shall be recorded against the open space portion of
116 the property. The space shall be a minimum of five hundred (500) square
117 feet and include enough trees to provide a shade canopy that covers at
118 least sixty percent (60%) of the open space area. This option allows for
119 additional height in return for the designation of open public open space.
120 ec. Exception: The first fifty feet (50') of height shall not be set back from the
121 street front more than five feet except that setbacks greater than five feet (5')
122 may be from the front property line, unless approved through the design
123 review process or, has when otherwise allowed by this code.
124 3. Amends the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts in Section
125 21A.33.050 only as to the “Parking, Commercial” and “Stadium” uses, with no other
126 changes to the table, as follows:
127
Permitted and Condition Uses By DistrictUse
D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4
Parking, commercial C19 P19 C19 PC19
Stadium C C PC
128
129
130 4. Amends Section 21A.46.110.A.3.b as follows:
131
132 b. Sports Arena and Convention Center Sign Regulations. Located on the Block
133 Between South Temple and 100 South Between 300 and 400 West Streets. The following
134 signs shall be permitted on the blocks that contain the sports arena and convention center,
135 described as follows: beginning at the southwest corner of the intersection of South
136 Temple and West Temple Streets, heading south to the intersection of 200 South and
137 West Temple Streets, thence west to the intersection of 200 South and 200 West Streets,
138 thence north to the intersection of 100 South and 200 West, thence west to the
139 intersection of 100 South and 400 West Streets, thence north to the intersection of South
140 Temple and 400 West, thence east to the point of beginning. Modifications to sign
141 regulations within this overlay may be approved as part of the design review process for
142 any building that is subject to 21A.59. Signs shall not include off-premise advertising.
143 STANDARDS FOR THE SPORTS ARENA AND CONVENTION CENTER. LOCATED ON
144 THE BLOCK BETWEEN SOUTH TEMPLE AND 100 SOUTH BETWEEN 300 AND 400
145 WEST STREETS
V1 Page 6 of 8
10
Types of Signs
Permitted7
Maximum Area
per Sign Face
Maximum Height
of Freestanding
Signs1
Minimum
Setback2
Number of Signs
Permitted per
Sign Type
Awning/canopy
signs
5 square feet per
linear foot of
canopy length
(sign area only)
Shall not be located
above the second
floor level of the
building for both
awning and canopy
signs
May extend 6
feet from face
of building but
not within 2
feet from back
of curb
1 per first floor
window/door,
may be combined
with adjacent
doors/ windows
Flat sign
(general
building
orientation)
5 square feet per
linear foot of
building face
See note 1 n/a 1 per building
face
Flat sign
(storefront
orientation)
Flat sign
(storefront
orientation)
See note 1 n/a 3 per business
storefront
Flat sign
display,
electronic
changeable
copy3
No larger than
1,400 square
feet per sign
See note 1 n/a 5 per city block
Freestanding
sign, electronic
changeable
copy4
Not more than
1,600 square
feet per sign,
which may be
located in a
continuous
round display
45 feet n/a 2 per city block
Monument sign 3 square feet per
linear foot of
street frontage
20 feet None 5 per street
frontage
Private
directional sign5
100 square feet 20 feet No setback No limit
Roof sign 5 square feet per
linear foot of
20 feet above the
roof line or parapet
wall
n/a 1 per building
V1 Page 7 of 8
11
building
frontage
Roof surface
sign
30,000 square
feet6
n/a n/a 1 per roof surface
Special event
light pole sign
10 square feet 20 feet n/a 2 per light pole
Special event
sign
Sign may cover
up to 60% of
total building
face7
May not exceed the
height of building
n/a 1 per street
frontage
Window sign 90% of total
frontage window
area (interior or
exterior) for
sports arena
events, not to
exceed 6 months
in duration for
each calendar
year unless
otherwise
allowed by the
zoning
administrator.
No Limit n/a No Limit
146 Notes:
147 1. For height limits on building signs, see Subsection 21A.46.070.J of this chapter.Reserved
148 2. Public property lease and insurance required for projection over property line.
149 3. Flat sign, electronic changeable copy may display static or rotating messages or operate
150 as outdoor television monitors.
151 4. An advertising face on a freestanding sign with electronic changeable copy that is not
152 oriented to a public street may be operated to allow full motion video display. Displays
153 oriented to a public street must not allow animation, may change no more frequently than
154 every 8 seconds and must complete each transition within 1 second.
155 5. Private directional sign may include electronic changeable copy within the sign area.
156 6. To be located on the horizontal plane of a roof surface, primarily viewable from planes
157 and surrounding buildings located above the arena.
V1 Page 8 of 8
12
158 7. Advertising or corporate logos are limited to on premises advertising of sports arena
159 events and sponsors only.
160
13
2. Project Chronology
14
Chronology
April 18, 2024 Petition Initiated.
April 25, 2024 Notice sent via email to Downtown and Capitol Hill Community Councils
April 29, 2024 Notices of public input period, May 9, 2024 open house, and May 22, 2024
Planning Commission public hearing mailed.
May 9, 2024 In person open house held outside of the Delta Center.
May 13, 2024 May 22nd Planning Commission Public Hearing postponed until June 12, 2024.
Updated notice of new date of public hearing mailed.
June 12, 2024 Planning Commission Public Hearing held.
15
3. Notice of City Council Hearing
16
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2024-00441 Zoning Text Amendment to
the D4 zoning district to support the creation of a Sports, Entertainment, Culture, and Convention District
around the Delta Center and Salt Palace Convention Center. The proposed text amendments increase the
allowed building height in the D4 zone, change stadiums and commercial parking uses from conditional
to permitted uses, expand the Arena Sign Overlay to the Salt Palace blocks, and makes other minor
changes to the D4 zoning district.
As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments
regarding the petition. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this
issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance the same
night of the public hearing.
DATE: , at 7:00 PM
PLACE: Electronic and in-person options.
451 South State Street, Roon 326, Salt Lake City, Utah
** This meeting will be held via electronic means, while also providing 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 Zoom 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 Nick
Norris at 801-535-6173 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or via e-
mail at nick.norris@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at
https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “planning” tab and entering the petition number
PLNPCM2024-00441.
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.
17
4. Petition Initiation Request
18
19
5. Public Comment Received After PC Public Hearing
20
Norris, Nick
F1rom:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Stephen Erickson Wednesday, June 12, 2024 1:25 PM
Norris, Nick; Planninq Public Comments
(EXTERNAL) Comments for Planning Commission re: rezone for downtown (SEG)
Comments to Sl..:Cre Sports Entertainment Zone.docx
I Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments.
Dear Mr. Norris and Planning Commissioners,
As a volunteer for Crossroads Urban Center, I am writing to support comments Crossroads submitted for you
meeting tonight, and to add a couple of my own. I have also attached for your information a letter I submitted
to the City Council for their meeting on May 21.
I think it wise for the Commission to postpone any action on the proposed rezone downtown until the decisions
are made whether or not to create a Community Reinvestment Area or a Housing and Transit Reinvestment
Zone for downtown redevelopment, as well as to await more information about the projects envisioned and the
Community Benefits Agreements sought. There is enough time under SB 272 to allow for a more informed
and robust public review process, and these decisions could have a significant influence upon the direction and
financing options for any redevelopment.
I also wish to state my personal objection to the proposed heliport, which I think is unnecessary and would add
too much noise pollution downtown. Additionally, II would caution against a too-liberal allowance of light-
polluting and obnoxious, invasive electric signage.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Respectfully,
Steve Erickson
Salt Lake City, UT 84103
21
Norris, Nick
From:Bill Tibbitts
Sent:Tuesday, June 11, 2024 2:37 PM
To:Mendenhall, Erin
Cc:Glenn Bailey; Petro, Victoria; Puy, Alejandro; Wharton, Chris; Lopez Chavez, Eva; Mano,
Darin; Dugan, Dan; Young, Sarah; Otto, Rachel; City Council Liaisons; Council Comments;
Mayor; Thomas, Blake; Norris, Nick; Clark, Aubrey; Planning Public Comments
Subject:Re: (EXTERNAL) Letter about Delta Center rezone proposal (Letter attached this time)
Dear Mayor Mendenhall, City Council Members, and Planning Commissioners:
We have been pleased by recent media reports stating that Salt Lake City elected officials are
negotiating with Smith Entertainment Group to obtain significant community benefits for all city
residents in the proposed Delta Center tax and redevelopment plan. We are particularly pleased to
read that there are negotiations underway to include affordable housing in this major development.
Today we ask city leaders to postpone all votes on zoning changes or tax increases in support of the
tax and redevelopment plan until the details about housing and other community benefits are finalized
and made available to the public. A delay of days or weeks to finalize these kinds of details can only
improve the final outcome.
We also reiterate the position that we took on May 17, 2024, that ten percent of the units within the
proposed redevelopment should be affordable to households earning less than $30,000 per year and
that an additional ten percent be affordable to households earning less than $60,000 per year.
Bill Tibbitts (He/Him/His)
Deputy Executive Director
Crossroads Urban Center
347 South 400 East
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
www.crossroadsurbancenter.org
22
Norris, Nick
From:CM Crompton
Sent:Tuesday, June 11, 2024 4:55 PM
To:Norris, Nick
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Smith SPORTS/CONVENTION/ENTERTAINMENT/CULTURE. DIST. Proposal
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments.
Please consider the “livability” of mostly high-end housing encroached on by height (expanded restrictions) Jumbotron
(bright lights and noise)
Heliport (extreme noise and intrusive disruption at random hours. Not to mention crowd, traffic/parking complications.
Maybe too much indulgence for a livable and vibrant downtown? Would backers want to tolerate these intrusions
where they live? Please convey these concerns since the meeting announced for tonight will not include a discussion of
this proposed plan. I called several entities to confirm this.
Regards, C. Crompton
SLC.
23
6. Mailing list
24
PO BOX 1374 SALT LAKE UT 84110
1400 WEST ASSOCIATES, LLC 573 W STATE ST PLEASANT UT 84062
172 WEST 300 SOUTH, LLC PO BOX 2406 SALT LAKE UT 84110
214 NORTH TEMPLE CONDOMINIUMS AMD COMMON AREA MASTER CARD 262 E 3900 S # 200 MURRAY UT 84107
218 BROADWAY, LLC 150 S STATE ST SALT LAKE UT 84111
309 WEST LC 375 W 200 S # 100 SALT LAKE UT 84101
39/42 LLC 51 E 400 S SALT LAKE UT 84111
401K HOME MOSTLY INC.1474 BLACK STONE AVENUE SAN JOSE CA 95118
99 WEST CONDOMINIUMS OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC PO BOX 511196 SALT LAKE UT 84151
99VESTRY, LLC PO BOX 71670 PHOENIX AZ 85050
A E G FAM TRUST 4368 S ADONIS DR MILLCREEK UT 84124
A FAM TR 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST # 401 SALT LAKE UT 84101
A J & M CO LLC 7875 S 965 E SANDY UT 84094
AARON A ROYCE; BRIAN L HUTCHINSON (JT)346 W PIERPONT AVE #W115 SALT LAKE UT 84101
AARON HSU 360 W 300 S #229 SALT LAKE UT 84101
ABHINEET SABHARWAL 360 W 300 S #218 SALT LAKE UT 84101
ADAM DELEEUW; SHARON K DELEEUW (JT)342 W 200 S # 110 SALT LAKE UT 84101
ADRIAN LAZO 1539 S 1000 E SALT LAKE UT 84105
ADRIAN STALDER; SHOUWEN XU (JT)1781 PARK BLVD PALO ALTO CA 94306
ADRIENNE JARRETT 342 E EDITH AVE SALT LAKE UT 84111
AHMET B ALTINAY 328 W 200 S # 603 SALT LAKE UT 84101
ALAMO CREEK 607 LLC 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
ALASTAIR STEWARD 336 W 300 S #407 SALT LAKE UT 84101
ALEXI RAE HATCH 163 W 200 S #405 SALT LAKE UT 84101
ALIA MASSOUH 346 W PIERPONT AVE #W105 SALT LAKE UT 84101
ALINA WHITE 328 W 200 S #408 SALT LAKE UT 84101
ALISE ANN KING; KELLY KING; SYDNEY HATCH KING (JT)328 W 200 S #210 SALT LAKE UT 84101
ALLAN D ANDERSON; ALLAN J ANDERSON (JT)360 W BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
AMBER GONDA; ROBERT GONDA 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
AMIR KASHANI 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
AMRA PASIC 336 W 300 S # 211 SALT LAKE UT 84101
ANDRA L LALLI REVOCABLE TRUST 09/05/2006 3070 S 950 E BOUNTIFU UT 84010
ANDREW LANE 328 W 200 S # 205 SALT LAKE UT 84101
ANDREW VANDONGEN 327 W 200 S #303 SALT LAKE UT 84101
ANGELIA BUSH 342 W 200 S #106 SALT LAKE UT 84101
ANTHONY Y STRIKE TRUST 10/29/2022 9904 HUNTERS RUN LN CINCINNATOH 45242
AP FORD BUILDING, LLC 1616 CAMDEN RD CHARLOTT NC 28203
API QOZB, LLC 1074 E MUTTON HOLLOW RD KAYSVILLE UT 84037
APPLE HOSPITALITY SLCC 7140, LLC APPLE HOSPITALITY COMPANI RICHMON VA 23219
APPLE HOSPITALITY SLCH 7141 LLC 814 E MAIN ST RICHMON VA 23219
ARENA 327 LLC 327 W 200 S #001 SALT LAKE UT 84101
ARENA 327 LLC 327 W 200 S #103 SALT LAKE UT 84101
ARENA 327 LLC 327 W 200 S #104 SALT LAKE UT 84101
AREVKAP, LLC 1906 E JEREMY DR MURRAY UT 84121
ARNOLD L SWINDLEHURST; KAREN A SWINDLEHURST (JT)17 WHITMAN CT IRVINE CA 92617
ARTSPACE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, LLC 230 S 500 W SALT LAKE UT 84101
ASHLEY DAWN WASDEN 360 W 300 S #403 SALT LAKE UT 84101
ATCAT IRREVOCABLE TRUST 09/27/2023 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
AUGUST ALLEN 2790 E JUNIPER WY HOLLADAY UT 84117
AUSTIN MARK LONG; LELA RAE LONG (JT)360 W 300 S #203 SALT LAKE UT 84101
AXIS BUILDING ASSOCIATES, LLC 175 S MAIN ST # 610 SALT LAKE UT 84111
B REVOC TRUST 3579 KENZIES WAY N SANTA CLA UT 84765
BANDALOOPS, LLC 51 E 400 S # 210 SALT LAKE UT 84111
BANDED PROPERTIES, LLC PO BOX 743 CLEARFIEL UT 84089
BARBARA E YOUNG REVOCABLE TRUST 04/14/2020 1545 S 1400 E SALT LAKE UT 84105
BARBARA ZIEGLER 336 W 300 S #202 SALT LAKE UT 84101
BARBU GOCIMAN 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST #1804 SALT LAKE UT 84101
BARBU GOCIMAN 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
BAY PACIFIC AMERICAN PLAZA II LLC 2001 UNION ST STE 300 SAN FRANCCA 94127
BCAL GATEWAY PROPERTY LLC 90 S 400 W # 570 SALT LAKE UT 84101
BENJAMIN THOMAS HATCH 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
BENSON, JOHN; BENSON, NANCY (JT)901 CHAHOTKIN DR ALEXANDR VA 22308
BENSON, JOHN; BENSON, NANCY (JT)901 CHAHOTKIN DR ALEXANDR VA 22308
BERGESON FEBRUARY 5,2014 FAMILY TRUST 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
BIGGER D INVESTMENTS L.L.C.320 W 200 S # FL-3 SALT LAKE UT 84101
BILL & CAROL BENGTZEN LLC 3577 E 8620 S COTTONW UT 84121
BINGHAM BROTHERS PARTNERSHIP 1658 E 1700 S SALT LAKE UT 84105
BK HOTEL, LLC 2733 E PARLEYS WY SALT LAKE UT 84109
BLAKE BRADLEY PETERSON 380 W 200 S #409 SALT LAKE UT 84101
BLAKE KENNETH SARLO 360 W BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
BNOLLC 51 E 400 S # 210 SALT LAKE UT 84111
BOYER GATEWAY HOTEL LC 101 S 200 E SALT LAKE UT 84111
BRABO INVESTMENTS LLC 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
BRACKENBURY VENTURES, LLC 1452 S YUMA ST SALT LAKE UT 84108
BRADEN STEN 9751 S SILICA DR WHITE CIT UT 84094
BRADLEY DOCKTER 380 W 200 S #205 SALT LAKE UT 84101
BRADY MCINTYRE 308 W 300 S #LL2 SALT LAKE UT 84101
BRANDI PATRICE TILLMAN 360 W 300 S #233 SALT LAKE UT 84101
BRANDON WORTH HARGETT REVOCABLE TRUST 02/17/2022 328 W 200 S #607 SALT LAKE UT 84101
BRENDA WRIGHT TRUST 06/27/2019 1217 N 1390 W SAINT GEO UT 84770
25
BRENT M PALFREYMAN (SURV)9477 S 2555 W SOUTH JORUT 84095
BRETT ROSS 360 W BROADWAY ST # 617 SALT LAKE UT 84101
BRIAN L DAVIS 11306 S BROWN SUMMIT CIR SOUTH JORUT 84095
BRIAN P ARTHUR 346 W PIERPONT AVE #E116 SALT LAKE UT 84101
BRIGETA N BENSON REVOCABLE TRUST 08/24/2018 3589 N 825 E NORTH OG UT 84414
BRISTOW PROPERTIES, LLC 2402 S RURAL RD # 203 TEMPE AZ 85282
BROADWAY PARK LOFTS UNIT OWNER ASSOCIATION 1218 E 7800 S SANDY UT 84094
BRODY C LEVEN; BARRY M LEVEN; GLORIA R LEVEN (TC)366 W PIERPONT AVE # W201 SALT LAKE UT 84101
BRUCE C KOELLIKER 4756 S HILLHOUSE CV # 102 MURRAY UT 84107
BRUCE R MCFADDEN 380 W 200 S # 408 SALT LAKE UT 84101
BRUCE SESSIONS; CAROL SESSIONS (JT)380 W 200 S # 602 SALT LAKE UT 84101
BRYAN L WARD; KATHY M WARD (JT)PO BOX 658 OAKLEY UT 84055
BUILDING 107 LLC 7882 S DEERCREEK RD COTTONW UT 84121
BVREF 175, LLC 1144 S SILVERSTONE WAY MERIDIAN ID 83642
C FAM TRUST; NGC TRUST 155 CRESTRIDGE DR DANVILLE CA 94506
CAITLIN GRANDJEAN 327 W 200 S #205 SALT LAKE UT 84101
CALEB E CRAIL; CASSIDY E CRAIL (JT)655 CHERRY CIRCLE LAKE OSW OR 97034
CAMPANIA HOLDINGS, LLC 725 E 200 S BOUNTIFU UT 84010
CARLA J HEWITSON 342 W 200 S #107 SALT LAKE UT 84101
CARLOS M MOLINA 360 W 300 S # 614 SALT LAKE UT 84101
CAROLYN RICH-DENSON TRUST 03/08/2016 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
CARRESON PROPERTIES, LLC 30 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE UT 84111
CHARLES SCOTT CLAUSEN 336 W 300 S #201 SALT LAKE UT 84101
CHARLOTTE SALEVURAKIS ASSET PROTECTION TRUST 05/31/2018 4098 S 1500 E MILLCREEK UT 84124
CHASE JOHNSON 360 W 300 S #227 SALT LAKE UT 84101
CHECKETTS FAMILY TRUST 05/07/2008 163 W 200 S # 305 SALT LAKE UT 84101
CHRIS & HEDY EYRE 2006 FAMILY TRUST 08/30/2006 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
CHRIS H WILSON 1367 CEDARWOOD LN LOGAN UT 84321
CHRISTENSEN FAMILY TRUST 12/21/2012 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST # 207 SALT LAKE UT 84101
CHRISTIAN TYLER WOLSEY TRUST 04/15/2020 360 W 300 S #212 SALT LAKE UT 84101
CHRISTINE CHI KHIET TRINH; VIVIAN KHIET TRINH (JT)116 VALLEY OAKS LOOP UNION CIT CA 94587
CHRISTOPHER GIAMBRI 360 W BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
CHRISTOPHER J KIDD 342 W 200 S #101 SALT LAKE UT 84101
CHRISTOPHER PITZAK 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
CHRISTOPHER SCHWARZ; SONYA SCHWARZ (JT)342 W 200 S # 102 SALT LAKE UT 84101
CHRISTOPHER W GARRISON 2937 CHAMPA ST # A DENVER CO 80205
CHRISTOPHER WAYNE MYERS 163 W 200 S # 505 SALT LAKE UT 84101
CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS 50 E NORTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84150
CIERA DELIN BELYEA 346 W PIERPONT AVE #W113 SALT LAKE UT 84101
CINDY RICKS; DAVID RICKS (JT)716 17TH ST BELLINGHAWA 98225
CITI PLACE, LLC PO BOX 540230 NORTH SA UT 84054
CITY CREEK ASSOCIATES, LLC 95 W 100 S #340 LOGAN UT 84321
CITY CREEK CENTER ASSOCIATES, LLC 200 E LONG LAKE RD #300 BLOOMFIE MI 48304
CITY CREEK INVESTMENT PROPERTIES, LLC PO BOX 6618 SCOTTSDA AZ 85261
CITY CREEK RESERVE INC PO BOX 511196 SALT LAKE UT 84151
CITY CREEK RESERVE INC 200 E LONG LAKE RD #300 BLOOMFIE MI 48304
CITY CREEK RESERVE INC PO BOX 511196 SALT LAKE UT 84151
CITY CREEK RESERVE INC PO BOX 21045 SEATTLE WA 98101
CLYDE JUPITER FAMILY INTER VIVOS REVOCABLE TRUST 04/05/2023 430 W 400 N BOUNTIFU UT 84010
CLYDE JUPITER FAMILY TRUST 04/05/2023 430 W 400 N BOUNTIFU UT 84010
COATES FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST 06/08/2021 328 W 200 S #604 SALT LAKE UT 84101
CONNIE BULLIS TRUST 05/07/2019 PO BOX 581282 SALT LAKE UT 84158
CONSTANCE A DALY REVOCABLE TRUST 10/30/2020 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
CORNER 64, LLC 19 E 200 S SALT LAKE UT 84111
CORP OF PB OF CH JC OF LDS PO BOX 511196 SALT LAKE UT 84151
CORP OF PB OF CH JC OF LDS 50 E NORTHTEMPLE # FL-22 SALT LAKE UT 84150
CORP OF PB OF CH JC OF LDS 50 E NORTHTEMPLE ST #2225 SALT LAKE UT 84150
COURTLAND SCOTT SCHWERDT 328 W 200 S #502 SALT LAKE UT 84101
COWBOY UP ALPINE, LLC PO BOX 3809 ALPINE WY 83128
CRAIG C LABRUM; MICHELLE R LABRUM (JT)280 W 100 N STE A VERNAL UT 84079
CRAIG R NIELSEN; MARIE NIELSEN (JT)99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
CRISTEN A MOORE 163 W 200 S #404 SALT LAKE UT 84101
CRYSTAL ARLENE NUNO; SIDONIO NUNO (JT)218 W NORTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84103
CURT LALLI 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
CW FRONT ROW, LLC 1222 W LEGACY CROSSING BL CENTERVIL UT 84014
D & V INVESTMENTS, LLC 4743 SUMMERWOOD DR BOUNTIFU UT 84010
D CHRISTIAN HARRISON 336 W BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
DAKOTA LOFTS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION PO BOX 171014 SALT LAKE UT 84117
DALE F OSTLER 7689 SITIO MANANA CARLSBAD CA 92009
DALLAS GRAHAM 336 W BROADWAY ST # 215 SALT LAKE UT 84101
DANE ADAM DEHART 917 E CARSON GARDEN LN MILLCREEK UT 84124
DANETTE FULLMER 214 W NORTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84103
DANIEL BULLOCK 360 W 300 S #601 SALT LAKE UT 84101
DANIEL J ASH 69 W SYRACUSE RD VINEYARD UT 84059
DANIEL LOMBARDI; NICOLE SHERMAN (JT)328 W 200 S #202 SALT LAKE UT 84101
DANJUE SHANG PO BOX 992 PARK CITY UT 84060
DAVID BRIAN DOVE FAMILY TRUST 06/11/2020 360 W 300 S #219 SALT LAKE UT 84101
DAVID DANIEL MIRAMONTES (JT)360 W BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
DAVID E ORR 346 W PIERPONT AVE #E114 SALT LAKE UT 84101
DAVID JAMES MICHELSON 5235 S GLENDON ST MURRAY UT 84123
26
DAVID L ARNSON; BOBBIE C ARNSON (JT)99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST #1203 SALT LAKE UT 84101
DAVID L MOULTON; SUZANNE L MOULTON (JT)PO BOX 981120 PARK CITY UT 84098
DAVID L NORMAN 214 W NORTHTEMPLE ST # E2 SALT LAKE UT 84103
DAVID LOFGREEN 328 W 200 S #503 SALT LAKE UT 84101
DAVID M NOWASKEY 328 W 200 S #409 SALT LAKE UT 84101
DAVID RICKS; CINDY RICKS (JT)716 17TH ST BELLINGHAWA 98225
DAVID S CHRISTENSEN 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
DAVID SHEN; YOUSENG SHEN (JT)99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
DAVID W BERNOLFO; GLORIA B ROTHWELL 163 S MAIN ST SALT LAKE UT 84111
DAVIDSON HEATH 360 W BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
DDFAV, LLC 2833 PACES LOOKOUT LN SE ATLANTA GA 30339
DEHART INVESTMENTS, LLC 436 E 1200 S SALEM UT 84653
DEL R & DIANE D JONES TRUST 11/28/2018 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
DERE FAMILY TRUST 04/20/2007 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
DEREK DAY; JAMIE STOKES (JT)835 E SPRING VIEW DR MILLCREEK UT 84106
DESERET TITLE HOLDING CORP PO BOX 511196 SALT LAKE UT 84151
DHARMESH B AHIR 332 W PARK LN FARMINGT UT 84026
DIAMOND PARKING INC 605 FIRST AVE #600 SEATTLE WA 98104
DIANE T BARLOW 2949 E DEVONSHIRE CIR SALT LAKE UT 84108
DOMA TERRA HOLDINGS, LLC 9350 S 150 E SANDY UT 84070
DONALD J RIZZO; TERESA M RIZZO (JT)4230 ROUS ST SAN DIEGO CA 92122
DOUG STAKER 163 W 200 S #503 SALT LAKE UT 84101
DOUGLAS WAYNE II OWENS 346 W PIERPONT AVE #E110 SALT LAKE UT 84101
DUC VAN VU; THUVAN GULMAHONG (JT)17046 TESORO DR SAN DIEGO CA 92128
DUSTIN J FRANDSEN 1995 NAVAJO HEIGHTS MOAB UT 84532
DV-PARAGON LP 960 N SAN ANTONIO RD LOS ALTOS CA 94022
DW&PBL TR 1661 E 1220 N LOGAN UT 84341
ELIA TULE 216 W NORTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84103
ELIZABETH KAY GOREY 1847 S 2600 E SALT LAKE UT 84108
ELIZABETH R BEHRMANN; GARY BEHRMANN (JT)458 S 2150 W OREM UT 84055
ELK RIDGE MGMT-360 WEST BROADWAY 414 LLC 131 N 1200 E LINDON UT 84042
ELLEN M DONOVAN; VAUGH G PEDERSEN (JT)328 W 200 S #608 SALT LAKE UT 84101
EMILY & CRAIG STEWART TRUST 01/31/2019 2255 WALNUT BLVD WALNUT C CA 94597
ERIC COLTER CANNON 1920 E NUNLEY CIR HOLLADAY UT 84121
ERIC D FREY 360 W 300 S # 217 SALT LAKE UT 84101
ERIC D FREY 360 W 300 S #224 SALT LAKE UT 84101
ERIC R OLSEN 163 W 200 S # 202 SALT LAKE UT 84101
ERIC WEIKERT 346 W PIERPONT AVE #W207 SALT LAKE UT 84101
ERNIELITO D COSTELLO; LAURIE A COSTELLO (JT)911 E THIRD AVE SALT LAKE UT 84103
ESTATE NOT IDENTIFIED 1405 N EASTHILLS DR BOUNTIFU UT 84010
EUGENE F SASSER 1765 PEACHTREE ST NE #B3 ATLANTA GA 30309
FAE HOLDINGS 483563R LLC; VMM LLC 51 E 400 S SALT LAKE UT 84111
FARR FAMILY TRUST 12/05/2000 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
FENG PING WU; SHU-NUAN LIANG (JT)5273 ELLICOTT CT CENTREVIL VA 20120
FIREFLY TRUST 03/20/2023 250 N RED CLIFFS DR ST GEORGE UT 84790
FORMAN FAMILY TRUST 09/30/1997 PO BOX 83001 JACKSON WY 83001
FRANCISCO CESAR PERUZZO; ROBERT GERALD OLSON (JT)328 W 200 S #305 SALT LAKE UT 84101
FRANCOIS LANCELOT GERDAY 360 W 300 S # 418 SALT LAKE UT 84101
FRANKLIN R & ANNA R ROLAPP FAMILY TRUST 01/30/1995 220 COLLINS AVE BALBOA IS CA 92662
FRED A DUNBAR; MICHELLE DUNBAR (JT)99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
FREDERIC V BULL 163 W 200 S #407 SALT LAKE UT 84101
G A ROPER INVESTMENTS, LLC 95 N MAIN FILLMORE UT 84631
G RYAN EADS 336 W BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
GAELLE BATOT; NICOLAS ZIEGLER (JT)360 W 300 S #615 SALT LAKE UT 84101
GARDINER PROPERTIES, LLC 1075 E 2100 S SALT LAKE UT 84106
GARRETT C ZUPAN 2131 SPRINGSTONE DR LELAND NC 28451
GARRETT LIVING TRUST 10/08/2019 5568 E PIONEER FORK RD EMIGRATN UT 84108
GARY C NIELSON 2444 E 70 S HEBER CITYUT 84032
GARY D DITTEMORE; RONALD D DITTEMORE (JT)5385 SHOSHONE CIR OGDEN UT 84403
GATEWAY BLOCK A CONDOMINIUM OWNERS ASSOCIATION 101 S 200 E # 200 SALT LAKE UT 84111
GATEWAY HP, LLC 2425 E CAMELBACK RD PHOENIX AZ 85016
GATEWAY OFFICE 4 LC 101 S 200 E SALT LAKE UT 84111
GAYLE LEE FAIRBANKS 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
GERALD L JOHNSON; DIANE D JOHNSON (JT)99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
GERRIT W GONG; SUSAN L GONG (JT)99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST #1007 SALT LAKE UT 84101
GGI 380 WEST, LLC 380 W 200 S #302 SALT LAKE UT 84101
GH REV LIV TR 3000 S OCEAN BLVD #1402 BOCA RAT FL 33432
GMM LIV TR 1514 S PRESTON ST SALT LAKE UT 84108
GORDAN SAVIN; MIRNA NOVAK (JT)1051 E SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84102
GRANT COULSON; MICHAEL COULSON (JT)360 W 300 S #613 SALT LAKE UT 84101
GRAYR BLEYAN; CATHERINE TIANMIN YUN (JT)346 W PIERPONT AVE #E107 SALT LAKE UT 84101
GREEK ORTHODOX CH HOLY TRINITY OF SLC & GREEK COMM OF UTAH 279 S 300 W SALT LAKE UT 84101
GREGORY H NELSON LIVING TRUST 03/28/2000 AMD & RESTATED 09/15/202 508 W SAGUARO WY IRVINS UT 84731
GREGORY J DIRKS; SARAH J DIRKS (JT)2109 N CASCADE AVE COLORADOCO 80907
GREGORY NICHOLES CARLISLE REVOCABLE TRUST 06/23/1999 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
GRETA SOMMERFELD 163 W 200 S #310 SALT LAKE UT 84101
GRITS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC 8690 S ESCALADE CIR COTTONW UT 84121
GURR FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST 09/18/1997 380 W 200 S # 603 SALT LAKE UT 84101
H TR 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST #2007 SALT LAKE UT 84101
HAROLD CURTIS SIMONSEN 328 W 200 S #403 SALT LAKE UT 84101
27
HAYNES FAMILY, LLC 2810 E CRESTVIEW DR SALT LAKE UT 84108
HB3, LLC 1717 E YALECREST AVE SALT LAKE UT 84108
HEATHER CHOI 328 W 200 S #307 SALT LAKE UT 84101
HEATHER MARIE RICART; RAMON A RICART (JT)2949 W 12875 S RIVERTON UT 84065
HEIDI NESTEL; STEVE NESTEL 1380 CAPITOL ST OGDEN UT 84401
HELOU, LLC 3005 GILLIS FALLS RD MT AIRY MD 21771
HIGHWAY 40 DEVELOPMENT 6406 S KEEN CT SALT LAKE UT 84121
HILLTOP INVESTMENTS, LLC 32 W 200 S SALT LAKE UT 84101
HIRE INTEGRATED, LLC 163 W 200 S #303 SALT LAKE UT 84101
HNYBADGER PROPERTIES, LLC 720 N 450 W OREM UT 84057
HOLY TRINITY GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH 279 S 300 W SALT LAKE UT 84101
HOWARD MARTIN WINKLER; CATHERINE GEROWE WINKLER (JT)99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
HPTWN PROPERTIES TRUST 215 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
HS TR 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST # 806 SALT LAKE UT 84101
HUGH F CONNOR; A CLOTILDE HOUCHON (JT)346 W PIERPONT AVE # E122 SALT LAKE UT 84101
IGWLT 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST #1404 SALT LAKE UT 84101
ILYAS STARK; EVENINGSTAR STARK (JT)360 W 300 S #413 SALT LAKE UT 84101
INTERMOUNTAIN BUDDHIST CHURCH 211 W 100 S SALT LAKE UT 84101
ITF BROADWAY, LLC 1435 E ARLINGTON DR SALT LAKE UT 84103
J & M BOLLWINKEL LLC 145 W 200 S SALT LAKE UT 84101
J STEVEN HANSEN LIVING TRUST 11/19/2020 360 W 300 S # 225 SALT LAKE UT 84101
J. CHRISTOPHER LANSING 214 S WILTON RD RICHMON VA 23226
JAC TRUST 05/17/2022 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
JACOB A CASE 380 W 200 S # 509 SALT LAKE UT 84101
JACOB ALLEN CASE 380 W 200 S #509 SALT LAKE UT 84101
JACOB SMITH WHITE; JONESSA WHITE (JT)580 S RIDGE LN ALPINE UT 84004
JACOB VAGO 336 W BROADWAY ST # 408 SALT LAKE UT 84101
JACOB VAGO 360 W 300 S # 204 SALT LAKE UT 84101
JADGEV RAJ & JASPREET KAUR LIVING TRUST 04/18/2018 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
JAEHO LEE; HYUNKYUNG BAE (JT)2249 E EVERGREEN AVE MILLCREEK UT 84109
JAIMIE COGSWELL 961 S LAKE ST SALT LAKE UT 84105
JAKE BOWERS 360 W 300 S #231 SALT LAKE UT 84101
JAMES A PIPER 360 W BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
JAMES B & KRISTINE WHITESIDES FAMILY TRUST 06/01/2001 102 PANORAMA COTO DE C CA 92679
JAMES E JI 360 E 300 S # 214 SALT LAKE UT 84111
JAMES R & BOK DONG JEANIE BRADSHAW LIVING TRUST 12/19/2008 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
JAMES R GRIBIN; NANCY N YOUELL (JT)360 W 300 S # 409 SALT LAKE UT 84101
JAMES REX 346 W PIERPONT AVE #W111 SALT LAKE UT 84101
JAMES XU SHEN; LYNDA ZEBIN XU (JT)99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
JAMISON ROSS SPENCER; JENNIFER RUTH SPENCER (JT)327 W 200 S #301 SALT LAKE UT 84101
JAPANESE CHURCH OF CHRIST 268 W 100 S SALT LAKE UT 84101
JARED NEILSEN 536 N CENTER ST SALT LAKE UT 84103
JARED STEWART 346 W PIERPONT AVE #E124 SALT LAKE UT 84101
JASON & JAIRAN WARE FAMILY TRUST 02/05/2020 34 E COLUMBUS CT SALT LAKE UT 84103
JASON LEISER 328 W 200 S # 410 SALT LAKE UT 84101
JBJ & AMJ FAM TRUST 1117 COTTONWOOD CT CLEBURNE TX 76033
JEB TRST 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST #2001 SALT LAKE UT 84101
JEFFRY JOHNSON 360 W 300 S # 202 SALT LAKE UT 84101
JENNIFER BROWN; AARON BROWN (JT)336 W BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
JENNIFER FREDSALL 2209 E 7495 S COTTONW UT 84121
JENNIFER MILLER 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST # 205 SALT LAKE UT 84101
JENS BACH NIELSEN 4295 N 2900 E PO BOX 87 LIBERTY UT 84010
JESSICA ANDERSON 346 W PIERPONT AVE #E108 SALT LAKE UT 84101
JILL B FUGAL REVOCABLE TRUST 09/17/2020 1216 N 600 W PLEASANT UT 84062
JKS 203, LLC 336 W BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
JLARSEN GROUP HOLDINGS LLC 1265 E FORT UNION BLVD COTTONW UT 84047
JODIE JORGENSEN LIVING TRUST 05/23/2022; JOSHUA M SMITH LIVING TR 484 GREYSTONE DR FARMINGT UT 84025
JODY L CHIARAMONTE 404 ASPEN CT LA PLATA MD 20646
JOHN A SIVO; DENISE J TAYLOR (JT)99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
JOHN A VICKERS 328 W 200 S # 506 SALT LAKE UT 84101
JOHN HAMILTON 360 W 300 S #422 SALT LAKE UT 84101
JOHN J III MAZUROWSKI 328 W 200 S #204 SALT LAKE UT 84101
JOHN M TEMPLE REVOCABLE TRUST 12/22/1998; SUSNA F TEMPLE REVOCABL 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
JOHN S ZIEGLER REVOCABLE TRUST 03/27/2019 3088 MEADOWS DR PARK CITY UT 84060
JONATHAN BRONSON 336 W BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
JONATHAN W BLANCH 380 W 200 S # 601 SALT LAKE UT 84101
JONATHAN W BLANCH 380 W 200 S # 601 SALT LAKE UT 84101
JONATHON GRANT HAWK 346 W PIERPONT AVE #W213 SALT LAKE UT 84101
JORDAN HENDRICKSON 163 W 200 S #205 SALT LAKE UT 84101
JOSE G PACHECO-BRITO 360 W BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
JOSH BRANDT 839 E SOUTHTEMPLE ST #106 SALT LAKE UT 84102
JOSHUA C SPRINGER 327 W 200 S #406 SALT LAKE UT 84101
JOSHUA CARLBERG 163 W 200 S #S5 SALT LAKE UT 84101
JOSHUA CARLBERG 163 W 200 S #507 SALT LAKE UT 84101
JOSHUA LUND 1163 E HARRISON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105
JR&HBSFL TR 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST # 906 SALT LAKE UT 84101
JR&HBSFL TR 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST # 906 SALT LAKE UT 84101
JSM 2020 TRUST 12/11/2020 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
JUAN GUTIERREZ; RINA DODSON (JT)380 W 200 S # 203 SALT LAKE UT 84101
JULIE ROBIN MCKEE 163 W 200 S #401 SALT LAKE UT 84101
28
JUSTIN BINGHAM 251 ROSEBAY DR ENCINITAS CA 92024
JUSTIN MAYHEW 165 W 600 N SALT LAKE UT 84103
JUSTIN P JOHNSON 336 W 300 S # 311 SALT LAKE UT 84101
JYLLANA BUCHER SWEET 378 N QUINCE ST SALT LAKE UT 84103
K L ENTERPRISES, LLC 4833 N EDGEWOOD DR # 201 PROVO UT 84604
KADEN A ROARK 360 W BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
KAREN K KELLER; SCOTT C KELLER (JT)1738 STONE RIDGE CIR BOUNTIFU UT 84010
KAREN S BURNETT; RICHARD R JR SYME (JT)99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
KARL & BEVERLY SNOW FAMILY TRUST 06/01/2020; PATRICIA B RUST 640 S APPENZELL LN MIDWAY UT 84049
KATSANEVAS ENTERPRISES INC 118 N 300 W SALT LAKE UT 84103
KATSANEVAS ENTERPRISES INC 118 N 300 W SALT LAKE UT 84103
KAYLA NIELSON 346 W PIERPONT AVE #W208 SALT LAKE UT 84101
KBSIII 155 NORTH 400 WEST, LLC PO BOX 28270 SANTA AN CA 92799
KEITH ASHTON; HEIDI ASHTON (JT)99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
KEITH KUSUDA 380 W 200 S # 503 SALT LAKE UT 84101
KELLY V MEJIA 655 CHERRY CR LAKE OSW OR 97034
KELLY W HUBBARD; NINA HUBBARD (JT)1613 QUAIL CANYON DR LOGAN UT 84321
KELVIN H MOSS; LESLIE J MOSS (JT)9970 HADLEIGH DR GRANITE B CA 95746
KEVIN BOYLE 7968 CEDER WAY PARK CITY UT 84098
KEVIN ELSBERRY 661 W DUNNING CT DRAPER UT 84020
KEVIN HOWE 88 BUSH ST UNIT 4115 SAN JOSE CA 95126
KIMBERLY THOMPSON 342 W 200 S #206 SALT LAKE UT 84101
KIN LAU 34 MONROE ST NEW YORK NY 10002
KNOCK OUT HOLDINGS, LLC 360 W 300 S #237 SALT LAKE UT 84101
KOOS KAMP TRUST 08/03/2021 PO BOX 440069 KOOSHARE UT 84744
KOREY DAVIS 328 W 200 S #406 SALT LAKE UT 84101
KRD TRST 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST #3001 SALT LAKE UT 84101
KRISTEN DYCHES; KIRK DYCHES 342 W 200 S #203 SALT LAKE UT 84101
KRISTIN MELLUS 328 W 200 S # 206 SALT LAKE UT 84101
KWJ IV INVESTMENTS LLC 547 W 2600 S BOUNTIFU UT 84010
KYLE STEPHEN ALEXANDER 328 W 200 S #208 SALT LAKE UT 84101
KYLE W WESTON 327 W 200 S # 401 SALT LAKE UT 84101
L.L.C. AHC 3684 E KAIBAB CIR SALT LAKE UT 84109
L.L.C. WESTGATE DESIGN 1525 E WESTMORELAND DR SALT LAKE UT 84105
LAF RV TRST 801 SAGE BRUSH DR WORLAND WY 82401
LAKE EFFECT PROPERTY, LLC 3362 W 1820 S SALT LAKE UT 84104
LANCE SPENCER; ALISSA ANN JONES (JT)342 W 200 S # 108 SALT LAKE UT 84101
LARRY H MILLER ARENA CORP 301 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
LAURA WARDLE 351 W 800 N # 1 SALT LAKE UT 84103
LAUREN & CHERYL LOCEY REVOCABLE TRUST 11/01/2022 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
LC 200 WEST HOLDING 254 S 200 W SALT LAKE UT 84101
LC CRANE ASSOCIATES 307 W 200 S # 4001 SALT LAKE UT 84101
LC RED DESERT HOLDINGS 1125 N HOVI HILLS DR CEDAR CIT UT 84721
LE CHENG & KAI YANG FAMILY TRUST 5/9/2016 13001 LORETTA DR SANTA AN CA 92705
LINDA MAI PENDWARDEN; MICHAEL SCOTT PENWARDEN (JT)163 W 200 S #206 SALT LAKE UT 84101
LI-SU FAMILY TRUST 06/24/2019 1172 E 40 N OREM UT 84097
LOFT 403 LLC 1158 N MOUNTAIN RD KAYSVILLE UT 84037
LOGAN D GUNNELL; KENI SUE NELSON (JT)360 W 300 S #602 SALT LAKE UT 84101
LORIN A BROADBENT REVOCABLE TRUST 12/04/2014; LARAE T BROADBENT R 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
LOUIS & CYNTHIA MILLER LIVING TRUST 05/14/2019 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
LOVE PAD SLC, LLC 1340 N 7000 E HUNTSVILL UT 84317
LP HAMPSTEAD JACKSON PARTNERS 1032 15TH ST NW #370 WASHINGT DC 20005
LTD GATEWAY ASSOCIATES 101 S 200 E SALT LAKE UT 84111
LUCAS HORNS; LUCAS HORNS; JOSHUA P SHUTKIND 328 W 200 S #308 SALT LAKE UT 84101
LUIS R MACIAS 380 W 200 S #403 SALT LAKE UT 84101
LUKE SCHUNK 328 W 200 S #306 SALT LAKE UT 84101
LYLE LIVING TRUST 10/19/2018 1360 E SHERMAN AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105
M FAM TR 1453 E ALTA CIR SALT LAKE UT 84103
M RES TRUST 9350 S 150 E # 1000 SANDY UT 84070
MADELINE COTTLE 336 W 300 S #207 SALT LAKE UT 84101
MADISON POTTER 360 W 300 S #421 SALT LAKE UT 84101
MAGGIE ELIZABETH OLSON; ANDREW WILLIAM TAMM (JT)360 W BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
MAITE ALONDRA CARRANZA MARTINEZ 346 W PIERPONT AVE #E119 SALT LAKE UT 84101
MAITE ALONDRA CARRANZA MARTINEZ 360 W 300 S #206 SALT LAKE UT 84101
MALLORY BLAIRE BROWN 360 W BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
MANISH OBEROI; LOVINA OBEROI (JT)99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
MARC KENNEDY PO BOX 802 DRAPER UT 84020
MARCIALA HERNANDEZ; MARIA LAM; ANTONIO DE JESUS HERNANDEZ (JT)99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
MAREN SNOW; NATHAN SNOW (JT)218 W NORTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84103
MARGOT SAYER 7934 CORTE CARLSBAD CA 92009
MARIA LAM; MARCIALA GUADALUPE HERNANDEZ (JT)99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
MARIELA SUELDO; JEAN FRANCOIS P SAUZEAT 463 E LANA CT DRAPER UT 84020
MARILYN E BRANHAM REVOCABLE TRUST 11/30/2017 8203 WHETSTONE RD MOUNTAI MO 65711
MARK CANNON; DEBRA CANNON (JT)3980 E FOUBERT AVE MILLCREEK UT 84124
MARK EDLUND 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
MARK ROGERS 328 W 200 S #509 SALT LAKE UT 84101
MARK TAYLOR 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
MARY HEERS; ARTHUR; ARTHUR HEERS (JT)PO BOX 208 MENDON UT 84325
MATTHEW DADAM; MELINA DADAM (JT)4293 S FORTUNA WY MILLCREEK UT 84124
MATTHEW RICHARD GALE; CLAUDIA SOTO SAAVEDRA (JT)327 W 200 S #403 SALT LAKE UT 84101
29
MATTHEW S TAYLOR 380 W 200 S # 504 SALT LAKE UT 84101
MAURINE YVONNE WAYMAN; KLOE LORRAINE HAMMON WAYMAN (JT)163 W 200 S #304 SALT LAKE UT 84101
MAVERIK COUNTRY STORES INC 185 S STATE ST # 800 SALT LAKE UT 84111
MAXWELL CHRISTEN 360 W BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
MB 336 BROADWAY, LLC 3023 E JANKE FLATS LN SANDY UT 84092
MCCARLEY HOLDINGS, LLC PO BOX 1627 VERNAL UT 84078
MCE INVESTMENTS LLC 328 W 200 S # 100 SALT LAKE UT 84101
MCLOFTS LLC 7684 S KESWICK RD COTTONW UT 84093
MEC SALT LAKE CITY HOTEL OWNER, LLC 425 MARKET ST STE 1050 SAN FRANCCA 94105
MEGAN MARTIN 336 W BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
MEHRDAD SAMIE; AMY BETH LUKAS (JT)233 N EASTCAPITOL ST SALT LAKE UT 84103
MELANIE HUSCROFT 252 W WILTSHIRE LN SARATOGA UT 84045
MELISSA M HOLDEN 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST #1905 SALT LAKE UT 84101
MICHAEL & MARILYN WOOD FAMILY TRUST 04/01/2015 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
MICHAEL C HATCH; BARTLEY FRASER (TC)360 W 300 S # 616 SALT LAKE UT 84101
MICHAEL JOSEPH HORD 328 W 200 S #402 SALT LAKE UT 84101
MICHAEL SAGE HARPER; SHANE F HUISH (JT)360 W 300 S #606 SALT LAKE UT 84101
MIKE & JOYCE MURRAY FAMILY TRUST 12/05/2014 PO BOX 70367 SEATTLE WA 98127
MIKE E MORAN 380 W 200 S #305 SALT LAKE UT 84101
MIKE LOSCALZO 163 W 200 S #309 SALT LAKE UT 84101
MIR M KHAN 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
MRK FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 118 N 300 W SALT LAKE UT 84103
MULTI-ETHNIC SENIOR HOUSING LTD 223 W 700 S # C SALT LAKE UT 84101
MW TRUST 1743 E BEECHWOOD DR LAYTON UT 84040
NAIDA KLJAJIC; MAIDA KLJAJIC (JT)336 W BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
NAMICA LLC 1980 E OLYMPUS POINT DR HOLLADAY UT 84117
NAMRE 401K TRUST 04/08/2019 637 E THIRD AVE SALT LAKE UT 84103
NATHAN C PERRY 6195 S RATON LN MURRAY UT 84123
NATHAN KENT MILLER 336 W 300 S #303 SALT LAKE UT 84101
NATHAN KULICK 493 18TH ST #2 BROOKLYN NY 11215
NATHAN SNOW; MAREN SNOW (JT)214 W NORTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84103
NATHANIEL SNEDDON 327 W 200 S #404 SALT LAKE UT 84101
NCE HOMES, LLC 1149 DANIELS CANYON DR LAYTON UT 84040
NEUROSTREAM MEDIA LLC 346 W PIERPONT AVE #E106 SALT LAKE UT 84101
NIKOLAI H WEDEKIND 380 W 200 S #201 SALT LAKE UT 84101
NORTH TEMPLE ENTERPRISES, LLC 1153 S 3600 W SALT LAKE UT 84104
NURIA MERCED ALVAREZ PAGAN TRUST 06/18/2018 50 E NORTHTEMPLE ST #18TH SALT LAKE UT 84150
OB-OK, LLC 230 NORTH STREET DANVERS MA 01923
OLGA N KONONOVA; ANDREY KUTUZOV (JT)348 W PIERPONT AVE SALT LAKE UT 84101
ONE TRIBE TRUST 09/29/2015 252 E WILTSHIRE LN SARATOGA UT 84045
OWN_FULL_NAME OWN_ADDR own_unit OWN_CITY OWN_STA OWN_ZIP
PAINLESS PARKING LLC 163 S MAIN ST SALT LAKE UT 84111
PALMER FAMILY TRUST 01/10/2013 5600 W LOVERS LN DALLAS TX 75209
PAMELA S JACOBSON; KEVIN L JACOBSON (JT)380 W 200 S #307 SALT LAKE UT 84101
PAPERBOX DEVELOPERS, LLC 180 N UNIVERSITY AVE #200 PROVO UT 84601
PARKER FIELDS RESIDUAL TRUST UNDER THE KATHERINE SMITH FIELDS TRU 682 VILLA ST MOUNTAI CA 94041
PARRISH PLACE VENTURES LLC 360 W 300 S #101 SALT LAKE UT 84101
PATRICK 402 PARTNERS, LLC 2087 S SCENIC CIR SALT LAKE UT 84109
PATRICK LOFTS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC 1390 E THORNTON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105
PATRICK PARTNERS LLC 111 E SEGO LILY DR # 400 SANDY UT 84070
PATRICK PARTNERS, LLC 1092 E SOUTHUNION AVE MIDVALE UT 84047
PAUL BOND; WENDY BOND (JT)163 W 200 S #209 SALT LAKE UT 84101
PAUL T BERGERA FAMILY TRUST 04/02/2001 2666 S FILMORE ST SALT LAKE UT 84106
PEERY REFI LLC 2381 ROSECRANS AVE EL SEGUND CA 90245
PHAYNARITH PANH 2735 E ROBIDOUX RD SANDY UT 84093
PHILIP ERICKSON 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
PHILLIP BRUCE HANSEN TRUST 11/17/2005 1682 N 6250 E EDEN UT 84310
PHILLIP J HUNT; KAREN L HUNT (JT)675 S GREEN VALLEY PKWY HENDERSO NV 89052
PIER 346, LLC 8029 S HUNTERS MEADOW CIR COTTONW UT 84093
PIERPONT HOLDINGS, LLC 151 W PIERPONT AVE SALT LAKE UT 84101
PIERPONT LOFTS CONDOMINIUM OWNERS ASSOCIATION PO BOX 2340 PARK CITY UT 84060
PIETRA PROPERTIES, LLC 273 N 1550 E LAYTON UT 84040
PILONEX, LLC PO BOX 655 SPRINGVIL UT 84663
PLANET SOFTWARE, LLC 342 W 200 S #201 SALT LAKE UT 84101
PLAYA VIDA TRUST 07/14/2022; PINNACLE TRUST 07/14/2022 380 W 200 S #604 SALT LAKE UT 84101
POPLAR STREET PUB, LLC 242 S 200 W SALT LAKE UT 84101
PRACHAR TRUST 04/06/2021 14908 LA CUMBRE DR PACIFIC PA CA 90272
PRAJIT RAVINDRAN 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
PROMONTORY PROPERTY, LLC 1210 WINTERGREEN CT ALPINE UT 84004
PROPERTY RESERVE INC PO BOX 511196 SALT LAKE UT 84151
PROVIDENCE PROPERTIES, LLC 2891 W 1500 S VERNAL UT 84078
R & D FAMILY INVESTMENTS, LLC PO BOX 712020 SALT LAKE UT 84171
R & L EYRE TRUST 12/21/2020 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
R&G COUNTRY MANOR LLC 1154 WINTERGREEN CT ALPINE UT 84004
RACHEL DENSLEY 11945 S HIDDEN CANYON LN SANDY UT 84092
RACHEL PARKIN 10 FAXON AVE APT 808 QUNICY MA 02169
RANDON J GARDINER 163 W 200 S #S19 SALT LAKE UT 84101
RDD FM TRST 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
REALINE PROPERTIES LLC 30 E BROADWAY ST # 310 SALT LAKE UT 84111
REBECCA A SCHNEIDER; NOLAN A SCHNEIDER (JT)328 W 200 S #507 SALT LAKE UT 84101
30
REBECCA ANN BROWN; ROBERT PAUL BROWN (JT)328 W 200 S #107 SALT LAKE UT 84101
REBECCA H OSTHED TRUST 11/27/2023 436 E DAIRY LN DRAPER UT 84020
REBECCA LECHEMINANT 656 S 500 E SALT LAKE UT 84102
RED CLIFFS LLC 7224 DRY CREEK RD LONGMON CO 80503
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY PO BOX 145518 SALT LAKE UT 84114
RENSOR PROPERTIES, LLC 10047 S COPPER KING LN SOUTH JORUT 84095
REX FIORI; CARMEN FIORI (JT)380 W 200 S # 407 SALT LAKE UT 84101
REZA FAKHRIEH; DOWLING FAKRIEH, JOCELYN FAKHRIEH 564 W 700 S # 406 PLEASANT UT 84062
RHRE 30 CITY CREEK, LLC 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
RIAN J WENDLING 154 VILLAGE GREEN AVE WOODSTO GA 30189
RICHARD & REBECCA HARSTON FAMILY TRUST 11/10/2008 10676 S WATERY WY SOUTH JORUT 84009
RICHARD C TORMAN; AMY L TORMAN (JT)1661 SOMERSET CT FARMINGT UT 84025
RICHARD FESSENDEN 360 W 300 S #619 SALT LAKE UT 84101
RICHARD S MORLEY 25 E CENTER ST NORTH SA UT 84054
RLH PARTNERSHIP II LP 1775 TYSONS BLVD 7TH FLR MCLEAN VA 22102
ROBERT D HARRIS; TERRI L HARRIS (JT)99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
ROCIO SOTO LIVING TRUST 12/04/2019 380 W 200 S #404 SALT LAKE UT 84101
ROLAND CHRISTENSEN 501 N 1400 W SALT LAKE UT 84116
ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF SALT LAKE 27 N 'C' ST SALT LAKE UT 84103
ROMNEY VENTURES LLC 2265 E MURRAY HOLLADAY RD HOLLADAY UT 84117
RON L SPERLE; JACQUELINE SNOW (JT)11307 S SILVER CHARM LN SANDY UT 84092
RONALD K JOHNSON LIVING TRUST 07/07/2021 380 W 200 S #402 SALT LAKE UT 84101
RONALD ZIPPRICH; LINDA ZIPPRICH (JT)328 W 200 S #501 SALT LAKE UT 84101
RYAN BURKE 327 W 200 S # 203 SALT LAKE UT 84101
RYAN L MITCHELL 360 W 300 S #612 SALT LAKE UT 84101
S FAM TR 1224 W BATEMAN POINT DR WEST JORDUT 84084
SALT LAKE BUDDHIST TEMPLE 211 W 100 S SALT LAKE UT 84101
SALT LAKE CITY CH, LLC 303 PEACHTREE CENTER AVEN ATLANTA GA 30303
SALT LAKE CITY INVESTORS, LLC; TYRONE REVERSE, LLC 5150 OVERLAND AVE CULVER CI CA 90230
SALT LAKE CITY TRUST 12/16/2019 1196 W SOUTHJORDAN PKWY SOUTH JORUT 84095
SALT LAKE COUNTY PO BOX 144575 SALT LAKE UT 84114
SALT LAKE TABERNACLE CORP 50 E NORTHTEMPLE ST #2225 SALT LAKE UT 84150
SAMUEL J BIGGS; SHEILA R BIGGS (JT)2455 E MALLORY ST MESA AZ 85213
SANDBOX CAPITAL, LLC 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
SANDEEP TALWAR 328 W 200 S #606 SALT LAKE UT 84101
SANDRA A LEFLER 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST #1903 SALT LAKE UT 84101
SARA LUND 360 W BROADWAY ST # 242 SALT LAKE UT 84101
SARAH ALLEN 346 W PIERPONT AVE #E102 SALT LAKE UT 84101
SAW RV TRST; MSW RV TRST 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
SAYER FAMILY TRUST 02/15/2006 7934 CORTE DOMINGO CARLSBAD CA 92009
SBL 7 LLC 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
SC89, LLC 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST #1004 SALT LAKE UT 84101
SCHMIEDER FAMILY TRUST 07/23/2014 424 PIAZZA LIDO NEWPORT CA 92663
SCOTT BASMADJIAN; PHILIP BASMADJIAN; BARBARA BASMADJIAN (JT)336 W 300 S #204 SALT LAKE UT 84101
SCOTT HUMPHREYS 5050 CALATRANA DR WOODLAN CA 91364
SCOTT PELICHOFF; LYNN PELICHOFF (JT)3578 S 1950 W WEST VALL UT 84119
SEAN L KELSTROM 336 W 300 S #309 SALT LAKE UT 84101
SEAN STRASBURG; HOLLIE STRASBURG (JT)308 W 300 S # 201 SALT LAKE UT 84101
SELJETAD DEVELOPMENT LLC 273 PARK VIEW CIR BOUNTIFU UT 84010
SERIES BROWN LION LLC 1287 W BLOOMINGTON DR SOU ST GEORGE UT 84790
SHANDRA KOEHLER; ELIZABETH A KOEHLER 380 W 200 S #506 SALT LAKE UT 84101
SHARD HOLDING LLC 30832 HUNT CLUB DR SAN JUAN CA 92675
SHAWN MCCRANEY & MARY MCCRANEY LIVING TRUST 02/20/2020 380 W 200 S #507 SALT LAKE UT 84101
SHERI J JENSEN INHERITANCE TRUST 08/30/2021 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
SHERRI M FINDLAY 360 W BROADWAY ST # 238 SALT LAKE UT 84101
SHIJIE WANG 336 W 300 S #205 SALT LAKE UT 84101
SHYLO FARNSWORTH 4604 SW IDAHO DR PORTLAND OR 97221
SIDDHARTHA HERDEGEN 380 W 200 S #202 SALT LAKE UT 84101
SIVAPRASAD SUKAVANESHVAR; PRABHA SUNDARAM (JT)327 W 200 S # 101 SALT LAKE UT 84101
SKYFALL23, LLC 336 W 300 S # 402 SALT LAKE UT 84101
STANFORD & GLORIA CALL TRUST 06/15/2022 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
STATE BOARD OF REGENTS LOAN PURCHASE PROGRAM 60 S 400 W # FL-5 SALT LAKE UT 84101
STATE ROAD COMMISSION OF UTAH PO BOX 148420 SALT LAKE UT 84114
STEPHEN GOUGH 380 W 200 S #308 SALT LAKE UT 84101
STEVE & LORI TUTTLE LIVING TRUST 08/25/2021 328 W 200 S #301 SALT LAKE UT 84101
STEVEN & JEANNE WHITING REVOCABLE TRUST 11/26/2019 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
STEVEN BURGESS 380 W 200 S #306 SALT LAKE UT 84101
STEVEN FINAU; JOSHUA JONES (JT)328 W 200 S #201 SALT LAKE UT 84101
STEVEN H SIMPSON 346 W PIERPONT AVE # W206 SALT LAKE UT 84101
STEVEN M MAXWELL 328 W 200 S #102 SALT LAKE UT 84101
STEVEN M MAXWELL 328 W 200 S #609 SALT LAKE UT 84101
STEVEN NICHOLAS BURGESS 312 27TH AVE E #A SEATTLE WA 98124
STONE TRUST LLC 195 HANOVER ST HANOVER MA 02339
SUNNIE HONG GILES LIVING TRUST 03/30/2015 5189 N RIVER PARK WY PROVO UT 84604
SUSAN M PALMER 328 W 200 S # 304 SALT LAKE UT 84101
SWEET CANDY COMPANY 28128 PACIFIC COAST HWY MALIBU CA 90265
SYDNEY IZABELLA GONZALEZ; LEVI LINCHENKO (JT)163 W 200 S #408 SALT LAKE UT 84101
TAKASHI WADA; NAOMI WADA (JT)47 E SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84111
TARRAH SAMUEL 336 W 300 S #413 SALT LAKE UT 84101
TAYLOR BICKMORE 1566 E TIMONEY RD DRAPER UT 84020
31
TAYLOR MORGAN 360 W 300 S #618 SALT LAKE UT 84101
TCR LIV TRUST 7417 EVERWOOD ST. NE KEIZER OR 97303
THE ASIAN ASSOCIATION OF UTAH 155 S 300 W # 101 SALT LAKE UT 84101
THE OLIVE QOZB, LLC 1095 E 2100 S SALT LAKE UT 84106
THOMAS D AARON; MICHAEL D AARON (JT)600 WILLOW RD # 23 MENLO PA CA 94025
TIFFANY S WAKELING 163 W 200 S # 302 SALT LAKE UT 84101
TIMOTHY DAVIS 342 E EDITH AVE SALT LAKE UT 84111
TIMOTHY J DUFFY; KRISTIN B DUFFY (JT)163 W 200 S #506 SALT LAKE UT 84101
TIMOTHY KUNZ 163 W 200 S #207 SALT LAKE UT 84101
TIRE TOWN MIXED USE CONDO PH 1 COMMON AREA MASTER CARD 1145 S 800 E #110 OREM UT 84097
TMC TRUST 03/23/2023 PO BOX 1421 DRAPER UT 84020
TODD RENNER 346 W PIERPONT AVE #E111 SALT LAKE UT 84101
TODD THEOBALD 328 W 200 S #104 SALT LAKE UT 84101
TORIA J MAGLEBY FAMILY LIVING TRUST 03/11/2015 1175 E SECOND AVE SALT LAKE UT 84103
TRACE COCCIMIGLIO PO BOX 1484 SANDY UT 84091
TRAVIS & ALLISON JENSEN TRUST 11/10/2023 6296 PARK LN NORTH PARK CITY UT 84098
TRAVIS EDGAR FINSTAD TRUST 12/02/2019; MADALY LINDA FINSTAD TRUST 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
TRAVIS EDWARD DORSCH; BREANNA ERIN STUDENKA (JT)342 W 200 S #207 SALT LAKE UT 84101
TRAVIS R PETERSEN; DAVID G VAN OOSTENDORP (JT)14883 S VILLAGE CREST DR DRAPER UT 84020
TREVOR NEEDHAM 163 W 200 S #308 SALT LAKE UT 84101
TRIEU NGUYEN & SOPHAN KOY TRUST 09/21/2023 3911 S MARKET ST WEST VALL UT 84119
TROY D WILLIAMS 346 W PIERPONT AVE #E121 SALT LAKE UT 84101
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 14485 SHADOWLANE CT MORGAN CA 95037
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 14485 SHADOWLANE CT MORGAN CA 95037
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 2420 FARETTO LN RENO NV 89511
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 1173 E 200 N FRUIT HEIGUT 84037
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 713 ELM DR PETALUMA CA 94952
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 367 ALPINE WAY STAR VALL WY 83127
TUCKER J SAMUELSEN 336 W 300 S # 306 SALT LAKE UT 84101
UC SALT LAKE, LLC 39 E EAGLE RIDGE DR NORTH SA UT 84054
UFFENS MARKETPLACE UNIT OWNERS ASSOCIATION PO BOX 1 LEHI UT 84043
UTAH DOORS, LLC SERIES TWO 4607 W DAYBREAK PKWY SOUTH JORUT 84009
UTAH POWER & LIGHT CO 825 NE MULTNOMAH ST #1900 PORTLAND OR 97232
VALERIE F CALL 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
VALERIE L KITCHEN 328 W 200 S #508 SALT LAKE UT 84101
VENKATA R MUTYALA 8013 LOS SABALOS ST SAN DIEGO CA 92126
VESTAR GATEWAY, LLC 2425 E CAMELBACK RD PHOENIX AZ 85016
VICTOR-PHILIBERT COULON; KUAN LUO (JT)360 W 300 S #211 SALT LAKE UT 84101
VILLAGE 415, LLC 6000 S OAKHILL DR HOLLADAY UT 84121
VILLAGE 415/PIERPONT SPE, LLC 132 W PIERPONT AVE SALT LAKE UT 84101
VINCENT GAISFORD 163 W 200 S #306 SALT LAKE UT 84101
VINCENT MICHAEL MCGUIRE & JUDY ANN MCGUIRE LIVING TRUST 05/31/202 4916 S CENTER ST MURRAY UT 84107
VINCENT NGUYEN 163 W 200 S # T609 SALT LAKE UT 84101
VINCENT T NGUYEN 163 W 200 S # 510 SALT LAKE UT 84101
VINCENT T NGUYEN 163 W 200 S # 510 SALT LAKE UT 84101
VIVIAN KHIET TRINH 43219 PORTOFINO TER FREMONT CA 94539
VMM ARROW PRESS LLC 51 E 400 S # 210 SALT LAKE UT 84111
VRHR TR 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST # 804 SALT LAKE UT 84101
W FAM TR 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST # 507 SALT LAKE UT 84101
W&HARRJRTR 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST # 506 SALT LAKE UT 84101
WAREHOUSE DISTRICT CONDO OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC PO BOX 571885 SALT LAKE UT 84157
WAYNE ASHTON LARSON TRUST 12/26/1991 2831 E WANDER CIR HOLLADAY UT 84117
WAYNE D GRAY 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
WEIKERT GEORGIA PROPERTIES LLC 3199 WYNN DR AVONDALE GA 30002
WEST BROADWAY INVESTORS, LLC 420 S ORANGE AVE STE 1200 ORLANDO FL 32801
WEST QUARTER LODGING I, LLC 1245 E BRICKYARD RD SALT LAKE UT 84106
WEST RIVER, LLC 187 N 100 E PRICE UT 84501
WESTERN ROCKY COMPANY 2001 UNION ST # 300 SAN FRANCCA 94123
WESTGATE LOFTS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION 262 E 3900 S # 200 MURRAY UT 84107
WESTGATE SB HOLDINGS, LLC 1157 N BOYNTON RD KAYSVILLE UT 84037
WESTON KAY 342 W 200 S #205 SALT LAKE UT 84101
WILLIAM C VANWAGENEN 346 W PIERPONT AVE #E101 SALT LAKE UT 84101
WILLIAM E GOLDMAN 163 W 200 S # 410 SALT LAKE UT 84101
WILLIAM ELLIOT GOLDMAN 163 W 200 S # 410 SALT LAKE UT 84101
WILLIAM J SUTHERLAND 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST #2103 SALT LAKE UT 84101
WILLIAM L ARTHUR 163 W 200 S # 509 SALT LAKE UT 84101
WILLIAM L SWANK 299 S MAIN ST # 1300 SALT LAKE UT 84111
WILLIAM M MOORE REVOCABLE TRUST 08/16/2016; PATRICIA A MOORE REVO 5835 NW 26TH AVE CAMAS WA 98607
WILLIAM MEAD 380 W 200 S # 304 SALT LAKE UT 84101
WILLIAMS IRREVOCABLE TRUST 04/05/2016 3140 ORION DR MOAB UT 84532
WOLF CAPITAL, LLC 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
WW ZEPHYR OWNER VIII, LLC 2716 OCEAN PARK BLVD SANTA MO CA 90405
Y FAM TR 1193 ANGUS CT PARK CITY UT 84098
YEVGENY TUCHINSKY 99 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE UT 84101
YOUNG JIM LLC 1400 S FOOTHILL DR SALT LAKE UT 84108
ZACHARY HADDENHAM 1796 S 300 E SALT LAKE UT 84115
ZI LLANG 163 W 200 S #504 SALT LAKE UT 84101
ZIONS FIRST NATIONAL BANK NA PO BOX 54288 LEXINGTO KY 40555
32
Occupant PARCEL_ADDR NEW_UNIT CITY ZIPCODE STATE
Current Oc 344 W NORTH TEMPLE ST Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 110 N 400 W Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 39 N 400 W Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 49 N 400 W Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 2 S 400 W Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 101 N 400 W Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 55 N 400 W Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 99 N 400 W Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 95 N 400 W Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 455 W NORTH TEMPLE ST Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 421 W NORTH TEMPLE ST Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 430 W 50 N Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 155 N 400 W Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 28 N 400 W Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 48 N 400 W Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 60 N 400 W Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 395 W NORTH TEMPLE ST Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 308 W NORTH TEMPLE ST Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 116 N 300 W Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 112 N 300 W Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 102 N 300 W Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 274 W NORTH TEMPLE ST Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 264 W NORTH TEMPLE ST Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 250 W NORTH TEMPLE ST Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 248 W NORTH TEMPLE ST Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 242 W NORTH TEMPLE ST Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 230 W NORTH TEMPLE ST Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 107 N 200 W Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 206 W NORTH TEMPLE ST Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 125 N 200 W Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 133 N 200 W #NFF1 Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 216 W NORTH TEMPLE ST #C3 Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 216 W NORTH TEMPLE ST #C4 Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 216 W NORTH TEMPLE ST #C5 Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 216 W NORTH TEMPLE ST #C6 Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 216 W NORTH TEMPLE ST #C7 Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 216 W NORTH TEMPLE ST #C8 Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 214 W NORTH TEMPLE ST #E-1 Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 214 W NORTH TEMPLE ST #E2 Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 214 W NORTH TEMPLE ST #E3 Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 214 W NORTH TEMPLE ST #E4 Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 214 W NORTH TEMPLE ST #E5 Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 214 W NORTH TEMPLE ST #E6 Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 214 W NORTH TEMPLE ST #E-7 Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 218 W NORTH TEMPLE ST #W1 Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 218 W NORTH TEMPLE ST #W2 Salt Lake C 84103 UT
33
Current Oc 218 W NORTH TEMPLE ST #W3 Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 218 W NORTH TEMPLE ST #W4 Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 218 W NORTH TEMPLE ST #W5 Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 218 W NORTH TEMPLE ST #W6 Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 218 W NORTH TEMPLE ST #W7 Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 218 W NORTH TEMPLE ST #W8 Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 214 W NORTH TEMPLE ST Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 55 N 300 W Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 55 N 300 W Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 340 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 240 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 269 W NORTH TEMPLE ST Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 75 N 200 W Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 95 N 300 W Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 345 W NORTH TEMPLE ST Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 150 W NORTH TEMPLE ST Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 144 W NORTH TEMPLE ST Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 134 W NORTH TEMPLE ST Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 60 W NORTH TEMPLE ST Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 100 N WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 163 W NORTH TEMPLE ST Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 161 W NORTH TEMPLE ST Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 159 W NORTH TEMPLE ST Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 50 N 200 W Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 40 N 200 W Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 160 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 45 N WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 35 N WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 122 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 141 W NORTH TEMPLE ST Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 143 W NORTH TEMPLE ST Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 151 W NORTH TEMPLE ST #NFF1 Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 50 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST Salt Lake C 84103 UT
Current Oc 76 S 400 W Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 301 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 301 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 301 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 365 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 365 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 377 W 100 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 141 S 400 W Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 125 S 400 W Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 125 S 400 W #REAR Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 141 S 400 W #REAR Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 360 W 200 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 316 W 200 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 320 W 200 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
34
Current Oc 140 S 300 W Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 144 S 300 W Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 345 W 100 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 160 S 300 W Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 424 W 100 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 444 W 100 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 90 S 400 W #2A Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 90 S 400 W #2B Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 90 S 400 W #2C Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 90 S 400 W #2D Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 90 S 400 W #2E Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 90 S 400 W #2F Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 424 W 100 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 328 W 200 S #100 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 328 W 200 S #103 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 328 W 200 S #105 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 328 W 200 S #106 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 328 W 200 S #203 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 328 W 200 S #205 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 328 W 200 S #206 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 328 W 200 S #207 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 328 W 200 S #209 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 328 W 200 S #303 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 328 W 200 S #304 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 328 W 200 S #309 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 328 W 200 S #310 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 328 W 200 S #401 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 328 W 200 S #404 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 328 W 200 S #405 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 328 W 200 S #407 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 328 W 200 S #410 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 328 W 200 S #506 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 328 W 200 S #510 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 328 W 200 S #601 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 328 W 200 S #602 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 328 W 200 S #603 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 328 W 200 S #605 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 342 W 200 S #102 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 342 W 200 S #103 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 342 W 200 S #104 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 342 W 200 S #105 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 342 W 200 S #108 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 342 W 200 S #109 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 342 W 200 S #110 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 342 W 200 S #202 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 342 W 200 S #204 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 342 W 200 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
35
Current Oc 441 W 100 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 110 S 400 W Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 440 W 200 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 441 W 100 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 235 S RIO GRANDE ST Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 268 S 400 W #NFF Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 224 S 400 W Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 234 S 400 W Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 244 S 400 W Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 280 S 400 W Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 229 S RIO GRANDE ST Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 214 S 400 W Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 437 W 200 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 375 W 200 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 357 W 200 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 353 W 200 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 340 W PIERPONT AVE Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 235 S 400 W Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 229 S 400 W Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 331 W PIERPONT AVE Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 378 W 300 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 380 W 200 S #001 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 380 W 200 S #101 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 380 W 200 S #203 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 380 W 200 S #204 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 380 W 200 S #301 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 380 W 200 S #303 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 380 W 200 S #304 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 380 W 200 S #309 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 380 W 200 S #401 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 380 W 200 S #405 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 380 W 200 S #406 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 380 W 200 S #407 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 380 W 200 S #408 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 380 W 200 S #501 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 380 W 200 S #502 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 380 W 200 S #503 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 380 W 200 S #504 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 380 W 200 S #505 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 380 W 200 S #508 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 380 W 200 S #601 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 380 W 200 S #602 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 380 W 200 S #603 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 380 W 200 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 346 W PIERPONT AVE #W101 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 346 W PIERPONT AVE #W102 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 346 W PIERPONT AVE #W103 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
36
Current Oc 346 W PIERPONT AVE #W104 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 346 W PIERPONT AVE #W106 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 346 W PIERPONT AVE #W107 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 346 W PIERPONT AVE #W109 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 346 W PIERPONT AVE #W110 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 346 W PIERPONT AVE #W112 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 346 W PIERPONT AVE #W201 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 346 W PIERPONT AVE #W203 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 346 W PIERPONT AVE #W205 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 346 W PIERPONT AVE #W206 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 346 W PIERPONT AVE #W209 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 346 W PIERPONT AVE #W210 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 346 W PIERPONT AVE #W211 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 346 W PIERPONT AVE #W212 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 346 W PIERPONT AVE #W214 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 346 W PIERPONT AVE #E104 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 346 W PIERPONT AVE #E105 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 346 W PIERPONT AVE #E109 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 346 W PIERPONT AVE #E112 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 346 W PIERPONT AVE #E113 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 346 W PIERPONT AVE #E117 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 346 W PIERPONT AVE #E118 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 346 W PIERPONT AVE #E120 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 346 W PIERPONT AVE #E122 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 346 W PIERPONT AVE #E123 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 350 W PIERPONT AVE Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 346 W PIERPONT AVE Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 336 W 300 S #101 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 336 W 300 S #102 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 336 W 300 S #103 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 336 W 300 S #104 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 336 W 300 S #105 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 336 W 300 S #106 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 336 W 300 S #107 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 336 W 300 S #108 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 336 W 300 S #109 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 336 W 300 S #110 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 336 W 300 S #203 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 336 W 300 S #206 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 336 W 300 S #208 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 336 W 300 S #209 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 336 W 300 S #210 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 336 W 300 S #211 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 336 W 300 S #212 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 336 W 300 S #213 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 336 W 300 S #214 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 336 W 300 S #215 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
37
Current Oc 336 W 300 S #301 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 336 W 300 S #302 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 336 W 300 S #304 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 336 W 300 S #305 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 336 W 300 S #306 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 336 W 300 S #307 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 336 W 300 S #308 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 336 W 300 S #310 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 336 W 300 S #311 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 336 W 300 S #312 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 336 W 300 S #313 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 336 W 300 S #314 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 336 W 300 S #315 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 336 W 300 S #401 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 336 W 300 S #402 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 336 W 300 S #403 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 336 W 300 S #404 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 336 W 300 S #405 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 336 W 300 S #406 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 336 W 300 S #408 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 336 W 300 S #409 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 336 W 300 S #410 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 336 W 300 S #411 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 336 W 300 S #414 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 336 W 300 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 360 W 300 S #204 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 360 W 300 S #209 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 360 W 300 S #210 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 360 W 300 S #213 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 360 W 300 S #214 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 360 W 300 S #215 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 360 W 300 S #216 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 360 W 300 S #217 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 360 W 300 S #223 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 360 W 300 S #225 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 360 W 300 S #226 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 360 W 300 S #228 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 360 W 300 S #230 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 360 W 300 S #234 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 360 W 300 S #238 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 360 W 300 S #239 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 360 W 300 S #240 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 360 W 300 S #241 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 360 W 300 S #242 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 360 W 300 S #401 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 360 W 300 S #402 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 360 W 300 S #404 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
38
Current Oc 360 W 300 S #405 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 360 W 300 S #408 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 360 W 300 S #409 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 360 W 300 S #410 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 360 W 300 S #411 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 360 W 300 S #412 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 360 W 300 S #414 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 360 W 300 S #415 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 360 W 300 S #416 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 360 W 300 S #417 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 360 W 300 S #418 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 360 W 300 S #423 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 360 W 300 S #603 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 360 W 300 S #604 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 360 W 300 S #605 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 360 W 300 S #611 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 360 W 300 S #614 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 360 W 300 S #616 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 360 W 300 S #617 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 360 W 300 S #620 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 360 W 300 S #621 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 360 W 300 S #202 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 360 W 300 S #609 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 360 W 300 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 279 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 34 S 200 W Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 40 S 200 W Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 36 S 200 W #NFF1 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 265 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 255 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 215 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 48 S 200 W Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 55 S 300 W Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 50 S 200 W #NFF Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 60 S 200 W Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 266 W 100 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 276 W 100 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 222 W 100 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 218 W 100 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 212 W 100 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 64 S 200 W Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 72 S 200 W Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 155 S 300 W Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 243 W 100 S #-REAR Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 247 W 100 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 215 W 100 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 126 S 200 W Salt Lake C 84101 UT
39
Current Oc 120 S 200 W Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 274 W 200 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 150 S 200 W Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 260 W 200 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 222 W 200 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 111 S 300 W #COM Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 111 S 300 W Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 131 S 300 W Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 111 S 300 W #P1 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 111 S 300 W #P2 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 260 W QUARTER ROW Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 20 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 79 S 200 W Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 65 S 200 W Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 151 S 200 W Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 170 S WEST TEMPLE ST #84101 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 75 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 50 S MAIN ST Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 50 S MAIN ST Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 50 S MAIN ST Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 30 S MAIN ST Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 55 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 55 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 45 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 44 W 100 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 44 W 100 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 50 S MAIN ST Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 79 W 100 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 67 W 100 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 37 W 100 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 115 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 119 S WEST TEMPLE ST #NFF1 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 123 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 37 W 100 S #NFF1 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 155 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 55 W 100 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 127 S WEST TEMPLE ST #NFF1 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 175 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 165 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 50 W 200 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 147 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #201 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #202 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #203 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #204 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #205 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
40
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #206 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #207 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #301 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #302 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #303 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #304 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #305 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #306 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #307 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #401 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #402 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #403 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #404 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #405 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #501 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #502 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #503 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #504 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #505 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #506 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #507 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #603 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #604 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #605 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #606 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #607 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #703 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #704 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #705 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #706 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #707 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #801 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #802 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #803 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #804 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #805 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #806 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #807 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #901 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #902 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #903 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #904 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #905 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #906 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #907 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1003 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1004 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
41
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1005 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1006 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1007 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1101 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1102 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1103 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1104 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1105 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1106 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1107 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1201 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1202 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1203 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1204 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1205 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1206 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1207 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1301 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1302 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1303 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1304 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1305 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1306 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1307 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1401 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1402 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1403 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1404 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1405 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1406 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1407 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1503 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1504 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1505 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1506 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1507 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1601 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1602 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1603 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1604 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1605 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1606 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1607 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1701 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1702 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1703 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1704 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
42
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1705 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1706 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1707 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1801 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1802 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1803 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1804 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1805 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1806 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1807 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1901 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1902 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1903 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1904 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1905 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1906 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #1907 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #2001 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #2002 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #2006 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #2007 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #2101 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #2102 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #2103 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #2104 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #2105 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #2106 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #2107 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #2203 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #2204 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #2205 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #2206 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #2207 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #2301 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #2302 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #2303 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #2304 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #2305 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #2306 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #2307 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #2403 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #2404 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #2405 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #2406 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #2407 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #2504 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #2505 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
43
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #2506 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #2507 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #2703 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #3001 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #2800 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #2900 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #406 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #701 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #2005 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #2701 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #2704 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 307 W 200 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 230 S 300 W Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 325 W PIERPONT AVE Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 314 W 300 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 315 W PIERPONT AVE Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 217 S 300 W Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 227 S 300 W Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 229 S 300 W Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 231 S 300 W #NFF1 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 233 S 300 W Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 235 S 300 W Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 247 S 300 W Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 255 S 300 W Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 275 S 300 W Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 263 W 200 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 241 W 200 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 225 W 200 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 224 S 200 W Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 258 W 300 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 240 S POPLAR CT Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 234 W 300 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 257 S POPLAR CT Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 263 S POPLAR CT Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 218 W 300 S #NFF1 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 222 W 300 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 210 W 300 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 202 W 300 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 260 S 200 W Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 307 W PIERPONT AVE #LL1 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 308 W 300 S #101 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 308 W 300 S #102 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 308 W 300 S #103 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 308 W 300 S #104 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 308 W 300 S #105 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 308 W 300 S #106 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 308 W 300 S #107 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
44
Current Oc 308 W 300 S #108 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 308 W 300 S #109 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 308 W 300 S #201 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 308 W 300 S #202 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 308 W 300 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 327 W 200 S #101 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 327 W 200 S #102 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 327 W 200 S #201 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 327 W 200 S #202 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 327 W 200 S #203 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 327 W 200 S #204 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 327 W 200 S #206 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 327 W 200 S #207 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 327 W 200 S #208 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 327 W 200 S #304 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 327 W 200 S #305 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 327 W 200 S #306 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 327 W 200 S #307 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 327 W 200 S #308 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 327 W 200 S #401 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 327 W 200 S #402 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 327 W 200 S #407 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 327 W 200 S #408 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 327 W 200 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 155 W 200 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 149 W 200 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 206 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 122 W PIERPONT AVE Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 143 W 200 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 152 W PIERPONT AVE Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 144 W PIERPONT AVE Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 141 W 200 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 175 W 200 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 215 S 200 W Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 139 W 200 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 163 W PIERPONT AVE Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 257 S 200 W Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 257 S 200 W Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 159 W PIERPONT AVE Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 145 W PIERPONT AVE Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 168 W 300 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 110 W 300 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 157 W PIERPONT AVE Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 149 W PIERPONT AVE Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 259 S 200 W Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 250 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 138 W 300 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
45
Current Oc 128 W 300 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 275 S 200 W Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 259 S 200 W #NFF Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 164 W 300 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 143 W PIERPONT AVE Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 77 W 200 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 57 W 200 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 225 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 80 W 300 S Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 163 W 200 S #S1 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 163 W 200 S #S3 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 163 W 200 S #S4 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 163 W 200 S #S6 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 163 W 200 S #S7 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 163 W 200 S #S8 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 163 W 200 S #S9 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 163 W 200 S #S12 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 163 W 200 S #S13 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 163 W 200 S #S14 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 163 W 200 S #S20 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 163 W 200 S #S21 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 163 W 200 S #S22 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 163 W 200 S #101 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 163 W 200 S #201 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 163 W 200 S #202 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 163 W 200 S #203 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 163 W 200 S #204 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 163 W 200 S #210 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 163 W 200 S #301 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 163 W 200 S #302 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 163 W 200 S #305 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 163 W 200 S #402 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 163 W 200 S #403 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 163 W 200 S #406 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 163 W 200 S #409 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 163 W 200 S #410 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 163 W 200 S #501 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 163 W 200 S #502 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 163 W 200 S #505 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 163 W 200 S #508 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 163 W 200 S #509 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 163 W 200 S #510 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 163 W 200 S #T601 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 163 W 200 S #T602 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 163 W 200 S #T603 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 163 W 200 S #T604 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 163 W 200 S #T605 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
46
Current Oc 163 W 200 S #T608 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 163 W 200 S #T609 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 163 W 200 S #T610 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #2501 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Current Oc 99 W SOUTH TEMPLE ST #260 Salt Lake C 84101 UT
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
City Council Briefing 8/27/2024
POTENTIAL APPROACHES TO SIMPLIFYING AND IMPROVING R-1 DISTRICTS
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL ASKED FOR
•Explore combining R-1 zoning districts
•Provide options that may include, but not be limited to:
•reducing minimum lot sizes,
•reducing, or removing minimum lot widths,
•easing flag lot standards, and
•allowing attached single-family dwellings (townhouses) in all
zones.
•On major streets, options for:
•Greater residential density, and
•mixed-use development.
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
CONSIDER CITY POLICIES
•Thriving in Place
•Future Land Use and Water planning
•Public Transportation
•Walkability
•Historic Preservation
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
R-1 ZONING HISTORY
Salt Lake City //Planning Division
Residential “A” Zone:
•Single Family
•Duplex
•Boarding houses
•Student dorms
1927: FIRST CITYWIDE ZONING MAP
Salt Lake City //Planning Division
1948: FIRST EXCLUSIVE
SFR DISTRICT
Residential “AA” located in
Federal Heights
Salt Lake City //Planning Division
1958: FIRST R-1 ZONE
•“AA” renamed R-1
•East of about 13th Ave
(mostly undeveloped)
Salt Lake City //Planning Division
BY 1994: R-1 ZONE
EXPANDED
•Capitol Hill
•West of Redwood
•Some of Glendale
•East of Foothill
Salt Lake City //Planning Division
1995: MOST R2
REZONED TO R1
•Current R-1 zones:
•R-1/12,000,
•R-1/7,000, and
•R-1/5,000
•Most R-2 changed to R-1
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
CONSOLIDATING R-1
ZONES
Salt Lake City //Planning Division
CONSOLIDATING R-1 ZONES
Will not create a noticeable amount of new housing
New housing would only occur where:
•Lots exceed 10,000 sq ft in area;
•Lots exceed 100’ in width;
•Large yards do not require demolition of an existing home;
•Land is worth more than the existing building.
Key benefit: Simplifying zoning code.
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
REDUCING LOT AREAS
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
LOT SIZES
•35% of all lots do not meet minimum lot area
•Undersized lots may use R-1/5,000 standards
•5,700 lots are between 3,000-5,000 sq ft
•Min. lot area of 2,000 sq ft needed for 97% of lots to comply
•Most SF lots in the city were created through a subdivision
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
LOT SIZES: OPTIONS
Degree of impact:
None, Low, Medium, High
Produces
more housing Controversial Staff
Resources
Simplifies
Code
No change None Low None None
Consolidate, 5,000 sq ft min. lot area Low Medium Medium Low
Consolidate, 4,000 sq ft min. lot area Low High Medium Low
Consolidate, 2,000 sq ft min. lot area Medium High Medium Medium
Consolidate, 1,500 sq ft min. lot area Medium/High High Medium Medium
Eliminate minimum lot sizes High High Medium Medium
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
REDUCING LOT WIDTHS
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
•Plat of Zion: “4 perches wide” (66’)
•Perch (rod) = 16.5’
•4 rods = 1 chain = 66’
•10 chains = 1 furlong = 660’
•Rods and Chains used until 1950s
•Older neighborhoods: 33’, 49.5’,
or 66’ wide
•25-foot lots appeared in early
1900s, likely leading to 50-foot
minimum in the 1950s
•Created nonconforming lots and
a variety of lot widths
HISTORY OF LOT WIDTHS
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
LOT WIDTH: OPTIONS
Degree of impact:
None, Low, Medium, High
Produces more
housing Controversial Staff Resources Simplifies
Code
No change None None None None
Reduce minimum lot widths Low High Low None
Eliminate minimum lot widths High High Low Medium
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
EASING FLAG LOT
RULES
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
FLAG LOTS
Lots without frontage
connected to the street
by a narrow access strip
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
•Very few flag lots in last 15 years
•Barriers:
•Min. lot size is 1.5x the district min. lot size
•Fire code:
•Perimeter at least 150’ from fire truck
•Access road required if >150’
FLAG LOTS
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
FLAG LOT: OPTIONS
Degree of impact:
None, Low, Medium, High
Produces more
housing Controversial Staff
Resources
Simplifies
Code
No change None None None No
Reduce minimum flag lot
area Low Low Low Low
Eliminate minimum flag lot
area Low High High No
Possible Option*: allow lots
without street frontage
*next slide
Low/medium High Low No
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
FLAG LOT: OPTIONS
*Possible Option: Allow lots without street frontage
•Could create small, starter homes
•Minimum lot size would need to be reduced
•Detached ADUs could be subdivided onto own lot
•Attached ADUs could be converted to condominiums
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
ALLOWING ATTACHED
HOUSING IN R1 ZONES
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
•Most residential land is zoned for
detached single-family houses
•Definitions should be updated to
specify dwelling types
•Include cottage courts and
duplexes
ATTACHED HOUSING
IN R-1 ZONES
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED: OPTIONS
Degree of impact:
None, Low, Medium, High
Produces more
housing Controversial Staff
Resources
Simplifies
Code
No change None None None None
Update dwelling definitions,
and allow in R1 zones Low High High Low
Rezone R-1 to a zone that
allows attached housing Medium High High Medium
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED: OPTIONS
Allowing attached housing will require changing:
•Min. lot size
•Min lot width
Possibly easier to rezone R-1 properties to a zone
already calibrated for different housing types.
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
WHAT HAPPENS IF…
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
R-1/12,000 R-1/7,000 R-1/5,000 3,000 square
foot lots
Lot Dimensions 80’x150’=12,000 50’x140’=7,000 50’x100’=5,000 30’x100’=3,000
Setbacks: min
(total area)
Front: 20’ (1600 ft2)
Side: 8’ (840 ft2)
Side: 10’ (1050 ft2)
Rear: 25’ (2000 ft2)
Front: 20’ (1000 ft2)
Side: 6’ (300 ft2)
Side: 10’ (500 ft2)
Rear: 25’ (1,250 ft2)
Front: 20’ (1000 ft2)
Side: 4’ (240 ft2)
Side: 10’ (500 ft2)
Rear: 20’ (1,000 ft2)
Front: 10’ (300 ft2)
Side: 4’ (280 ft2)
Side: 6’ (420 ft2)
Rear: 20’ (600 ft2)
Buildable Area (lot
area-setback area)
6,510 ft2 3,950 ft2 2,260 ft2 1,600 ft2
Max Lot Coverage 35%=4,200 ft2 40%=2,800 ft2 40%=2,000 1,600 ft2
Difference 2,310 ft2 of
buildable area that
cannot be built on.
1,150 ft2 of
buildable area
cannot be build
on.
260 ft2 of buildable
area cannot be
build on.
none
Outcome:
• in opportunity
for small lot homes
•smaller yards =
in outdoor water
use
• in new residents
within existing
neighborhoods
Lot size is 3,000 SF, setbacks are reduced, and lot coverage equals buildable area?
WHAT HAPPENS IF…
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
R-1 COMPARED TO SR-3
Example shows:
•Setbacks restrict building footprint to
<500 ft2.
•Not economically feasible to only
reducing lot size and lot width
•R-1 front setback is block average and
usually larger than 20’
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
WHAT HAPPENS IF…
FB-UN1 zone is used to replace the R1 zones?
FB-UN1 869 South
Washington
If R-1/5,000
zone were
used
Lot Dimensions 132x50 (6,600 ft2)132x50 (6,600 ft2)132 x 50 (minimum
is 5,000 ft2)
Setbacks: min
(total area)
Front: Average (1,050 ft2)
Side: 4’ (344 ft2)
Side: 4’ (344 ft2)
Rear: 25’ (1,250 ft2)
Front: 21’ (1,050 ft2)
Side: 5’ (430 ft2)
Side: 8’ (688 ft2)
Rear: 25’ (1,250 ft2)
Front: 21’ (1,050 ft2)
Side: 4’ (430 ft2)
Side: 10’ (860 ft2)
Rear: 20’ (1,200 ft2)
Buildable Area
(lot area-
setback area)
3,610 ft2 3,370 ft2
(constructed
footprint)
3,060 ft2
10% open
space
660 ft2 1,480 provided
Front yard=1,050
and side yard (430)
40% lot coverage:
2,640
4 homes possible 4 homes built 1 home possible
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
FB-UN1 INFILL: ONE HOME TO FIVE
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
SMALL LOT INFILL DEVELOPMENT
What it would look like?
•Allowed development type
with no zoning map change
•Reduce min lot size (2,000 ft2)
•Smaller setbacks
•Reduced/eliminated lot width
•Max dwelling size
•Lot coverage determined by
setbacks
•Can allow attached units
•Cross access easements
•Subdivision plat required
•May also allow cluster
development
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
SMALL LOT INFILL DEVELOPMENT
Durham, NC:
•Small footprint, small lots
•Min lot size of 2,000 ft2
•Max dwelling size: 1,200 ft2
•Adopted in 2019
•215 small lot homes built:
o 4 times as many were built
in areas with lower wealth
areas vs high wealth areas
•Median sales price:
o Typical SFD: $605,000
o Small Lot: $348,000
Source: https://www.durhamnc.gov/3679/Expanding-
Housing-Choices
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
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: _________________ ________________________
Jill Love, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 04/05/2024
Victoria Petro, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods
__________________________
SUBJECT: Council requested study of the R-1 zoning districts
STAFF CONTACT: Nick Norris, Planning Director nick.norris@slcgov.com or 801-535-6173
DOCUMENT TYPE: Information Only
RECOMMENDATION: None
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: In 2023 the City Council adopted a legislative intent
requesting that the administration study the R-1 zoning districts for the following purposes:
•Explore consolidating the R-1 zoning districts;
•Provide options that may include, but not be limited to, reducing minimum lot sizes,
reducing, or removing minimum lot widths, easing flag lot standards, and allowing attached
single-family dwellings in all zones;
•Consider options for zoning changes along collectors and arterials to allow greater
residential density and mixed-use development (the council suggested that this be a
separate study);
•Review the subdivision process to ensure that it aligns with the County regulations for
recording subdivisions;
•That the council hold a work session with the administration on the scope of the study to
include alignment with:
jill love (Apr 9, 2024 08:54 MDT)
jill love 04/09/2024
04/09/2024
o Thriving in Place;
o Future land use and water policy;
o Public transportation needs; and
o The vision of a walkable city.
This transmittal includes a report produced by the Planning Division that responds to the council
request. The report provides a history of single-family zoning in the city, options for each of the
specific items the council requested, a short analysis of each option, a summary of similar
actions taken by other communities, a high level discussion of how each action aligns with
adopted city policies, and a list of resources reviewed during the research of the report.
The study is intended to start the conversation that the city council requested. If the council
initiates code changes for any of the options listed in the report, more detailed information will
be provided as necessary during the text amendment process.
PUBLIC PROCESS: None
EXHIBITS:
1) Exhibit A: Approaches to Simplifying and Improving the R-1 Zoning Districts
Exhibit A:
Approaches to Simplifying and
Improving the R-1 Zoning Districts
ZONING DISTRICT AMENDMENT STUDY
POTENTIAL APPROACHES TO
SIMPLIFYING AND IMPROVING
R-1 DISTRICTS
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 2
Introduction
During their formal meeting on September 5, 2023, the Salt Lake City Council passed a
legislative action requesting that staff study options for a zoning text amendment that
would make changes to all R-1 single-family residential zoning districts.
Specifically, the Council asked staff to:
•Explore consolidating the R-1 zoning districts.
•Provide options that may include, but not be limited to, reducing minimum lot sizes,
reducing, or removing minimum lot widths, easing flag lot standards, and allowing
attached single-family dwellings in all zones.
•Consider options for zoning changes along collectors and arterials to allow greater
residential density and mixed-use development.
The Council also wanted staff to evaluate how the proposals would impact strategies within
Thriving in Place, future land/water policy, public transportation needs, walkability, and
local historic districts.
The options identified by the Planning Division are outlined in this report. The Division
started with a history of the city’s zoning regulations to provide context for how single-
family zoning in the city was established. The report is broken down into chapters that
address each request individually. This information is intended to help the Council decide
what, if any, actions are appropriate and necessary to help define the role that single-family
zoning districts fulfill in addressing the housing needs of the city for future generations and
the housing goals adopted by the City Council.
If the council initiates any of the options identified in this report, the Planning
Division will provide more specific analysis, research, and background information.
This report is not intended to capture all issues, identify all examples, or establish a
full list of pros and cons of any potential actions.
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 3
Table of Contents
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 2
Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................. 3
Summary of Options ......................................................................................................................... 5
Relevant History of Salt Lake City’s Zoning Regulations ............................................................... 8
City Council Requests ..................................................................................................................... 13
A. Consolidation of R-1 Districts .................................................................................................... 14
B. Reducing Minimum Lot Areas ................................................................................................... 19
C. Reducing Minimum Lot Widths ................................................................................................. 27
D. Reduce Minimum Setbacks ....................................................................................................... 30
E. Flag Lot Standards ...................................................................................................................... 35
F. Allow Single-Family Attached Dwellings in R-1 Zones ............................................................. 40
Zoning Map Amendments Along Collectors And Arterials To Allow Greater
Residential Density And Mixed-Use Development. ..................................................................... 53
Supporting Plans and Policies ....................................................................................................... 58
Thriving in Place .............................................................................................................................. 58
Thriving in Place Goals .................................................................................................................. 58
Water Use ......................................................................................................................................... 60
Public Transportation ..................................................................................................................... 62
Walkability ........................................................................................................................................ 64
Historic Districts .............................................................................................................................. 68
Affected Local Historic Districts ..................................................................................................... 69
Case Studies ..................................................................................................................................... 70
Relevant Studies and Background Information .......................................................................... 78
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 5
Summary of Options
This section provides a summary of the options discussed in this report. It is intended to
provide a quick look at the options. Specific sections provide more detail about the options.
A. Consolidating R-1 Zoning Districts
• Rezone the R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, and R-1/5,000 zoned properties to R-1/5,000.
• Rezone all the R-1 zoned properties to one of the zoning districts that allows single-
family attached uses.
• Maintain the three R-1 zoning districts but consolidate into a single chapter so the
only difference between the zones are the minimum lot dimensions.
• Maintain the three R-1 zones as is.
B. Reduce Minimum Lot Areas in the R-1 Zones
• If the R-1 zones are consolidated into the R-1/5,000 zone, maintain the minimum lot
area of 5,000 square feet.
• If the R-1 zones are consolidated into the R-1/5,000 zone, reduce the minimum lot size
to a size so nearly all lots comply with the minimum lot area.
• If the three R-1 zones are rezoned to a zone that allows single-family attached,
maintain the minimum lot size of that zone, and ensure that the minimum lot size is
not a barrier to producing single family attached housing.
• If the three R-1 zones are maintained but placed in a single chapter, modify the
minimum lot area in each so at least 98% of the lots in each zone comply with the
minimum lot size.
C. Reduce the Minimum Lot Width in the R-1 Zones
• Reduce the minimum lot widths.
• Eliminate the minimum lot width.
D. Reduce the Minimum Setbacks
• Modify the minimum setbacks so that they are the same in each of the R-1 zones.
• Modify the setbacks so they are a % of the lot width so that smaller lots are not as
negatively impacted as larger lots.
• Maintain the setbacks as if no consolidations occur.
• If the three R-1 zones are consolidated, utilize the R-1/5,000 setbacks.
• If a different zoning district is used to replace the R-1/5,000 district (to allow
single-family attached, for example) use the setbacks in the replacement district.
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 6
E. Flag Lot Standards
• Eliminate the minimum lot area for the street adjacent lot and the flag lot.
• Reduce the minimum lot area for the street adjacent lot and the flag lot so both require
the same amount of lot area.
• Allow the pole part of the lot to be an easement across the street adjacent lot.
• Create standards and processes for creating lots without frontage that are not flag lots.
F. Authorize Single-Family Attached in the R-1 Zones
• Add the use as a permitted use in the zone and develop specific standards for
this type of housing.
• Utilize another zone that already permits this housing type and has existing standards.
• If allowing single-family attached, consider adding cottage style developments
and duplexes as well.
G. Zoning Map Amendments to Increase Residential Density and Mixed-Use
Opportunities Along Arterials and Collectors
• Consolidate existing mixed-use and commercial zones into a series of new zones
that allow for appropriate scaled mixed-use based on the characteristics of
specific corridors.
• Extend existing commercial and mixed-use zoning to properties that are adjacent to
existing commercial properties.
• Remove limitations on residential development in commercial zones.
• Rezone corridors based on presence of other commercial uses along the corridor.
• Increase the development potential within existing commercial and mixed-use areas.
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 8
Relevant History of Salt Lake City’s Zoning Regulations
Zoning was first adopted in Salt Lake City in 1927. The first zoning ordinance divided the
city into seven zoning districts. The district with the lowest residential density was the
“Residential A” district, which allowed for single-family homes and duplexes.
The Residential A district also allowed “renting of rooms for lodging purposes, or the
furnishing of table boards for not to exceed six (6) persons in a one-family dwelling” and
“dormitories, fraternity, or sorority houses or boarding houses” occupied by faculty and
students of public universities. Offices for doctors, musicians, and other professionals were
also allowed within a dwelling. This zoning designation could be found in Federal Heights,
Capitol Hill, east of 300 E & south of 900 S, north of 7th Ave, and in some parts of Glendale
and Rose Park. Multi-unit buildings were allowed in all other residential areas of the city.
1927 Zoning map (Residential A zone highlighted)
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 9
By 1948, the “Residential AA” zoning designation appeared in the zoning ordinance. Unlike
the “Residential A” district, this zoning designation prohibited duplexes and established
the city’s earliest exclusive single-family zoning. This zoning designation was originally
mapped only to the Federal Heights neighborhood.
1951 Zoning map which reflects the 1948 zoning code showing
the Residential AA zone. (Federal Heights neighborhood highlighted)
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 10
By 1958, the “Residential AA” designation had been renamed “Residential R-1” and
required at least 7,000 square feet of lot area for new lots. This designation originally
appeared north of 13th Ave and east of Virginia Street, mostly in areas that had not
yet been developed, as shown on the 1958 zoning map.
1958 Zoning map showing the area changed from Residential AA
to Residential R-1 (-1 zone highlighted)
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 11
By 1994, R-1 zone had spread to the upper east bench (east of 2340 East), Capitol Hill
(north of 650 N), and a few areas within the Glendale and Westpointe neighborhoods. A
small area of Glendale was zoned R-1/5,000 near 1300 S and the Jordan River. Duplexes
were allowed in all other residential areas of the city, and multi-family housing was
allowed in some areas where it is not allowed currently.
1994 Zoning map (R-1 and R-1/5,000 zones highlighted)
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 12
In 1995, the zoning ordinance was rewritten, and the entire city was rezoned. The new
ordinance was intended to accomplish the following four goals:
1.To implement the land use and growth management goals of the Salt Lake City Master Plans
2.To recognize the existing development pattern of the city
3.To simplify the development regulations and standards
4.To streamline the development review process
Although not explicitly mentioned in these goals, the 1995 Zoning Rewrite downzoned a
significant amount of land within the city by rezoning mostly R-2 land to one of the new R-1
zones. After the zoning rewrite, most residential areas were rezoned to one of six single-
family zoning classifications: R-1/5,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/12,000, FR-1/43,560, FR-2/21,780
and FR-3/12,000.
Current Zoning map – single-family zoning.
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 14
City Council Requests
Section 2 breaks down each of the specific requests from the Council into different
categories, explains the current regulations, identifies a rationale for the options, and
discusses possible issues. Please refer to the “Best Practices” section for information
about actions taken by other cities.
A.Consolidation of R-1 Districts
The City Council asked the Planning Division to provide options that would
consolidate the R-1 zoning districts.
There are three R-1 districts: R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, and R-1/5,000.
The three Foothill Residential Districts are also considered to be single-family zoning
districts. The FR districts include specific regulations that apply only to the foothill areas.
Some FR regulations are complex and would be difficult to consolidate with the R-1 zones.
For these reasons, this section does not discuss the FR zoning districts.
CURRENT ZONING REGULATIONS
Currently, there are three R-1 districts in the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance: R-1/12,000,
R-1/7,000, and R-1/5,000. Each zoning district includes the following regulations:
LOT REQS.
Lot Area & Width
Requirements
BUILDING
HEIGHT
Same Regulations
for Each District
SETBACKS
Front Yard, Corner
Side Yard (corner
lots), Interior Side
Yard, & Rear Yard
MAXIMUM
LOT SIZE
ATTACHED
GARAGE
REGULATIONS
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 15
OPTIONS
The City Council has multiple options to consolidate R-1 zoning districts based on the goal
and purpose of consolidation. Each of these options are outlined below.
A1: Rezone the R-1/12,000 and R-1/7,000 zoned properties to R-1/5,000.
This option would consist of a zoning map amendment and a text amendment. The map
amendment would change the zoning map for all R-1/12,000 and R-1/7,000 zoned
properties to R-1/5,000.
Important things to know:
• Would eliminate multiple pages of mostly redundant regulations and use only the
regulations in the R-1/5,000 zone.
• Would reduce the number of noncomplying lots, particularly in the R-1/7000 zone where
nearly half of the lots are less than 7,000 square feet.
• There are 5,011 parcels in excess of 10,000 square feet that could be subdivided, based
solely on lot area. Other regulations, like lot widths and setbacks of existing buildings may
prevent some of these lots from being subdivided.
• Is likely to be unpopular with some property owners in the R-1/7,000 and R-1/12,000
zones, even if those properties do not have enough land area to be subdivided further and
technically these lots can already be developed following the R-1/5,000 zoning regulations
because the lots are noncomplying with the minimum lot area.
A2: Rezone all the R-1 zoned properties to one of the zoning districts that
allows single-family attached uses.
This option relies on the Council’s decision related to allowing single-family attached
housing types in the R-1 zone. If that is an option that the Council selects, it may be a
simpler process to utilize one of the existing zoning districts that already allows this
housing type. This would require a zoning map amendment to rezone the existing R-1
properties and a text amendment to delete the existing R-1 zones.
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 16
There are multiple zoning districts that could be considered:
• SR-3: would allow single-family (detached and attached) and duplexes/twin homes. The
minimum lot size would range from as low as 1,500 square feet up to 2,000 square feet.
This zone includes minimum lot widths that vary between housing types and for corner
lots versus interior lots. SR-3 has the same building height and wall height regulations
as the R-1 zones and generally has smaller setback requirements. This zone was initially
created to be used on small, inner block lots served by narrow streets, but has been
used in other areas in the city.
• FB-UN1: this allows a mix of housing types, including detached single-family, duplexes,
townhomes, and cottage style developments. There are no minimum lot regulations,
but there are minimum land areas requirements per building type. This zone allows
buildings up to 30’ in height, which is two feet taller than the R-1 zones. This zone is
primarily mapped in the Central Ninth neighborhood.
Important things to know:
• This is likely to be highly controversial.
• Would expand the areas of the city where “missing middle” housing is allowed.
• Would require affordable housing incentives to be recalibrated.
• Would likely result in more housing construction.
• Will generate a high level of opposition.
• Will likely result in the demolition of existing single-family detached homes that are
replaced with townhomes, particularly on lots with large lots but low lot coverage.
• Could create some conflicts with the parking contexts depending on which zoning
district is used.
A3: Maintain the three R-1 zoning districts but consolidate into a single chapter so
the only difference between the zones are the minimum lot dimensions.
This option would only require a text amendment because the zoning map would not be
altered. This would essentially consolidate the lot requirements into a table, with each
column indicating the requirements in the specific R-1 zones. Setbacks would also be
addressed in a similar way. The regulations that are the same across the board would
remain, but the need to duplicate those regulations would be eliminated. This option is
dependent on other options related to minimum lot area, lot width, and setbacks found in
the following sections of this report.
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 17
Important things to know:
•Requires the least amount of staff resources.
•Simplifies the code by removing repetitive regulations.
•Does not require changes to other chapters of the zoning code, such as the land use tables.
•Will not help address housing issues or needs.
•Maintains the status quo, but in a condensed format.
A4: Maintain the three R-1 zones as is.
This option is self-explanatory. This approach will not alter anything and maintain the
existing conditions in the R-1 zones.
DISCUSSION
The options listed above (except for A4) essentially consolidate single-family zoning
districts and simplify the regulations. The zoning regulations for the three single-family
zoning districts are currently separated into three different sections in the zoning code, yet
many of the regulations are often very similar or (in some cases) identical. Some of the
regulations are complex and can be difficult to understand.
Residents or developers may need to hire consultants to navigate the code, which can be
expensive—increasing development costs that are passed on to the future buyer or renter.
Simplifying the code language would make these regulations easier to understand for
more people and would reduce the amount of time needed by Planning staff to explain
regulations. This in turn makes Salt Lake City more friendly to those who want to
build homes in the R-1 zones.
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 18
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
1. The public is likely to have concerns with consolidating districts, the degree of which
likely depends on how the zones are consolidated. There is little precedence for any city
to eliminate all but one residential zone. Most cities will consolidate to reduce districts,
but usually not down to a single R-1 zone. Although Duluth consolidated residential
zones in 2006, they have since added 3 additional residential zones. One explanation
may be that cities are finding it challenging to address context specific issues that exist
in some neighborhoods, but not in other neighborhoods.
2. Some cities find it more effective to focus on consolidating different zoning types with
the intent to create a more walkable city. They will consolidate higher density
residential zones with lower intensity commercial zones to encourage mixed-use
development and gentle commercial districts such as the 9th and 9th neighborhood in
Salt Lake City. This approach is more common than consolidating single-family
residential zoning districts.
3. Some states and some cities have elected to modify existing standards to accomplish
the same goals, such as allowing more housing types and modifying regulations to
accommodate different housing types. This is likely because the goal of these cities is to
expand housing options, particularly the “missing middle” housing types. This approach
would only require amending the text of the zoning code, not the zoning map.
4. Consolidating the R-1 zoning districts is likely to have a relatively small impact on
increasing housing in neighborhoods unless the consolidation includes significant
changes to other regulations, such as allowing other housing types, reducing the
minimum lot area and lot widths, increasing lot coverage allowances, and potentially
reducing some setbacks to increase the buildable envelope of a property.
5. Numeric values should not be increased as part of this process. This helps prevent the
creation of new nonconformities during the consolidation process.
6. Any consolidated district should allow the same or more opportunities for development
and redevelopment.
7. When consolidating many standards into one, scaling setbacks proportionately to lot
size will help maintain existing scale. Averaging standards have been done in the past in
SLC and other cities, but averages take more time for the applicant and the city to
establish and review than a set standard does.
8. By adding tables and charts to the zoning ordinance, the code is easier to read and use.
This improves the understanding of the code and reduces administrative time for
applicants and the city.
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 19
B.Reducing Minimum Lot Areas
This section contains options related to modifying minimum lot area requirements.
Minimum lot area regulations are intended to establish and maintain a certain
development pattern. This is primarily done to make it easier to predict what will be
developed because the development potential is essentially the same for all lots, but
intentionally limits how much land can be developed. Minimum lot area regulations reduce
the number of lots that can be created and effectively limit the number of homes that can
be built. Reducing these requirements would allow for more infill development and create
additional opportunities for adaptive reuse of existing buildings.
CURRENT ZONING REGULATIONS
The minimum lot size requirements in the R-1 zones are embedded into the title of the
district, with the last number indicating the minimum lot size:
•R-1/12,000: minimum lot size is 12,000 square feet.
•R-1/7,000: minimum lot size is 7,000 square feet.
•R-1/5,000: minimum lot size is 5,000 square feet.
An analysis of the lots within each of these zones shows a high number of lots that
are less than the minimum lot size, as shown in the following table:
R-1/12,000 R-1/7,000 R-1/5,000
Total Lots 1,472 15,585 16,698
Lots less than the
minimum lot area
664
(45% of all lots)
6,723
(43% of all lots)
4,450
(27% of all lots)
Lots exceeding
minimum area
808
(54.6% of all lots)
8,862
(57% of all lots)
12,248
(73% of all lots)
One of the goals of the project should be to reduce noncomplying situations.
Noncomplying issues increase the amount of staff time needed to interpret the code
because when a lot is less than the minimum lot area, it requires checking the
history of the lot to determine if it was created legally.
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 20
Often, there is no evidence of a lot being approved by the City, but that can be misleading
because sometimes lots were historically created through other legal means.
Noncomplying issues creates some uneasiness with lending institutions, who want some
assurance from a city that a lot is legal. The zoning code does include a provision that
states that all legally existing lots that are noncomplying in terms of lot area may be
developed provided they comply with the standards of the R-1/5,000 zoning district. This
means that an R-1/7,000 zoned lot that is less than 7,000 square feet is allowed to use the
R-1/5,000 zoning standards.
Only 65% of all of the lots in an R-1 zone comply with the minimum lot areas. If all of
the lot sizes are set at 5,000 square feet for a minimum, it would increase the total %
of complying lots to around 85%. Lot sizes would have to drop to 2,000 square feet to
increase the percentage of complying lots to 97%. This is because there are more
than 5,700 lots that are between 3,000 and 5,000 square feet.
OPTIONS
The Council has numerous options for considering modifications to the minimum lot area.
Given the other potential options in different sections, the Planning Division has identified the
most likely options that would be considered depending on the consolidation of the R1 zones.
B1: If the R-1 zones are consolidated into the R-1/5,000 zone: maintain the
minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet.
This option would not require any specific action if all the R-1 zones are zoned R-1/5,000.
This would have no impact on the R-1/5,000 zoned properties. The impact on R-1/7,000
zoned properties would be limited to those properties that are over 10,000 square feet and
could therefore be further subdivided. Most of the properties in the R-1/12,000 zone could
potentially be subdivided. However, most homes in these zones are situated in a manner
that would require the demolition of the existing dwelling to subdivide. That may not be
economically feasible depending on land, demolition, and construction costs.
Important things to know:
• About 84% of all lots in a consolidated R-1/5,000 zoning district would be complying in terms
of lot area. This is significantly higher than what currently exists in the R-1/7,000 and R-
1/12,000 zones.
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 21
•This would have minimal impact on increasing the housing supply because most lots would
still not likely be subdivided due to the associated costs.
•This may promote the use of the affordable housing incentives if properties over 10,000 square
feet could be subdivided and up to four dwellings could be built on each of the resulting lots.
•A high number of lots in the R-1/7,000 and R-1/12,000 zones were created by recording a
plat. For lots that may be eligible to subdivide with a lower minimum lot size, a subdivision
amendment would be required. Under Utah Code, this requires a notice to other property
owners within the subdivision.
B2: If the R-1 zones are consolidated into the R-1/5,000 zone, reduce the
minimum lot size to 4,000 square feet so most lots comply with the minimum
lot size.
This option would require a modification to the R-1/5,000 zone to change the minimum lot
size (and likely the name) to 4,000 square feet. This has the same key considerations as
above, but if a lot is over 8,000 square feet, it could be subdivided into additional lots. This
would reduce the number of noncomplying lots in the R-1/5,000 zoning district.
B3: If the three R-1 zones are rezoned to a zone that allows single-family
attached, maintain the minimum lot size of the proposed zone, and ensure
that the minimum lot size is not a barrier to producing either type of housing.
This option would utilize an existing zoning district that already allows single-family attached,
such as SR-3 or FB-UN1. The minimum lot sizes in those zones are listed below:
SR-3 FB-UN1
Minimum Lot Area
(single-family detached)
2,000 Sq ft
per dwelling
3,000 sq ft
(allows up to two dwelling
+one accessory dwelling)
Minimum Lot Area
(single-family
attached/townhome)
1,500 sq ft
per dwelling
1,500 sq ft
(per building, with up to
4 dwellings per building)
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 22
Important things to know:
• This option is likely to result in a noticeable increase in missing middle dwellings in the city
because it would allow these housing types on all residentially zoned properties in the city.
• The low minimum lot sizes in both zones would likely promote demolition of existing
homes and replacement with townhomes.
• The affordable housing incentives in these zones should be calibrated under this option to
promote affordability. The incentives likely would be made irrelevant if these housing
types could be constructed by right.
B4: Eliminate minimum lot sizes in the R-1 zones.
This option would delete the minimum lot sizes from each of the R-1 zones. Doing this
would result in relying on setbacks, lot coverage, and building height to regulate scale. It
would also rely on the recorded subdivision plats for most lot sizes because creating new
lots will require a subdivision process.
Important things to know:
• Most lots in the city were created by recording a plat. Creating new lots will require
approval through a subdivision amendment process. This includes a public notice and
comment period.
• Lot coverages and building setbacks will likely still limit new homes in R-1 zones if other
regulations are not also changed.
• This action will be highly controversial. Depending on the action directed, the city council
may also want to consider what the role and purpose of public engagement should be.
• Reducing or eliminating minimum lot sizes would likely result in an increase in
demolition of existing homes in neighborhoods.
• There will be some areas where infrastructure will need to be upgraded due to age. Those
costs may be a barrier to developing more homes.
• Without allowing other housing types, a net increase in housing supply in neighborhoods
will still be limited.
• This may increase staff workloads processing subdivision applications. This could impact
other departments who review and are part of the subdivision approval process. This could
allow someone to subdivide and sell an ADU or similar small homes on their property.
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 23
DISCUSSION
Maintaining minimum lot sizes in the R-1 zones may not be necessary to serve any
public health, safety, or welfare purpose at this point. There are several reasons why
minimum lot sizes were originally implemented: create predictable growth projections,
align development potential with infrastructure, limit the impact on schools, and maintain
property value during a period when cities were shrinking to name a few. Minimum lot
sizes were also added for reasons that resulted in neighborhoods being segregated by
race, ethnicity, and income by effectively blocking smaller lots with smaller homes that
were more affordable and more accessible. One current argument for minimum lot sizes is
to preserve neighborhood character.
In this era, there is reason to believe that none of these purposes are valid or related to the
purpose of zoning to protect the health, safety, and welfare of people. Households are
shrinking, which results in less people living in each home. Modern plumbing fixtures and
appliances are using less water. Combined, this is resulting in less consumption of water
and less impact on our sewer system.
While these systems are aging and need upgrades, capacity is not the concern that it may
have been when the systems were built. Public schools are seeing a decrease in the school
age population, and we are entering a time when building new housing within existing
neighborhoods is a necessary component for the long-term stabilization of schools.
Property values are increasing to the point that they are making neighborhoods less
affordable to more people and are not highly impacted by the type or size of lots that are
in our neighborhoods. Neighborhood character may no longer be more important than the
need for more housing.
Eliminating the minimum lot size completely may be a beneficial action to help
achieve housing goals in the City’s adopted housing plan, promote more housing in
existing neighborhoods, and stabilize the school aged population by creating more
family sized housing in neighborhoods. However, if lot sizes are eased but other lot and
bulk regulations are kept the same, small lots would still be difficult to build on. Maximum
lot coverage, setbacks, building height, and parking requirements will diminish the ability of
smaller lots to be economically viable with the high cost of land in the city. The below table
compares two properties to help demonstrate how lots of different sizes may be
subdivided and what could be constructed on the lots using the SR-3 zoning regulations.
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 24
The following chart demonstrates what a potential development scenario may
produce if minimum lot sizes are reduced. The intent of this analysis is to demonstrate
that if the minimum lot size is reduced to 2,000 square feet, setbacks and lot coverage
further restrict development of family sized homes and in some cases make it highly
unlikely. This analysis does not include any fiscal analysis, however for reference this
property was listed on the MLS on February 26, 2024 for a sale price of $729,000 (rounded).
As shown in the table below, reducing the minimum lot size in the R-1/5,000 zone but
leaving other regulations the same results in a buildable area that is unlikely to
support redeveloping this property with two new homes. However, increasing the lot
coverage and reducing setbacks does produce two new homes that may be more
likely to be constructed.
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 25
Neighborhood Liberty Wells
Lot size (current) 4,791 sq ft
Lot dimensions 70 x 68 (ft)
Home size 1,600 sq ft
Subdivided Data
(using SR-3 zone)
SR3 R-1 with minimum lot
size of 2,000 sq ft, all
other regulations the
same as R-1/5,000
Lot size (each lot, 2 lots) 2,380 2,380
Dimensions per lot 35 x 68 35 x 68
Max lot coverage 60% = 1428 ft2 40% = 952 sq ft
Setbacks
(total area of each setback)
Total: 1,219 ft2
Front: (10’)=350 ft2
Sides: (4’)=344 ft2
Rear: (15’)=525 ft2
Total: 1,932
Front: (20’)= 700 ft2
Sides: (4’ & 10’)= 532 ft2
Rear: (20’)=700 ft2
Buildable area 1,161 ft2 448 ft2
Max square feet
of building
(2 story, no basement)
1,161 x 2 = 2,322 sq ft 896 ft2
As stated above, the current zoning regulations make it difficult to build on lots that are
irregular, whether that is due to size, width, or other standards. Salt Lake City has 33,755 R-
1 lots. Of that, 11,837 (35.1%) are too small for the district they are within. However, many
of these are considered legal lots due to different reasons (within a subdivision, length of
existence, etc.). By easing and adjusting the minimum lot size, a significant number of
lots would come into compliance with this standard.
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 26
The city would also provide the opportunity to landowners with larger lots to subdivide into
multiple smaller lots. This impact, when coupled with a smaller minimum lot frontage, can
lead to numerous new lots that can provide a home in the future. Using the smallest
minimum lot sizes and widths applicable in the included zones (as Winnipeg and Duluth
did) also reduces the creation of nonconformities.
One of the largest drivers of housing costs is the raw land cost. By decreasing or
eliminating minimum lot area requirements, it reduces the impact land costs have
on building new housing.
Map that shows if the size of the single-family lot complies with
the required minimum lot size
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 27
C.Reducing Minimum Lot Widths
Lots in the city have historically been created based on two measurements. First, was the
use of a “rod” and a “chain”. A “rod” equals 16.5 feet and was used with some frequency
historically. A rod was also called a “perch”. It is also a quarter of a chain. A chain is 66 feet
in length. A furlong is 10 chains, or 660 feet. The 660 feet distance should sound familiar
because it is the length of one block face in the Plat of Zion.
When the city was first platted, lots were divided into rods to ensure that each lot was 1/2
acre in size. Each lot was supposed to be “4 perches wide” which equaled 66 feet. However,
as the city expanded, the lots were often divided further to be one, two, or three perches
wide. As a result, many older neighborhoods have subdivision plats that show lots at 33
and 48.5 feet in width.
At some point in time, lots started to be divided into multiples of 25 feet. This was likely as
rods and chains were phased out in the early to mid-1900’s. In SLC, people could purchase
as many 25’ wide lots as they could to build whatever size home they wanted. When the
minimum lot width of 50’ was introduced, it was likely based on the 25’ wide lots. However,
older lots became noncomplying because most were less than 50’ wide, even if only by 1.5
feet because some purchased a lot that was 3 rods wide. Lots were also modified by
agreement between adjacent landowners, through tax sales, or through court proceedings.
Some lot widths are shown on recorded plats and established at the whims of the
subdivider. As a result, there is a wide variety of lot widths in the city and
establishing any minimum lot size will not fully eliminate nonconformity.
CURRENT ZONING REGULATIONS
The existing minimum lot widths in the R-1 zones are shown in the below table. The
table only shows minimum lot widths for residential uses. The R-1 zones allow other
uses and some minimum lot widths are use dependent.
R-1/12,000 R-1/7,000 R-1/5,000
Min Lot Width Interior Lots: 80 ft
Corner Lots: 100 ft
50 ft, all lots 50 ft, all lots
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 28
OPTIONS
C1: Reduce the minimum lot width.
The City Council could consider reducing the minimum lot width. This could be to a width
that captures most lot widths based on the various methods that lots have been measured
in the city. For example, setting the minimum lot width to 25 feet would capture most lots
within the city, regardless of how the lot was created or how the lot widths were measured.
There is likely little harm to this approach as most lots are located within an existing
subdivision and creating new lots would require a subdivision amendment. There are some
instances where a lot line adjustment might be possible to make an existing lot that is not
developable because the lot is too narrow.
Important things to know:
• Reducing the number of noncomplying lots is a best practice when setting development
standards and should be considered if there is direction to modify lot widths.
• If the lot width is reduced and it allows an existing lot to be further subdivided, lots within
an existing subdivision will be required to go through a subdivision amendment process.
Parcels that are not within an existing subdivision can be divided through recording of
deeds and new legal descriptions.
• Reducing lot widths may reduce the number of planned developments that are submitted
to the city due to the width of the lot. This has occurred in R-1 zones in the past.
• Reducing minimum lot widths may promote the subdividing of larger lots and produce
smaller homes, which increases the opportunity for people to purchase a home.
C2: Eliminate the minimum lot width.
These options would eliminate the minimum lot width completely. This is not as impactful
as it may sound because most lots in the city are within a platted subdivision and the
subdivision plats show the lot width. Therefore, creating new lots from an existing lot
within an existing subdivision requires a subdivision amendment that includes a notice to
owners within the subdivision. There are lots in the city that are not in a subdivision. These
lots (technically called parcels) could be divided by the owner with no notice to neighbors.
But as discussed, minimum lot widths are only loosely tied to the provisions that establish
the basis of zoning (health, safety, and welfare) and would eliminate all noncompliance
issues associated with minimum lot widths.
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 29
Important things to know:
• This option has the same key considerations as option C1 but may increase the likelihood
of existing lots being further subdivided and increase the number of new lots that may
contain smaller homes.
• Minimum lot widths are a barrier to creating smaller homes and home ownership.
DISCUSSION
The Council should consider whether having minimum lot widths is necessary. Most of the
R-1 lots in the city were created through a subdivision plat process and the plats identify
the lot widths. City code allows a lot line adjustment to modify the width of adjacent lots.
However, the lot line adjustment process cannot create a new lot. Any effort to create a
new lot within an existing platted subdivision would require a subdivision amendment,
which includes certain noticing requirements to neighbors. Other property owners within
the subdivision, if they are materially damaged by a subdivision, have a right to protest a
subdivision amendment and a proposed amendment can be denied as a result. However,
proving that there is material harm is not the same thing as a property owner not liking a
proposed subdivision amendment. An example of a potential injury would be the reduction
or elimination of access to an easement if the amendment did not address the rights
granted by the easement.
Eliminating minimum lot widths would eliminate all nonconformities caused by the
existing minimum lot widths in the R-1 zoning districts. It would also likely lead to
the demolition of some homes to accommodate additional homes, particularly when
associated with a reduction in minimum lot areas and reductions in setbacks. This is
a value judgement that the Council would have to determine because a net increase
in homes aligns with the City’s housing goals, but the demolition of existing homes
may not align with goals aimed at preserving existing housing or preserving historic
structures. Other benefits from reducing lot standards and regulations include the
promotion of infill development and the promotion of inclusivity.
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 30
D. Reduce Minimum Setbacks
Most residential districts include setbacks to help create separation from neighboring
buildings, land uses, and streets. Setbacks are usually small on the side, but larger on the
front and rear. Corner lots typically have specific setbacks along each street. In higher
density settings, setbacks are typically reduced. However, in lower density districts they
tend to be larger. Setbacks have existed in the City’s zoning code since 1927 but they have
been measured differently over time.
For most of the time since the city has had zoning, the front yard and rear yard setbacks
were a set distance while the side yard setbacks were a percentage of the lot width or
based on building height, with the rationale being that taller buildings should have larger
setbacks and smaller lots didn’t need as big of setbacks. In more recent times, this
approach has flipped, with front yard setbacks being linked to the averages of the block
face and rear yard setbacks mostly being a percentage of the lot depth up to a maximum
requirement. Side yard setbacks in R-1 zones have become fixed dimensions, regardless of
the width of the lot or the height of the structure.
EXISTING ZONING REGULATIONS
The following table provides the setbacks in each of the R-1 zoning districts. The front yard
setbacks are the same in all three districts. This was established around 2005 when the City
adopted the “Compatible Infill Ordinance” which was intended to address what was
identified as gaps in the zoning code that was producing homes that were perceived as out
of scale with various neighborhoods.
The other differences in setbacks are relatively minor, with changes in corner side
yards, small changes between interior setback, and reduced rear yard setback in the
R-1/5,000 zoning district.
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 31
R-1/5,000 R-1/7,000 R-1/12,000
Min Lot Area 5,000 sq ft 7,000 sq ft 12,000 sq ft
Min. Lot Width 50’ 50’ Interior Lots: 80’
Corner Lots: 100’
Front Setback Average of Block Face; 20’ if no other structures on block face;
or as shown on recorded plat.
Corner Side
Setback
10’ Average of Block Face; 20’ if no other
structures on block face; or as shown on
recorded plat
Interior Setback 4’ on one side;
10’ on other
6’ on one side;
10’ on other
8’ on one side;
10’ on other
Rear Yard 25% of lot depth,
not to exceed 20’
25’ 25’
OPTIONS
As with other sections, the City Council has a variety of options that can be considered.
Each of these options has some potential issues that are identified within each option.
D1: Modify the minimum setbacks so that they are the same
in each of the R-1 zones.
This assumes that no districts will be consolidated. The reason for larger setbacks in the R-
1/12,000 and R-1/7,000 is not tied to health, safety, or welfare of the inhabitants because
the health, safety, or general welfare is not impacted by slightly different setback
requirements. The minimums are larger in these zones simply as a preference. Fire safety
can be provided in all 3 districts, so can access to sunlight, and single-family homes
generally do not need greater separation just because the lots are bigger.
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 32
In fact, the lot coverage requirements prevent nearly every lot from building on their entire
buildable area after the setbacks are applied. Setbacks typically take up 25-40% of the lot
area. The total lot coverage in the R-1 zones is 35% or 40 %, depending on the zone. If the
setbacks take up 40% of the lot and the maximum lot coverage is 35% or 40 %, then an
additional 20-25% of the lot is not developable, even for accessory buildings. That 20-25%
of the lot area usually ends up being incorporated into the rear yard.
Important things to know
• This is a relatively minor change because most setbacks are similar.
• This is unlikely to have an impact on housing supply.
• Lot coverage requirements further restrict how much of a property can be covered
with buildings.
D2: Modify the setbacks so they are a % of the lot width so that smaller lots
are not as negatively impacted as larger lots.
This would essentially tie setbacks to the provided width of the side yard. It can be a
complex method for measuring setbacks. This would not modify front or rear yard
setbacks. The SR-1A establishes side yard setbacks based on the width of the lot.
Important things to know
• This benefits narrower lots and would likely help promote the creation of smaller lots and smaller
homes provided other measures are taken related to minimum lot areas and lot widths.
• This may make it more challenging for applicants because it is easier to design a site plan when a
numerical value is known and not dependent on other measurements.
• This usually takes more time to administer because the reviewer must perform a calculation
compared to simply just checking numbers. However, this is a relatively minor issue.
D3: Maintain the setbacks as if no consolidations occur.
This is self-explanatory and requires no additional discussion.
D4: If the three R-1 zones are consolidated, utilize the R-1/5,000
zoning district.
This would essentially be the same action as D1.
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 33
Important things to know:
• The R-1/5,000 setbacks are a known and applied regulation, so there would be
no need to make interpretations related to setbacks.
• This would not require any additional steps or actions beyond the consolidation
of the districts.
• Noncomplying lots can already use the R-1/5,000 setbacks.
Unless other modifications are made (such as lot coverage increases) the impact of this
in terms of promoting more housing will be reduced because other regulations would
be a barrier.
D5: If a different zoning district is used to replace the R-1/5,000 district (to
allow single-family attached, for example) use the setbacks in the
replacement district.
If the SR-3 or FB-UN1 zone is used to replace the R-1 zones, it is logical to utilize the same
setbacks from those zones for a variety of reasons. First, those setbacks are already being
applied in the city and they generally do not create significant issues and align with
applicable fire codes for building separation, which should be the driving force for
establishing side yard setbacks. Front yard setbacks are more challenging because people
tend to prefer buildings to be set back in a similar fashion along a block face. The average
can be time consuming to measure and calculate. Rear yard setbacks are easier to make
consistent because there is less variation.
Important things to know:
• These setbacks are already in use, so there is no need for interpretations.
• There may be some desire to push buildings closer to the street to create larger rear yards,
where most accessory uses and outdoor activity in neighborhoods occurs.
• Modifying front yard setbacks will change some streetscapes as some buildings will be
closer to the street than others.
• Front and rear yard setbacks are the least likely to impact the creation of more housing
because most lots in the city are deeper than wide. Other regulations have larger impacts.
• Changing the average front yard setback to a setback within the range of the existing
building reduces staff time doing zoning reviews and makes the code more direct for
property owners, architects, and designers. This also has less impact on the development
pattern of a block.
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 34
DISCUSSION
Setbacks have not traditionally been a barrier to housing development in the city. However,
if the R-1 zones are consolidated and one of the goals of the proposal is to minimize any
new nonconformity, the setbacks in the R-1/7,000 and R-1/12,000 zones would be reduced
on one side and in the rear yard. The reduction would be from eight or ten feet down to six
feet in one interior side yard, from 25’ to 20’ in the rear, and the corner side yard would be
10’ instead of the average of the block face.
When coupled with any changes to minimum lot widths or lot areas, the smaller
setbacks should be utilized so that the setbacks are not a barrier to the purposes for
modifying the other provisions. Another option is to apply the same setbacks to the
R-1 zone that exists in the SR-1 or SR-1A zone. The minimum side yard setbacks in
these zones allow a reduction for narrow lots.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
1. Reducing lot widths and setbacks will likely lead to more homes being built in
neighborhoods. Increased density is typically opposed at public meetings and hearings.
It should be expected that there will be opposition to the proposal.
2. If there is no relief from setbacks or other regulations included with changes, small lots
would still be difficult to create and build homes on. This could be addressed by
considering modifications to lot area, lot width, and setback requirements.
3. Concerns regarding demolitions to make way for development. Durham tracked the
demolitions of residential properties in the “Urban Tier” and found that their initiatives
did not have a significant impact on demolitions. Please see the “Case Studies” section
for more information.
4. If the consolidated district allows the same or more opportunities for development and
redevelopment as before, cities with precedence show that there is less of a chance of
losing a lawsuit over regulatory takings.
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 35
E. Flag Lot Standards
Flag lots are lots without street frontage, located behind an existing lot and
connected to the street by an access strip. Flag lots must meet additional requirements
beyond those normally required in the underlying zone, so it can be difficult to use flag lots
to develop new housing. Easing these additional standards could promote more flag lot
development in Salt Lake City.
(Flag lot illustration from SLC Code: 21A.62.050)
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 36
CURRENT ZONING REGULATIONS
The current zoning requirements for residential flag lots can be found in 21A.24.010.G. Flag
lots are a permitted use in the Foothills zoning districts and can be approved in all other
residential zoning districts as a conditional use. In addition to meeting the requirements of the
underlying zoning district, flag lots require a 24’-wide access strip, a minimum 100’ lot depth,
and a minimum lot area 1.5 times larger than the minimum in the applicable district.
Requiring flag lots to have a minimum lot area 1.5 times larger than the base zoning
limits this option only to particularly large lots. This means that a flag lot would only
be possible on existing lots that are 2.5 times larger than the minimum required by
the zoning district:
R-1/5,000 R-1/7,000 R-1/12,000
Minimum Lot Size
(sq. ft.)
5,000 7,000 12,000
Minimum Flag Lot
Size (sq. ft.)
7,500 10,500 18,000
Total Area Required
(sq. ft.)
12,500 17,500 30,000
Due to the additional lot size and access requirements, as well as the extra time
required for Planning Commission approval, this development option is uncommon
in Salt Lake City.
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 37
OPTIONS
The flag lot regulations in the city are so burdensome that very few flag lots have been
developed in the city. The options listed below are intended to reduce the barriers to
promote more flag lots.
E1: Eliminate the minimum lot area for the street adjacent lot and the flag lot.
There does not seem to be any rational justification for the lot area requirements for flag
lots. Regardless of having the specific flag lot minimum requirements, a flag lot requires a
large land area and must be large enough to be subdivided. The minimum lot area for the
flag lot can be eliminated with minor implications. The rational part of the flag lot
provisions are the perimeter setbacks for the flag lot, which are intended to reduce the
impact to the privacy of neighbor’s rear yards. However, since many of these properties
could build a single-family dwelling far from the street, and closer to a property line, this
intent does not seem valid.
Important things to know:
• The minimum lot area required to create a flag lot is a significant barrier to creating new
homes on large lots and could be eliminated.
• If minimum lot sizes were reduced or removed, it would promote more flag lots on
properties with large rear yards that are easily accessible.
E2: Reduce the minimum lot area for the street adjacent lot and the flag lot so
both require the same amount of lot area.
This has the same discussion and important things to know as E1.
E3: Allow the pole part of the lot to be an easement across the
street adjacent lot.
The access to a flag lot could be an easement across the street facing lot. It would still be
subject to fire code requirements for roadway width and proximity. Any easement would
have to include provisions for maintenance of the driveway.
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 38
Important things to know
• An easement could be used instead of the required dimensions for the access “pole”.
• Fire code provisions for minimum width and proximity would still apply.
• The easement should include provisions for long term maintenance of the access to
ensure emergency access.
E4: Create standards and process for creating lots without frontage that are
not flag lots.
Like item E3, the flag lot provisions could be deleted and replaced with provisions for
requiring access to lots without street frontage and ensuring utility access to the flag lot.
Important things to know:
• This could create an easier path for building new homes on large/deep lots that is easier
than creating a flag lot.
• This could be a way to promote smaller lot, smaller footprint homes that could be
purchased and increase home ownership opportunities.
• This may reduce the number of planned developments that are submitted because lots
without street frontage are one of the primary reasons planned developments are
submitted. Although these are not typically in an R1 zone, these provisions could be applied
more broadly.
• This could promote ADUs being subdivided off from the main lot and create more home
ownership opportunities.
DISCUSSION
For cities like Salt Lake City that are mostly built out, building new housing behind existing
homes is one way to promote infill development without drastically changing
neighborhood character. Salt Lake City currently allows Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in
all residential zoning districts, but these must be located on the same property as the main
building, so it is not possible for both buildings to be owner-occupied.
Flag lots make it possible for both the front and rear buildings to be individually
owned, increasing opportunities for home ownership throughout the city.
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 39
Flag lot standards could be eased by making the process an administrative (staff) approval,
which would eliminate the processing and noticing time required for Planning Commission
items (2-3 months). Implementing such a change in conjunction with reduced lot sizes,
widths, and setbacks would expand the number of properties eligible for flag lot
development. Changes to the requirements for the access strip, such as reducing the
required width or allowing an easement to provide access instead of full ownership, could
also promote more flag lot development.
Flag lot regulations include the same types of regulations that apply to other lots, such as
setbacks, lot coverage, and access. Flag lots also have the added need to comply with fire
code requirements.
This section discusses each of these specifically and utilizes flag lot regulations from
the City of Los Angeles as an example.
Setbacks: Current standards require flag lots to maintain the same yard requirements as
the front lot. Los Angeles requires lot splits to maintain the typical front yard setback, but
only requires 4’ interior side and rear setbacks.
Lot coverage: As with setbacks, the lot coverage requirements for flag lots in the current
code must comply with the standards of the underlying zone. The lot coverage
requirements for the R-1 districts range from 35%-40%. Increasing the maximum lot
coverage would allow more land currently used for yard space to be used for housing. Flag
lot regulations in Los Angeles regulates massing based on a combination of floor area
ratios and lot coverage standards, but in no case allows more than 50% lot coverage in R1
zones. Under LA’s small lot subdivision option allowed in certain zones, the maximum lot
coverage is 75%. It is unlikely that a lot could achieve 75% lot coverage and comply with
setback requirements.
Access strip and fire code: Current zoning standards require a 24’-wide access strip (at
least 16’ paved with 4’ landscape yards on each side). Fire Code requires an approved fire
apparatus access road to extend to within 150’ of all portions of a building. These roads
must be at least 20’ wide (or 26’ for structures greater than 30’ high). A turnaround must
also be provided for access roads greater than 150’. It may be worth considering
decreasing the required width of the paved portion of the access strip for properties if the
proposed length of the access is less than 100’. The city of Durham, NC recently adopted a
“reduced pole width option” in their flag lot standards that allows the width of the access to
be reduced to 12’ if the primary structure meets a maximum height of 25’ and a maximum
size of 1,200 sq. ft.
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 40
Another possible consideration would be to allow the access strip to be either provided as
part of the flag lot or provided through an access easement for the flag lot over and across
the original (front) lot. This approach would allow the property line to remain in the same
location on the front lot, avoiding possible issues related to setbacks and required yards.
Even with eased standards, flag lot subdivisions are expected to remain a limited tool,
mostly useful for unique properties with large backyards. The subdivision process can still
be lengthy, even when only creating one new lot, and properties with smaller backyards
may elect to build an ADU rather than a new principal dwelling on a flag lot. Despite these
potential concerns, flag lots can still be a useful tool to provide additional housing that is
more likely to be larger than an ADU (more family-sized) and increases ownership
opportunities for future residents.
F. Allow Single-Family Attached Dwellings in R-1 Zones
In the Salt Lake City zoning ordinance, single-family attached dwellings are defined as: “A
dwelling unit that is attached via a common party side wall to at least one other such
dwelling and where at least three (3) such dwellings are connected together.” Single-family
attached structures include duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, cottage courts, and
townhomes. Currently, none of these uses are permitted or conditionally permitted in any
R-1 District. The options discussed in this section are intended to identify ways that these
types of housing can be allowed in the R-1 Zoning Districts.
CURRENT ZONING REGULATIONS
Single-family detached dwellings are the only primary dwelling types permitted in the AG
(Agricultural), FP/FR (Foothills), and R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Districts. Most
neighborhoods in Salt Lake City are within these districts. Two-family and single-family
attached building types are permitted in a variety of other residential and mixed-use
districts, but these districts are less prevalent.
See the table and map below for more detailed information about where each
housing type is allowed.
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 41
Zoning District Single-family,
Detached
Two-family Single-family,
Attached
AG-2
Agricultural District
AG-5
Agricultural District
FP
Foothills Protection District
FR-1/43,560
Foothills Estate Residential
District
FR-2/21,780
Foothills Residential District
FR-3/12,000
Foothills Residential District
R-1/12,000
Single-Family Residential
District
R-1/7,000
Single-Family Residential
District
R-1/5,000
Single-Family Residential
District
R-2
Single- and Two-Family
Residential District
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 42
Zoning District Single-family,
Detached
Two-family Single-family,
Attached
SR-1 and SR-1A
Special Development Pattern
Residential District
FB-UN1
Form Based Urban
Neighborhood District
MU
Mixed Use District
RB
Residential/Business District
RMF-30
Low Density Multi-Family
Residential District
RMF-35
Moderate Density Multi-Family
Residential District
R-MU
Residential/Mixed Use District
R-MU-35
Residential/Mixed Use District
R-MU-45
Residential/Mixed Use District
RO
Residential/Office District
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 43
Zoning District Single-family,
Detached
Two-family Single-family,
Attached
SNB
Small Neighborhood Business
District
SR-3
Special Development Pattern
Residential District
TSA-MUEC-T
Transit Station Area District
TSA-SP-T
Transit Station Area District
TSA-UC-T
Transit Station Area District
TSA-UN-T
Transit Station Area District
TSA-MUEC-C
Transit Station Area District
TSA-SP-C
Transit Station Area District
TSA-UC-C
Transit Station Area District
TSA-UN-C
Transit Station Area District
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 44
Zoning District Single-family,
Detached
Two-family Single-family,
Attached
G-MU
Gateway-Mixed Use District
FB-SE
Form Based Special Purpose
Corridor District
FB-UN2
Form Based Urban
Neighborhood District
RMF-45
Moderate/High Density Multi-
Family Residential District
RMF-75
High Density Multi-Family
Residential District
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 45
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 46
OPTIONS
The City Council may consider several options to allow single-family attached (also called
townhomes) in the R1 zones. This section outlines those options and some of the key
considerations that may help the Council decide what approach to take, if any. One aspect
that should be considered for any option is to modify the definitions of these housing
types. The current definitions are based on the definition of family, which is somewhat
outdated. Other codes from around the country are starting to use more generic terms,
such as detached dwelling, duplex, triplex, townhome (or rowhome) and multi-plex.
These terms are describing the building, not who lives in the building. There may still be
occupancy rules, but the terminology is more straightforward. In the SLC zoning code for
example, single-family attached can be 3 dwellings attached together through a common
wall. Multi-family is defined as three or more dwelling units in a single building. In this
situation, what is commonly referred to as a townhome or rowhome could be considered
both single-family attached and multi-family dwellings.
In addition, if the Council is considering allowing single-family attached, it should also
consider the twin home and two-family dwellings as well. It does not make much sense to
allow 3 attached single-family dwellings but not two attached single-family dwellings. The
options listed below assume duplexes and twin homes would be included. The council may
also want to consider allowing single family attached dwellings in the SR-1, SR-1A, and R-2
zones as well. That would make the housing type a permitted use in all residential zoning
districts except the FR zones.
F1: Add new definitions for missing middle housing to the zoning code and
allow those uses in the R-1 zone.
This option would require adding these uses to the table of permitted and conditional uses
and adding specific regulations for these housing types. While some of these housing types
can fit within the existing bulk standards, at the very least the standards would have to
clearly state how they apply to these other uses. This is not a complicated text amendment.
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 47
Important things to know:
• The maximum lot coverage is likely a barrier to allowing these housing types in the R-1
zoning districts. Other cities that have taken this approach have increased the lot
coverage (or floor area ratio) so that other housing types are more feasible.
• The height in the R-1 zones is likely a barrier to townhomes. Most townhomes have “tuck
under parking.” This is often considered a “suburban” arrangement by those who promote
missing middle housing. With the height limited to 28 feet, the only option for parking is in
detached garages. However, the maximum lot coverage, as identified, will create a barrier. The
city should consider which path is more appropriate: allow more height to accommodate
ground floor parking or allow more lot coverage to allow for more detached garages.
• If more height is allowed, it should be limited to 30 feet to avoid triggering certain fire code
provisions. Thirty feet allows for two livable stories above ground floor parking without
adding additional fire code requirements.
• Most lots in the city are narrow, so it should be expected that townhomes would likely be
sideways oriented. Street facing design standards should be included where allowed.
• Cottage developments (small lot, small footprint, detached housing) should be allowed land use.
• This would likely eliminate the affordable housing incentives in the R-1 zones. However,
the incentives could be calibrated to allow more dwellings if some of the dwellings are
affordable. For example, in Portland up to four dwellings are allowed on any lot, but that
can be increased to six if two of them have a specified level of affordability.
F2: Utilize an existing zoning district to replace the R-1 zones.
This is like prior discussions that indicate the use of the SR-3 or FB-UN 1 zoning district as
an alternative approach. These zones already allow townhomes and have produced
missing middle housing.
Important things to know:
• This would likely be highly controversial, as indicated earlier in this document.
• Cottage developments should be allowed in the SR-3 zone. The Council may want to
consider adding that type of housing as an allowed use in that zone regardless of if this
option is used. Cottage developments allow small lot, detached housing.
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 48
DISCUSSION
Salt Lake City needs to build more housing to support a growing population. Gentle
density and “missing middle housing” can help provide more units in a balanced way
that allows more housing to be built in neighborhoods where people want to live.
Missing Middle Housing Diagram, www.missingmiddlehousing.com
Cities across the country are looking at ways to provide “middle housing” as a strategy to
help deal with the national housing crisis. Middle housing is a term often used to refer to
housing types with more units than single-family homes, but less dense than larger multi-
family developments. This could include housing types such as duplexes, triplexes,
fourplexes, cottage courts, and townhomes. The term “middle housing” or “missing
middle housing” is often used for these housing types because they provide options
that are middle scale between single-family homes and large apartments, and
because they provide more affordable options to middle-income families.
The primary benefit of this approach is that it offers more freedom of choice in the housing
market and does so in a way that is compatible with existing neighborhoods. Middle
housing has a lower perceived density, while still increasing the number of households in
an area to support local businesses and transit service. It can help provide more
opportunities for a living experience like traditional single-family housing, since most
middle housing units are built with two or more bedrooms.
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 49
This is also aligned with current demographic trends towards smaller household sizes –
smaller families may prefer to live with smaller yard space in a duplex or townhome if it is
in a desirable neighborhood close to amenities. Middle housing types are inherently more
affordable than single-family homes due to the reduced land costs associated with smaller
lot sizes.
In Salt Lake City, many houses have been converted to duplexes, triplexes, and
fourplexes because those uses were not always illegal in R-1 districts. These existing
structures are currently non-conforming, which is to say that they would be illegal if
built under today’s zoning code.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
One potential policy implication to consider would be the impact on the City’s new
affordable housing incentives. The affordable housing incentives authorizes two-, three-,
and four-family dwellings, row houses, sideways row houses, and cottage developments in
the R-1 zoning districts when affordability requirements are met. Allowing these building
types without the requirement to provide affordable units would effectively eliminate the
incentive in single-family zones, so the incentives would likely only be used in other higher
density zoning districts.
To address this possible impact, the Council could consider revising and expanding the
incentives in single-family zones to allow even more units for affordable developments. For
instance, the City of Saint Paul, MN allows up to four units per lot and a density bonus of
two additional units for affordable housing. Portland, OR allows six-plexes on single-family
lots if half of the units are affordable, but some initial studies show that the majority of the
middle housing units built in Portland are four-plexes (the maximum allowed without the
affordability requirements).
Implementing middle housing zoning reforms is highly political and likely to encounter
community opposition in many neighborhoods. Addressing concerns and ensuring
effective communication with residents will be crucial for successful adoption.
Like Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), several barriers may limit homeowners' ability to
take advantage of middle housing options. Factors such as the high cost of construction
and requirements to upgrade utilities will need careful consideration, even though some of
these factors may be beyond the scope of this project. Even for those who can afford to
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 50
build, the process of designing, permitting, and building new construction can take years,
so any benefits will not be realized immediately.
Middle housing zoning reforms may only result in a relatively small number of projects. One
study found that about 5% of upzoned parcels saw new development after more than a
decade. Using that figure, we might estimate that of SLC’s approximately 33,000 residential
lots, about 1,700 might be developed over the next decade (about 100-200 per year).
Consideration should be given to what development standards would be appropriate for
attached housing in R-1 districts. 2-story townhomes are compatible in size with existing
single-family neighborhoods, but 3-story townhomes, especially those with a garage on the
main level, can be seen as incompatible with existing neighborhoods because of their
increased scale and intensity, even if the permitted height may be as little as two feet
additional feet. A form-based approach, like the City’s recently adopted RMF-30 standards,
may be an appropriate way to ensure future development is compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood.
Current parking standards require 2 spaces per dwelling unit for single-family
attached housing in a general context. This may be a barrier to infill development, so
reductions to the parking standards would also be worth considering with a future
amendment. Townhomes being built in this region typically have parking on the
ground floor of the building, making the existing height in the R-1 zones a barrier to
creating 3 story townhomes and likely results in townhomes not being built.
Many of the cities that have recently adopted middle housing reforms are facing legal
challenges. Montana’s reforms have been blocked by a judge based on several arguments
related to potential contradictions between certain housing laws and an issue related to
homeowners’ associations. Minneapolis is appealing a decision by a district court to strike
down the Minneapolis 2040 Plan until an environmental analysis is complete.
In December 2023, the Spokane City Council approved an emergency ordinance to limit the
maximum number of units in R1 zones to 4 (down from “no density”). The real estate
industry raised concerns about mortgage guidelines being restricted to a maximum of 4
dwelling units and residential appraisers limited to performing appraisals on properties
with up to 4 dwelling units.
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 51
Studies consistently indicate that the addition of dwelling units in single-family
districts does not necessarily result in a reduction in home values. Studies suggest
that well-planned developments, even those introducing higher-density housing, can
contribute positively to the economic vitality of the surrounding area.
A 2021, the University of Utah published a study with significant relevant findings,
which can be found here.
Furthermore, concerns about increased population density and resource strain are often
mitigated when considering the existing dynamics of single-family neighborhoods. Most of
the neighborhoods in SLC were developed when household size was larger. Utility
demands, such as water and sewer were also higher. Declining household size is resulting
in fewer people living in some neighborhoods and changing awareness of water use is
resulting in a decline in overall household water use. The high cost of housing is also
creating more households comprised of unrelated adults. Providing housing options in
neighborhoods provides more options for people based on household size. This aligns with
the evolving nature of housing preferences, where a diverse range of residents seek
affordable, low-maintenance options in existing neighborhoods that are close to daily
needs and amenities.
The successful incorporation of attached dwelling units depends on thoughtful planning
and adherence to design standards that are in scale with the neighborhood. Municipalities
that have implemented such changes often establish guidelines to ensure compatibility
with the built environment. This approach helps address concerns about neighborhood
desirability and ensures that the addition of attached dwelling units aligns with the evolving
needs and preferences of the community. The evidence suggests that, when
implemented responsibly and in response to housing trends, additional dwelling
units can positively contribute to neighborhood vitality without causing a decrease
in property values.
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 53
Zoning Map Amendments Along Collectors And
Arterials To Allow Greater Residential Density And
Mixed-Use Development.
Arterial and collector streets are found throughout the city and connect
neighborhoods within the city, as shown on the map below. Many of these streets
were once streetcar streets and developed as some of the original “transit-oriented
development” over 100 years ago. The development pattern still reflects that, with various
housing types, densities, and commercial uses found where the streetcar lines intersected
or where a collection of businesses developed. These areas have become some of the most
important areas in the city because of the amenities that are available.
Salt Lake City Map of Collector and Arterial Streets
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 54
When considering how to apply zoning to arterials and collectors, there are a few issues
that should be discussed. First, the Planning Division is just starting on a proposal that will
consolidate the mixed-use and commercial zoning districts into a new chapter of mixed-
use districts. This will merge as many as 25 zoning districts into as few as six new districts.
The new districts would utilize the existing form-based districts FB-UN2, MU-8, and FB-
UN11 while creating two new districts.
The new districts would be:
• MU2: buildings up to 2 stories
• MU3: buildings up to 3 stories
• MU5: The current FB-UN2 zone;
• MU6: the current FB-UN2 zone where building heights are allowed up to 65’;
• MU8: currently going through the adoption process, allowing buildings up to 90 feet;
• MU11: recently adopted as FB-UN11.
Under this proposal, only two new zoning districts would have to be created, while the others
would be moved to a new chapter, renamed to fit the order of the chapter, and the other
districts deleted. This would require a zoning text amendment to draft the new chapter, the
new zoning district regulations, and relocate the existing zoning districts to the new chapter.
The Planning Division strongly believes that this effort should at least receive a
recommendation from the Planning Commission before arterials and corridors are rezoned.
Second, the City’s Transportation Division has recently completed a street typology project
that established different types of streets. The recently adopted subdivision code
references the street typologies for new streets. While there are not many new streets built
in the city, the subdivision code also requires developments over a certain size to create
new streets when those subdivisions are in mixed-use zoning districts. Linking zoning to
the street typologies will help provide more context when determining how to zone the
arterials and collectors.
Third, the future land use designations in the community plans are as varied as the current
zoning districts are. There should be an adopted set of defined future land use
designations, along with guidance on how those designations are used, within Plan Salt
Lake. This could also tie the future land use designations to the consolidated zoning district
when the two have common characteristics. Because it will take years to update all the
community plans, the planning division will be proposing changes to Plan Salt Lake as part
of the consolidation of the mixed-use and commercial districts.
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 55
This action will also be tied to the water conservation planning being done by Public
Utilities so that it is easier to forecast future water needs and zoning decisions are tied to
best practices that are known to reduce water consumption.
Based on these related projects, the division is suggesting that this effort commence after
these other projects are at least recommended by the Planning Commission. The division
has a goal of achieving that recommendation during this calendar year (2024). However,
when it comes time to start that process, the division has identified several guidelines that
should be considered when deciding how to proceed with zoning changes along arterials
and collector streets. These guidelines are intended to encourage appropriate-scale
development that is compatible with surrounding context.
GUIDELINES FOR FUTURE ZONING CHANGES
1. Align building heights to the scale of the street and surrounding properties.
Building height is one of the most identifiable characteristics of scale and should be
appropriate to the context. Some streets may warrant modest increases in building height,
while other streets may be able to accommodate taller buildings. Some additional height is
likely to accommodate ground floor commercial uses and residential uses above. If the
height only allows two stories, it is unlikely that new development will be of mixed use.
2. Retail, restaurants, other neighborhood-scale commercial uses should be allowed by
right. Allowing these uses along collectors and arterials will allow for more
neighborhood-scale commercial business within walking distance of more residents.
3. Reducing front yard setbacks will allow for larger buffer setbacks and potentially
off-street parking behind buildings.
4. Future zoning changes should allow all housing types.
All types of housing that comply with dimensional zoning requirements should be permitted,
although additional regulations should be implemented to prevent existing neighborhood-
scale commercial buildings from being redeveloped into entirely residential uses.
5. Design standards should be used to establish minimum urban design standards.
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 56
Design standards should be like those required in low intensity commercial zoning districts.
Design standards can be found in Chapter 21A.37. The proposal to consolidate the existing
mixed use and commercial districts will include identifying appropriate design standards.
6. Off-street parking requirements will change if the zoning is changed from
residential to commercial.
The Neighborhood Center parking context requires slightly less off-street parking than the
General Context and is appropriate in areas with pedestrian-scale development patterns,
building forms, and amenities.
7. Minimal lot area and lot width requirements.
These regulations can prevent smaller properties from being repurposed for new uses.
Reducing them will allow for more types of uses to be established in these areas.
8. Buffering
Landscape buffers should be required to help minimize the potential impacts of new
development. Landscape buffers typically include a continuous shrub hedge, shade trees,
and fencing.
Outside of downtown, most collector and arterial streets are surrounded by residential
zoning that does not permit commercial uses. Single-family residential is the most
prevalent land use designation along these types of streets, except in Council District 4
where there is no single-family zoning.
Arterial and collector streets can accommodate more vehicular traffic than local
streets and many are served by UTA bus routes. Several of these are part of the
Frequent Transit Network routes which offer 15-minute service and several more are slated
for similar service upgrades. Allowing for additional residential density and mixed-use
along these types of streets could help to create new housing and commercial
opportunities in high-demand areas with adequate transportation options. These
opportunities could bring additional activity to these streets and help to create vibrant,
walkable neighborhoods. Concentrating and intensifying uses along the Frequent Transit
Network is supported by Recommendation 6.1 of the Transit Master Plan (Page 143).
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 57
ADDRESSING POTENTIAL CONCERNS
1. Impacts
Additional residential density and new commercial uses have the potential to create
impacts on nearby properties. Landscape buffers should be used to enhance privacy,
reduce noise, and provide visual screening between dissimilar uses.
2. Traffic and Parking
Concerns regarding traffic and parking are commonly cited by residents when a zoning
amendment is proposed that has the potential to bring more cars to a certain area. While
this is a possibility with any zoning amendment that facilitates new development, the
relatively small-scale development allowed by this proposal is not expected to create
significant parking or traffic impacts. Additionally, the availability of frequent transit on
these streets can provide a realistic alternative to driving.
3. Displacement
Upzoning has the potential to raise property values, spur redevelopment and displace long-
term residents. Property owners tend to have more options regarding changing how their
property is used or selling their property. Renters are more susceptible to displacement.
The zoning amendments associated with this proposal should consider how the anti-
displacement strategies from Thriving in Place are implemented.
Allowing more residential types in commercial zones also has the potential to
displace businesses if the property owner determines that converting the use of the
property to residential is more advantageous for them. This has occurred in several
locations in the city, most notable on a property in Glendale where a site that formerly
contained a grocery store was proposed to be redeveloped into housing with no
commercial uses included in the plans. This type of action decreases walkability by
decreasing access to neighborhood commercial spaces.
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 58
Supporting Plans and Policies
The City Council asked the Planning Division to consider several policies and goals when
considering each of the options identified in this report. This is a rather tall order to analyze
each option now and a more thorough analysis is more appropriately done after the
Council provides some direction on what options should be pursued. There needs to be
some acknowledgment that not all zoning regulations are going to align perfectly with
adopted goals. Furthermore, those goals are often in competition with one another when
implemented through zoning. As a result, it is up to the Council to make value judgements
regarding which policies to prioritize and what are the best actions to move forward.
This section lists some of the relevant policies from the identified plans with a brief
explanation of how the options generally align.
Thriving in Place
Salt Lake City’s anti-displacement strategy, Thriving in Place (2023), has set specific goals for
the City to “combat involuntary displacement” and reduce the disparate impacts of
development on marginalized and at-risk communities. Those goals, listed below, include
specific strategic priorities to provide direction on policy decisions.
Thriving in Place Goals
1. Protect tenants from displacement, especially the most vulnerable.
2. Preserve the affordable housing we have.
3. Produce more housing, especially affordable housing.
4. Expand Funding for tenant support and affordable housing.
5. Partner + Collaborate for maximum impact.
6. Advocate for tenants at the state level.
Each of the options listed in this document has some impact on Thriving in Place
goals. Of all the strategic priorities found in Thriving in Place, Strategy 3C stands out
as the most relevant to this proposal. The strategy specifically calls for more “missing
middle” housing options. As discussed earlier in this report, “missing middle” is a term
often used to refer to housing types with more units than single-family homes, but less
dense than larger multi-family developments. They provide more affordable options to
middle-income families without the significant impacts of high-density development.
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 59
The implementation options in this report would likely encourage more “missing middle”
options. Zoning limits where missing middle housing can be built to multi-family zones and
some mixed-use zones, where land must accommodate commercial uses as well. This
creates situations where important commercial uses have been displaced by residential
development. For example, the CB zone allows multi-family development. In the Glendale
neighborhood a grocery store that is zoned CB closed and is being replaced by housing.
This may align with Thriving in Place goals related to housing, but it does not align
with other citywide and neighborhood goals of creating commercial nodes and
business districts and improving the livability of our neighborhoods by increasing
access to businesses, amenities, and groceries.
Modifying zoning to allow missing middle housing in R-1 zones does increase the amount
of land where it is possible to build this scale of housing and reduces the competition
between residential and commercial uses in commercial zones. About 8% of the total land
area in SLC is zoned R-1.
The chart below provides a summary of how land is zoned (including streets) in the
city based on 2019 GIS data.
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 60
Goal 2 listed above may also conflict with some of the options outlined in this report. By
increasing housing types in existing neighborhoods, it is possible, maybe even likely, that
some existing, lower cost housing will be replaced with more expensive housing. Some of
the options specifically identify that recalibrating the affordable housing incentives should
be considered to help address this issue.
For these options to effectively provide a diversity of choices, they need to include a variety of
housing types that are accessible to all income levels in all parts of the city. Regulations that
don’t promote more than one type of housing (beyond studio or one-bedroom units) or are
implemented only within historically red-lined neighborhoods are not supported by Thriving in
Place. The recently adopted Affordable Housing Incentives will also need to be considered.
Implementing many of the proposed options could effectively eliminate the incentives within
single-family districts. To address that impact, and to align with Thriving in Place
recommendations, the Council should consider revising or expanding those incentives in a way
that would promote affordable opportunities within missing middle development.
The other relevant strategy found in Thriving in Place is 3E, which calls for prioritizing long-
term affordability, integrated services, and transit access. Increasing density and expanding
the mix of uses along major corridors and transportation lines may help improve residents’
access to transit infrastructure, bring essential services closer to those who need them, and
as discussed above, improve affordability by expanding options. While the steps outlined
by Strategy 3E may not explicitly call for any of the implementation options proposed in
this report, investments in new housing by other departments and organizations will
benefit from the flexibility provided by the presented options.
Water Use
In the context of promoting water efficiency in land use planning across the Interior West
of the United States, "Integrating Water Efficiency into Land Use Planning in the Interior
West: A Guidebook for Local Planners" (Blanchard, J. C. N., 2018) has proven to be a
valuable resource for local governments.
This guidebook outlines various water conservation best practices, many of which
align with the implementation options discussed in this report, including:
• Increasing the number of homes per acre,
• Implementing cluster development or reducing lot size,
• Encouraging infill development, and
• Reducing setback requirements.
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 61
Research conducted by Sampson, Quay, & Horrie (2022) supports these practices,
highlighting a correlation between higher housing density and lower per capita water use.
Additionally, insights from Heidari et al. (2021) emphasize that promoting infill not only
revitalizes existing urban areas but also leverages existing infrastructure, reducing the
need for new larger-scale improvements to utilities. This approach aligns with the
guidebook's emphasis on sustainable urban growth, fostering a more resilient and water-
conscious community design.
There have been many studies exploring the relationship between urban development
patterns and water use. Specifically, a study by Arizona State’s College of Architecture,
Planning, and Landscape Architecture illustrates the water-saving influence vegetated land
cover, housing density, housing age, and lot size have on water use in Portland, Oregon;
Austin, Texas; and Salt Lake City, Utah (Stoker et al., 2019).
Additionally, research by the EPA emphasized the positive impact of higher-density
development on safeguarding water resources (Office of Sustainable Communities, 2006).
It showed that higher-density scenarios typically generate less stormwater runoff and
impervious cover compared to low-density development, ultimately benefiting watersheds.
Examining some case-specific examples, a study on building types and water use in Denver
highlighted that single-family dwellings with larger lots generally consume significantly
more water than relatively smaller dwellings (Sampson, et al., 2022). Similarly, a study
investigating development patterns and water use in Fort Collins, Colorado, points out the
water consumption disparities between sprawl and high-density development (Heidaris et
al., 2021). It concludes that sprawl development patterns are associated with higher water
consumption due to increased outdoor activities like landscape irrigation. Conversely, high-
density development not only reduces future water use but also mitigates the impacts of
water shortage events on municipal water supply systems.
The studies mentioned above illustrate the positive impact of the implementation
options discussed in this report on water-related infrastructure. Incorporating
these strategies can contribute to water conservation and foster resilience in the
face of Salt Lake City’s evolving water-related challenges. Each of the options listed
in this report aligns with the best practices associated with water conservation in
urban environments.
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 62
Public Transportation
Since August of 2019, Salt Lake City and UTA have been incrementally implementing bus
service upgrades along many collector and arterial streets within Salt Lake City to create a
Frequent Transit Network (FTN) as shown below and explained on page 16 of the City’s
Transit Master Plan. FTN bus routes typically offer 7-day-a-week service, 15-minute service
from 7 AM to 7 PM Monday-Saturday, and service until midnight Monday-Saturday. The
additional residential density and commercial uses allowed by this proposal could
potentially lead to increases in ridership on these routes, although further analysis may be
necessary to understand the impact more accurately. Additionally, the availability of
frequent transit service could potentially reduce the demand for additional parking.
Page 17, Transit Master Plan
The Transit Master Plan provides guidance to consider when implementing new land use
regulations along Frequent Transit Network (FTN) bus routes to encourage transit-
supportive design and development practices (Page 137 of the plan). Most FTN routes run
along collector or arterial streets.
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 63
Specific standards recommended for new development can be found below and on
page 142 of the plan:
Parking management policies:
The number of parking spaces and whether parking is free for employees and
visitors (see Chapter 5).
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) policies:
Integrating TDM plans and strategies into the approval process for new
development can ensure that developments of certain sizes, that meet certain
thresholds, or that are in certain places implement TDM strategies (such as
subsidized bus passes, on-site transportation coordinators, etc.).
Bicycle, pedestrian, and transit improvements:
Depending on the size or location of the development, the City could require
specific bicycle and pedestrian improvements, or bus stop improvements be
implemented as a requirement of development approvals.
Pedestrian-oriented design:
Identify design standards that promote pedestrian oriented urban design features,
such as active frontages built right to the street with parking located at the rear of the
building and landscaping that provides a buffer between the sidewalk and the street.
See Chapter 4 for further details on pedestrian improvements to the right of way.
It should be noted that not all neighborhoods have transit access. In those areas,
an effort to increase housing options should still be considered because of the
benefits it has towards implementing the goals and strategies found in Thriving in
Place, the adopted housing plan, and implementing best practices associated with
water conservation.
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 64
Walkability
HISTORY OF WALKABILITY IN SALT LAKE CITY
Walkability existed in the early years of Salt Lake City, despite having famously large blocks.
Commercial businesses were located along transportation arterials and around the nodes
where streetcar lines intersected. These were popular places to allow commercial land use
because business owners were supported by the constant flow of pedestrian traffic around
these streetcar lines and intersections. Residents were served by the convenience of having
businesses located right next to their daily commute.
The following map shows the 1928 streetcar lines in relation to the 1928 zoning map
and demonstrates this point.
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 65
Clear examples of this zoning pattern can be seen along 800 W, 900 S, 1100 E and 1300 E. In
1928, the parcels directly adjacent to the streetcar lines were zoned residential “C”. This zone
allowed small-scale commercial uses, such as retail shops, hotels, drug stores, restaurants,
banks, and theaters. These uses were permitted along the busy transportation arterials,
allowing residents to conveniently access their everyday needs without needing to travel too
far. Business owners could open these types of businesses by right, without special zoning
approval. The remaining parcels on the block not directly adjacent to streetcar routes were
zoned residential “A” and only allowed for single- and two-family homes.
BENEFITS OF WALKABILITY
The benefits of walkability extend to people of all ages. Walking is a form of exercise that is
accessible to all ages and fitness levels. The term The health benefits of regular walking
include improved cardiovascular health, reduced risk of chronic disease, and reduced
obesity rates (The Weight of Place: Built Environment Correlates of Obesity and Diabetes).
Walkable cities can help reduce reliance on cars, leading to lower carbon emissions and
improved air quality (vehicles contribute to more than 50% of Utah smog, according to the
Department of Environmental Quality).
Walkable neighborhoods provide public spaces such as parks, plazas, and sidewalks that serve
as common grounds for neighbors to meet, interact, and engage with one another. These
spaces become venues for various community activities, from casual strolls and children’s play
to organized events and gatherings. The increased face-to-face interactions in these spaces can
lead to stronger social bonds, a greater sense of community, and improved social cohesion.
The visibility and accessibility of neighbors can enhance mutual support and cooperation,
contributing to a safer and more secure neighborhood. Walkable environments not only
promote physical health but also nurture the social health of the community.
If implemented correctly, walkability can provide more affordable housing options for
potential homebuyers. A report published by the Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies
found that housing affordability can increase when zoning changes are implemented on a
larger scale. Walkable neighborhoods provide more housing variety than traditional single-
family neighborhoods, but they are only allowed in a few places where the zoning permits
it. Limiting walkability to a few properly zoned areas makes these places expensive because
there is a high demand to live in a few existing areas.
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 66
The report argues that if zoning is changed to encourage walkability city-wide,
walkable neighborhoods will become more affordable than they currently are
because the supply would be allowed to catch up to the demand for more walkable
neighborhoods. Whatever changes the City Council chooses to implement should be
done at the citywide level to have real effectiveness.
CITY PLANS THAT SUPPORT WALKABILITY?
Plan Salt Lake // Guiding Principles
• Neighborhoods that provide a safe environment, opportunity for social interaction, and
services needed for the well-being of the community therein (pg. 17).
• Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the city, providing the
basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics (pg. 21).
• A beautiful city that is people-focused (pg. 31).
• Ensure access to all city amenities for all citizens while treating everyone equitably with
fairness, justice, and respect (pg. 37).
Pedestrian and Bicycle General Plan // Plan Goals
• Integrate walking and bicycling into community planning to enhance livability, health,
transportation, the environment, and economic development (pg. 23).
• Develop a safe, comfortable, and attractive walking and bicycling network that connects
people of all ages, abilities, and neighborhoods to the places they want to go, such as work;
home; school; shopping; places to socialize; places to worship; and parks, trails, and open
space (pg. 24).
• Promote the safety and attractiveness of walking and bicycling through education,
encouragement, and enforcement programs (pg. 26).
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 67
IMPLEMENTATION OF WALKABILITY
The adopted city-wide plans make it clear that residents desire a more walkable Salt Lake
City. This demand for walkable cities reflects a bigger national trend. According to a survey
completed by the National Association of Realtors, 79% of Americans would prefer to live in
a walkable neighborhood, but only 13% have access to one.
Pockets of walkable areas currently exist throughout the city, but only where zoning
permits it. Ninth and Ninth, Central Ninth, and Sugarhouse all enjoy the benefits of
walkability. The corresponding zones of these areas (CB Community Business, FB-UN2
Form-Based, and CSHBD Sugarhouse Business District) do not require minimum lot areas
or widths. Those zones allow small-scale commercial uses, while carefully regulating other
zoning standards, such as building height and design requirements. Reducing lot standards
in the R-1 zones is one action that can help create a more walkable city, but it won’t solve
walkability issues on its own.
A few of the zoning standards needed to create walkability include an increased variety of
permitted housing types, reduced parking requirements, and a mix of uses. Having quick
access to commercial services is a key component of walkability. A dense neighborhood of
apartments and duplexes is not walkable if the nearest grocery store is 5 miles away. More
than basic retail, residents should be able to access schools, stores, coffee shops, and
restaurants by foot.
The proposal to allow commercial uses and additional density along collector and
arterial roads would make it easier to build walkable neighborhoods in places where
it makes sense.
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 69
Historic Districts
Salt Lake City’s historic districts are, for the most part, made up of buildings constructed prior
to 1950. (as illustrated in Section 1 of this report). Buildings in local historic districts may have
non-conformities (conditions that don’t comply with zoning) including multiple units (within a
building), smaller lots, narrower widths (frontages), and irregular configurations because they
were constructed prior to the city adopting zoning or under past zoning regulations. The city’s
H Historic Preservation Overlay District includes processes and standards for modifications to
buildings and lots that don’t conform to an underlying zoning district. Demolitions, additions,
and renovations must comply with additional historic preservation standards beyond zoning
regulations. The implementation options discussed in this report would not have the same
impact on landmark sites or historic districts as they would on other areas.
Only local historic districts within the Yalecrest neighborhood (including Westmoreland
Place) would be affected by the options proposed in this report (see map). The Central
City, Avenues, and Capitol Hill local historic districts do not contain properties with an R-1
zoning designation. A handful of properties within the affected districts are currently non-
conforming. The changes proposed in this report could bring those properties into compliance
with zoning requirements.
Affected Local Historic Districts
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 70
Case Studies
Other communities have already taken action to address many of the items the City
Council requested to be studied. Some of the relevant case studies of other communities
are included below. The intent of the case studies is to provide some idea about what to
expect, in terms of what has been done, how it was done, and what the results have been.
Implementing zoning changes does not happen overnight. In many instances the effect of
zoning changes is not readily apparent for years, sometimes decades.
Residential zoning district consolidation is a policy tool that is frequently used during
zoning reform initiatives with mixed results. There are many examples of cities that have
undergone a text amendment to consolidate their residential districts, with positive and
neutral results. The following examples are municipalities that have consolidated
residential districts with a few applicable key insights to the process and result.
Middle housing zoning reforms have the potential for significant positive impacts on
housing diversity. Exploring successful case studies and best practices can guide effective
implementation. Salt Lake City is not alone in the effort to address the housing crisis. In
recent years, a variety of reforms have been adopted by state and local governments
across the country. The various policies range from allowing duplexes on single-family lots
to allowing affordable six-plexes in neighborhoods.
Duluth, MN
Duluth went through the process to consolidate their R1-a, R1-b, R1-c, and R-2 zone
districts. Their three R-1 districts differed only in minimum lot area, lot width, and setbacks.
The R-2 district also allowed construction of two-family structures but was rarely utilized
and has some similarities to the R-2 zone in SLC. The new zones were largely consolidated
into 1 zone.
To ensure that future development would be consistent with the established character or
surrounding areas, Duluth included contextual standards for minimum lot size, minimum
lot width, and setbacks in the consolidated district. The update adjusted the new district’s
minimum lot sizes to match the average size of lots already developed with similar houses
on the same block face. However, the spacing between houses is decided immediately
based on neighboring lots with similar structures. This is seen in the table from their zoning
ordinance below.
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 71
Winnipeg, Manitoba
From 2005 to 2007, Winnipeg went from 10 distinct R1 districts, with varying minimum lot
sizes and widths, to four. Minimum lot sizes were lowered or held constant, which meant
that there were no additional properties that were made nonconforming.
Suburban property owners typically do not desire their neighbors to subdivide and
introduce additional units. To preempt this scenario, the Winnipeg Zoning Bylaw stipulates
that in the event of subdivision for R1 or R2 properties, all lots within 100 feet (excluding
rights-of-way) of established R1 or R2 neighborhoods must meet or surpass the minimum
lot width of the existing neighborhood.
DeKalb County, GA
While consolidating their residential districts, they focused on creating a “user friendly
document” with tables and graphs to increase readability and understanding among residents
and developers. After implementation, residents praised its clarity and ease of use.
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 72
Houston, TX
Houston is well known for not having traditional zoning regulations. However, the city does
have some regulations that regulate development. Houston has a long history of reducing
barriers to creating new housing. Below are some examples:
• In 1998, Houston reduced the minimum lot size in urban core from 5,000sqft to 3,500sqft
(or 1,400 if meeting certain standards). In 2013, the policy was expanded to cover the
entire city.
• Between 1999-2016, more than 25,000 homes were built on lots under 5,000sqft in area.
• Houston does, however, allow attached single-family housing, which is where the biggest
boom was seen.
The land area of Houston is about six times larger than SLC.
Durham, NC
Durham, NC, introduced a program called “Expanding Housing Choices (EHC).” This
initiative impacted most of the residential districts within the Urban Tier. The purpose of
this program is to promote small lot housing.
The EHC program reduced the minimum lot area from 5,000 sq. ft down to 2,000 sq ft.
and reduced the minimum lot width to 25 feet. Setbacks were also reduced:
• Front: 10 ft
• Sides: 5 ft
• Rear: 15 ft
The maximum building height for those that utilize the program is 25 feet. To promote
small scale housing, the maximum footprint of a building was set at 800 sq ft and the
maximum total floor area set at 1,200 sq. ft.
One major concern was that there was going to be an increase in demolitions to make way
for new development under the EHC program. Durham tracked the demolitions of
residential properties in the “Urban Tier” and found that their initiatives did not have a
significant impact on demolitions.
While demolition permits reached the 10-year high the year the program was introduced,
the average number of demolition permits obtained between 2019-2023 was 60.4 per year.
This number between 2013-2018 was 52.8 per year and was lowered by 2013 only having 5
demolition permits. If 2013 were removed from the equation, there was an average of 62.4
demolition permits obtained per year between 2014-2018.
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 73
(Graph showing the 10-year residential demolition permits pulled in Durham, NC. The Expanding
Housing Choices program went into effect in 2019.)
Durham released a study of the impacts of the program late last year, can be found here:
Final Report - December 6, 2023.
Below are a few quick data points from the report:
Small lots accounted for 2.21% of all single-family permits (215 small lot permits between
10/01/2019 and 10/01/2023).
• Affordability impact was significant. Median sales price for a SFD in the “Urban Tier” on a
standard lot is $605,000.
• Median sales price for a small lot/small house in the “Urban Tier” is $348,000.
• Homes on “small lots” have been significantly more affordable than homes on larger lots
(42.5% cheaper, on average).
Minneapolis, MN
Minneapolis received a lot of attention for essentially ending single family zoning in 2020.
The changes adopted in Minneapolis allowed up to 3 units per structure in single-family
zones but didn’t modify lot size req’s. In the first two years, only 104 two- & three-unit
structures were built (Urban Minimum Lot Sizes: Their Background, Effects, and Avenues to
Reform). Minneapolis has seen some success with other aspects of the changes they adopted,
including ending minimum parking requirements and allowing more density along corridors.
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 74
Portland, OR
Portland’s Residential Infill Project recently adopted new rules allowing up to four attached
units in most residential zones and up to six units for projects meeting the City’s
affordability criteria (adopted 2020, in effect 2021).
Spokane, WA
Spokane’s Building Opportunity for Housing project established a minimum density of 4
units per acre, with no maximum density on site less than 2 acres. Rather than establish a
maximum density, buildings are limited by maximum coverage, maximum footprint, and
maximum height. Commenters speculate that these standards may lend themselves to the
development of six-plexes.
(City of Spokane, Dimensional Standards)
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 75
California Home Act
The California Home Act allows lot splits with no minimum frontage that results in new lots
of approximately equal size (60/40 proportion), and up to two primary dwelling units on
single-family zoned lots. These standards allow a wide variety of development
possibilities combining principal dwellings, accessory dwellings, and duplexes:
Illustrated development scenarios, Los Angeles City Planning
The California Home Act is a case study that relates to the creation of flag lots and could be
an example of flexibility with lot sizes to promote more housing, especially on lots with
large yard areas that could accommodate additional housing. This approach may be able
to replace the flag lot regulations in the city because it provides more flexibility and
is not as rigid.
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 76
Vermont Home Act
The Vermont HOME Act permits duplexes statewide and requires a density of at least 5
units per acre in areas served by water and sewer (2023)
Montana
In 2023, Montana adopted Montana SB 323 which authorized duplexes on all properties in
cities that have a population greater than 5,000.
Washington
HB 1110 in Washington State requires cities with a population of over 75,000 to allow up to
four units per lot (2023).
BROADER STUDIES
As more cities have looked at zoning reform to remove barriers for more housing, several
studies have been conducted to provide some insight into what works or doesn’t. One of
the goals of the research is to determine if housing affordability increases as housing
supply increases. Additionally, there is an abundance of research that shows housing
affordability increases as housing supply increases, typically accomplished by upzoning. A
summary of some of these studies can be found in this article: Upzoning Affordability
Impacts: The Latest Research. Vicki Been, Ingrid Gould Ellen and Katherine O’Regan have
also shown that “easing land use restrictions, at least on a broad scale and in ways that
change binding constraints on development, generally leads to more new housing over
time,” (Supply Skepticism Revisited). By bringing more lots into compliance, whether that is
due to reduced lot size, width or setbacks, more lots are then buildable, and more homes
are brought to the market, thus lowering housing costs.
Yonah Freemark has also found that incremental zoning changes that do not include
broader changes does not result in an increase of housing supply or a noticeable impact on
housing costs (Zoning Change: Upzonings, Downzonings, and Their Impacts on Residential
Construction, Housing Costs, and Neighborhood Demographics). Freemark points out that
one cause of limited results could be that “upzonings only tackled one of the many
interconnected elements of land-use policy, such as allowing height increases but not
reductions in minimum lots sizes...”
A handful of cities have reduced lot width requirements in conjunction with other lot
standards, and these case studies are listed above under the “Reduce Minimum Lot Area”
section. A key component of considering minimum lot widths is that they should be seen as
a piece in a broader set of changes. Nolan Gray (The 6 Zoning Reforms Every Municipality
Should Adopt) writes, “if rules like setbacks or lot coverage still make it physically or
financially infeasible to build a home on a small lot, those rules also need to be adjusted.” .
Building a house on a small lot that is still required to have a 50’ public frontage will render
small lots and small houses impossible. Similarly, allowing other housing types while
keeping lot coverage the same will likely result in the other housing types not being
constructed.
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 78
Relevant Studies and Background Information
Planning staff reviewed numerous academic studies and actions by other government
entities in the process of creating this document. References to the research sources are
found in this section. There are additional resources that are available that may provide
some counter arguments to those cited here.
It should be noted that there are some research papers, academic papers, and other
similar sources that counter the notion that modifying zoning to remove barriers for
housing improves the affordability of housing. However, this study is primarily focused on
removing barriers that limit the supply of housing and is not solely focused on affordability
of housing. The City recently completed, and adopted, “Thriving in Place” that
includes more data and resources related to housing affordability and displacement.
Been, Vicki and Ellen, Ingrid Gould and O'Regan,
Katherine M., Supply Skepticism Revisited
(November 10, 2023). NYU Law and Economics
Research Paper Forthcoming, Available at
https://ssrn.com/abstract=4629628 or
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4629628
Berkeley, May 2016,
https://www.urbandisplacement.org/wp-
content/uploads/2021/08/udp_research_brief_
052316.pdf.
Blanchard, J. C. N. (2018). Integrating Water Efficiency
into Land Use Planning in the Interior West: A
Guidebook for Local Planners. Prepared by Land
Use Law Center for Western Resource
Advocates.
https://westernresourceadvocates.org/wp-
content/uploads/2019/06/Integrating-Water-
Efficiency-into-Land-Use-Planning_6.3.2019.pdf
“Building Up the ‘Zoning Buffer’: Using Broad
Upzones to Increase Housing Capacity Without
Increasing Land Values.” UCLA Lewis Center for
Regional Policy Studies,
https://www.lewis.ucla.edu/research/building-
up-the-zoning-buffer-using-broad-upzones-to-
increase-housing-capacity-without-increasing-
land-values/.
City of Durham. Expanding Housing Choices (EHC).
https://www.durhamnc.gov/3679/Expanding-
Housing-Choices
Dietrich, Eric. “Judge Blocks Two Pro-Construction
Housing Laws.” Montana Free Press, 2 Jan.
2024,
http://montanafreepress.org/2024/01/02/boze
man-judge-blocks-two-pro-construction-
housing-laws/.
Dong, Hongwei. “Exploring the Impacts of Zoning
and Upzoning on Housing Development: A
Quasi-Experimental Analysis at the Parcel
Level.” Journal of Planning Education and
Research, Feb. 2021, p. 0739456X2199072,
https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X21990728.
Elliot, Donald. (2012). Zoning Practice: Consolidating
Zoning Districts.
https://www.planning.org/publications/docum
ent/9006919/
Freemark, Yohan. (2023). Zoning Change:
Upzonings, Downzonings, and Their Impacts
on Residential Construction, Housing Costs,
and Neighborhood Demographics. Journal of
Planning Literature, 38(4), 548-570.
https://doi.org/10.1177/08854122231166961
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 79
Gardner, Charles. (2023). Urban Minimum Lot
Sizes: Their Background, Effects, and Avenues
to Reform. Mercatus
Center.https://www.mercatus.org/research/pol
icy-briefs/urban-minimum-lot-sizes-their-
background-effects-and-avenues-reform.
Gill, Anthony. Spokane’s Permanent Middle
Housing Rules Should Set a Statewide
Standard - The Urbanist. 30 Nov. 2023,
https://www.theurbanist.org/2023/11/30/spok
anes-permanent-middle-housing-rules-should-
set-a-statewide-standard/.
Grey, N. (2023). The 6 Zoning Reforms Every
Municipality Should Adopt. Strong Towns.
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2023/10/
31/the-6-zoning-reforms-every-municipality-
should-adopt.
Heidari Hadi, Arabi Mazdak, Warziniack Travis, &
Sharvelle Sybil. (2021). Effects of Urban
Development Patterns on Municipal Water
Shortage. Frontiers in Water, vol. 3.
https://doi.org/10.3389/frwa.2021.694817
Howell, Nicholas A., and Gillian L. Booth. “The
Weight of Place: Built Environment Correlates
of Obesity and Diabetes.” Endocrine Reviews,
vol. 43, no. 6, Dec. 2022, pp. 966–83,
https://doi.org/10.1210/endrev/bnac005.
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute. The Impact of
High-Density Apartments on Surrounding
Single-Family Home Values in Suburban Salt
Lake County.
https://d36oiwf74r1rap.cloudfront.net/wp-
content/uploads/HighDensity-Feb2021.pdf.
Land Use Law Center Pace Law School, and
Western Resource Advocates. Integrating
Water Efficiency Into Land Use Planning In The
Interior West: A Guidebook For Local Planners.
https://westernresourceadvocates.org/wp-
content/uploads/2019/06/Integrating-Water-
Efficiency-into-Land-Use-
Planning_6.3.2019.pdf.
Litman, T. (2023). Upzoning Affordability Impacts:
The Latest Research.
https://www.planetizen.com/news/2023/12/12
6834-upzoning-affordability-impacts-latest-
research.
Minneapolis 2040. https://minneapolis2040.com/.
“Minneapolis 2040 Plan Struck down by Judge.”
Kare11.Com, 6 Sept. 2023,
https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/mi
nneapolis-2040-plan-struck-down-judge/89-
69eda2f0-312a-4590-93d6-c8067b164ef2.
“Missing Middle Housing: Diverse Choices for
Walkable Neighborhood Living.” Missing
Middle Housing,
https://missingmiddlehousing.com/.
Montana Legislature 2023. Montana SB 323.
https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2023/billhtml/SB0323.h
tm.
“New NAR Survey Finds Americans Prefer Walkable
Communities.” www.Nar.Realtor, 23 June 2023,
https://www.nar.realtor/newsroom/new-nar-
survey-finds-americans-prefer-walkable-
communities.
R-1 ZONING // AMENDMENT STUDY 80
Office of Sustainable Communities. (2006, January).
Protecting Water Resources with Higher-density
Development. (EPA 231-R-06-001).
Environmental Protection Agency. Office of
Water & Office of Policy, Economics, and
Innovation.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2014-
03/documents/protect_water_higher_density1.
pdf
Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability.
Portland Residential Infill Project. July 2020,
https://www.portland.gov/sites/default/files/20
20-
07/exhibit_b_volume_1_staff_report_as_amend
ed_draft.pdf.
Roe, Ginna. “Vehicles Cause More than 50% of Utah
Smog; Driving Electric Is One Solution.” KUTV,
10 Dec. 2018,
https://kutv.com/news/local/vehicles-cause-
more-than-50-of-utah-smog-driving-electric-is-
one-solution.
Sampson, D. A., Quay, R., & Horrie, M. (2022).
Building Type, Housing Density, and Water
Use: Denver Water Data and Agent-Based
Simulations. Journal of the American Water
Resources Association, 58, 355-369.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.13009
Senate Bill 9 | Los Angeles City Planning.
https://planning.lacity.gov/project-
review/senate-bill-9.
Spokane City. Building Opportunity For Housing. 21
Oct. 2022,
https://my.spokanecity.org/projects/shaping-
spokane-housing/building-opportunity-for-
housing/.
Spokane City. Special Meeting Notice/Agenda Of
The Spokane City Council. 14 Dec. 2023,
https://static.spokanecity.org/documents/cityc
ouncil/special-notices/2023/12/special-notice-
city-council-Special-Legislative-Session-2023-
12-14.pdf.
Stoker, P., Chang, H., Wentz, E., Crow-Miller, B.,
Jehle, G., & Bonnette, M. (2019). Building
Water-Efficient Cities: A Comparative Analysis
of How the Built Environment Influences Water
Use in Four Western U.S. Cities. Pages 511-524.
Journal of the American Planning Association.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2019.163881
7
Vermont HOME Act of 2023, Act 47 (S.100) | Agency
of Commerce and Community Development.
https://accd.vermont.gov/community-
development/resources-rules/planning/HOME.
Washington State Legislature.
https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumbe
r=1110&Year=2023&Initiative=false.
Zuk, Miriam, and Karen Chapple. Housing
Production, Filtering and Displacement:
Untangling the Relationships. Research Brief,
Institute of Governmental Studies, University
of California,
Authored By
Aaron Barlow, Trevor Ovenden
Grant Amman, Andrew Hulka
Seth Rios, Ben Buckley
Graphic Design
Brian Maya
Planning Director
Nick Norris
Deputy Planning Director
Michaela Oktay
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
City Council Briefing –August 27, 2024
CONSOLIDATING
COMMERCIAL AND
MIXED USE ZONING
DISTRICTS
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
WHY: SUPPORT BUSINESSES AND
NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICTS
•More user friendly
•Reduce the number of regulations
•Clarifies standards
•Align with city goals
•Plan Salt Lake
•Housing SLC
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
WHAT ARE WE DOING?
•Consolidating 27 zoning districts
•Ensuring right mix uses & neighborhood amenities
•Enhancing walkability and placemaking
•Updating Building Design Standards -some are new!
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
PROJECT SUMMARY
6 NEW MU
DISTRICTS
27 EXISTING DISTRICTS
(SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
NOTES
MU2 RB, CN, SNB NEW ZONE
MU3 CB, RMU-35 NEW ZONE
MU5 RMU-45, CC, CS,
TSA-UN-T, MU, FB-UN2, FB-SE
USES EXISTING FB-UN2 ZONE W
SMALL CHANGES
MU6 FB-UN2 (65’ HEIGHT AREAS), FB-SC,TSA-UC-T,
TSA-SP-T, TSA-MUEC-T, CSHBD2, RO
USES FB-UN2 ZONE (65’ HEIGHT
AREAS)
MU8 TSA-MUEC-C, TSA-SP-C, TSA-UN-C, RMU USES MU-8 (adopted)
MU11 FB-UN11, CG, TSA-UC-C, CSHBD1 USES FB-UN11 (ADOPTED FOR
FLEET BLOCK)
Salt Lake City //Planning Division
1.Maintain existing property rights
as much as possible.
2.Minimize new nonconforming
uses/noncomplying buildings
3.Keep regulations that work
KEYS TO SUCCESS
Zone RB SNB CN MU-2
No net decrease
in property right
Height 30 25 25 30
Front
Setback
25 20 15 5’ on corner,
average of the
bock face for
interior lots
Interior
Setback
8 7 0 Only when buffer
yard required
Rear
Setback
25 20 15 20’ when next to
residential
Lot
coverage
50%0 0 Determined by
setbacks
Salt Lake City //Planning Division
MODIFICATIONS
CHAPTER Description
5.04.070 Enhanced services Changes references
14.36 News racks Changes references
14.38.010 street artists Changes references,
Clarifies/updates outdated regulations
Expands locations
21A.10 Application, Public Engagement, and Public
Noticing Procedures
Noticing for TSA zone
Clarifying noticing for text amendments
21A.22 Zoning Districts Updating list of districts
21A.24 Residential Districts Deleting RMU-35, RMU-45, RMU, RB, RO zones;
moving FB-UN1 to this chapter
21A.25 Mixed Use Districts Adding MU-2 &MU-3,
Moving FB-UN2, changing to MU-5 & MU-6;
Moving FB-UN11 as MU-11
21A.26 Commercial Districts Deleting chapter
21A.27 Form Based Districts Deleting, moving design standards to design standards section,
Building type definitions to definitions chapter
21A.32 Special Purpose Districts Deleting MU district
21A.33 Land Use Tables New land use table for mixed use districts
Deleting columns from residential land use tables
Deleting Commercial district table
Deleting TSA table
Updating some land use names and uses in other tables
Salt Lake City //Planning Division
MODIFICATIONS
CHAPTER Description
21A.33 Land Use Tables New land use table for mixed use districts
Deleting columns from residential land use tables
Deleting Commercial district table
Deleting TSA table
Updating some land use names and uses in other tables
21A.34.030 Transitional Overlay District Deleting, outdated overlay
21A.34.090 South State Street Overlay Deleting, no longer needed with design standards in MU zones
21A.34.100 M1H Overlay The single regulation regarding height in the M1 zone is being moved to the
M1 zone and this overlay will be deleted
21A.34.110 Downtown Main Street Overlay Deleted, overlay regulations are addressed in base zoning district
21A.36 General Provisions Updating references
Deleting subchapters with no regulations
Deleting some outdated provisions that apply to some commercial districts
21A.37 Design Standards Clarifying definition of design standards
Reorganizing tables of required design standards
Adding new MU district design standards
21A.38 Nonconforming uses and noncomplying
buildings
Updating references to base districts
Updating standard for expansion of nonconforming use
21A.40 Accessory Uses Updating references, mostly to cell tower regulations to include all zoning
districts and types
Salt Lake City //Planning Division
MODIFICATIONS
CHAPTER Description
21A.42 Temporary Uses Updating references
21A.44 Parking Updating references to zoning districts
Converting parking contexts to distance based for MU zones
Deleting parking in yards (addressed in landscape chapter)
21A.46 Signs Adding new tables for MU zones
Deleting tables for zoning districts that are being removed
Updating general provisions that duplicate other regulations
Updating references
21A.48 Landscaping Updating references
Relocating landscaping related design standards to this chapter
21A.52 Zoning Incentives Updating references
21A.55 Planned Developments Updating references
Clarifying provisions related to subdivisions associated with a PD
21A.59 Design Review Deleting references to TSA zone
21A.62 Definitions Updating some definitions for specific land uses
Relocating building type definitions to this chapter
Salt Lake City //Planning Division
BUILDING-TYPE FOCUSED
•Commercial/Mixed-use Storefronts
•Vertical Multi-family
•Rowhouses
•Cottage Courts
•Single- & two-family residential
FORM BASED CODE
Salt Lake City //Planning Division
ELEMENTS
•Placement
•Dimensions
•Components
•Connectivity
FORM BASED CODE
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
MU-2 DISTRICT
WHY CONSOLIDATE?
Similar:
•Height limits
•Setbacks
•Land Uses
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
MU-3 DISTRICT
WHY CONSOLIDATE?
Similar:
•Height limits
•Setbacks
•Land Uses
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
MU-5 DISTRICT
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
MU-6 DISTRICT
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
MU-8 DISTRICT
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
MU-11 DISTRICT
WHY 125 FEET HEIGHT LIMIT?
•Encourage use of affordable housing incentives
•2-3 additional stories in current zones
•3 stories in MU-11 proposed
•Results in about 155’ in building height
150’
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
M-1 TO MU-3 AND MU-5
IMPLEMENTING WESTSIDE
PLAN
•Rezones 700 West industrial
corridor
•Expands opportunity for mixed use
development
•310 acres of land
•Anchored by Glendale Regional
Park
•New housing opportunities
without rezoning existing
residential uses
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
•Midblock walkways required
•Provisions for buildings without street frontage
•Ground floor use requirements on certain streets
•Parking location/access requirements
•Sidewalk width requirements
ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
•Ground floor: height, glass, entrances, materials
•Durable materials
•Street facing building length
•Upper level (materials and glass)
•Parking garage requirements
MAJOR DESIGN STANDARDS
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
LAND USE TABLES
Little consistency between similar zones
18 different types of retail
A lot of qualifying provisions
•Indoor/outdoor; size restrictions, proximity limitations
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
PARKING
•MU2 and MU3: No change
•MU5 – MU11, parking will depend
on distance to a fixed rail station.
•Considers the varying parking
needs across different areas of
the city, some of which are near
transit while others are not.
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
PARKING
Insert map from Amy
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
TransmittalEngagement
NEXT STEPS
First PC Public
Hearing
PC
Recommendation
(tentative)
August
September
September
25 October November
December
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
ENGAGEMENT CALENDAR
OPEN HOUSES WALKING TOURS
Visit SLC.gov/Planning for more information!
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 14548 6, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
________________________ Date Received: _________________
Jill Love, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 4/15/2024
Victoria Petro, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhood s
__________________________
SUBJECT: Consolidating existing commercial and mixed-use zoning districts
STAFF CONTACT: Nick Norris, Planning Director, nick.norris@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Information Only
RECOMMENDATION: None
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The purpose of this transmittal is to introd uce the City
Council to a zoning amend ment that would consolid ate the existing mixed use and commercial
zoning districts into as few as six new zoning districts. The goal of this project is to simplify
the zoning code by removing redundant zoning regulations, improve the consistency of zoning
regulations, and make the zoning cod e easier to understand and use.
The Planning Division is proposing to follow a similar process with this text amend ment as we
do for updates to community plans and provid e the Council with upd ates to the process
periodically. This also allows the Council to help shape the engagement process, provide
direction on key policy issues, and be informed regarding the proposal from the beginning.
With this proposal, the Planning Division intends to provid e several upd ates:
1.At the beginning of the project to introduce the proposal, to receive guidance from the
Council on engagement activities, and to get general direction on key policy impacts.
2.Towards the end of the engagement process, but prior to finalizing the draft that will go
through the adoption process with the Planning Commission. The Council can choose to
jill love (Apr 17, 2024 10:43 MDT)
jill love 04/17/2024
04/17/2024
weigh in on any aspect of the proposal at this time and provide guidance to the Planning
Commission on specific issues they want the commission to consider.
3.After the Planning Commission makes a formal recommendation to the City Council.
The first two items are intended to be informational transmittals. It is at the Council’s discretion
to schedule an item for a briefing after receiving an informational transmittal.
Currently t his project is at the stage where the first period of draft code changes is nearly
finished. The first draft of the proposal will be used to discuss the changes with the community,
receive input from other city departments, and lead the creation of an updated version that will
start the official adoption process.
This proposal impacts three different Titles of the Salt Lake City Code that reference specific
zoning districts and at least 25 different chapters of Title 21A Zoning will see some text changes.
To date, the Planning Division has identified several key issues related to this project:
•Not all zoning districts that are proposed to be consolidated have the same bulk and mass
regulations. One of the guiding principles of this project is to limit the creation of non-
complying buildings as much as possible. This could mean that some zones may see a
decrease in a setback requirement or an increase in building height. When this occurs,
the proposal errs on the side of preserving existing property rights, even in the face of
potential regulatory changes. An example of this is in the CN and RB zones, where the
CN zone allows a maximum height of 25 feet while the RB zone allows up to 30 feet.
Instead of decreasing the height in the RB zone, the proposed height of the new
consolidated districts is 30 feet.
•The land use tables for the districts vary considerably. While there are some key land
uses that are allowed throughout each of the districts, few of the land uses are allowed in
the same manner even when the zones are essentially the same. The guiding principle is
to limit the creation of new non -conforming uses as much as possible.
•Most of the changes only need to change references from existing zones to the proposed
zones and do not change what or how a regulation applies.
•The most significant changes include:
o Land use tables;
o Design standards (some zones have few design standards);
o Off -street parking; and
o Signs.
•Off -street parking is one of the more complicated chapters of this proposal because the
existing districts that are suggested to be consolidated are often in different contexts.
Putting them all in the same context will result in either a n increase in minimum parking
requirements or a decrease in minimum parking requirements depending on the district.
The division is analyzing multiple scenarios to address this.
•The sign code is one chapter of the code that has many inconsistent regulations, often
conflicting, with some signs having regulations found in different sections. The
billboard section of the sign code does reference some existing districts that will be
deleted. The changes to this section will be limited to only changing district titles.
•Noticing costs. This proposal includes rezoning thousands of properties. To comply with
all required noticing in both Utah Code and Title 21A of the City Code, there could be a
significant cost when using direct mail. This will be determined as the process continues.
The division plans on using some year-end money within the division’s budget to cover
some of the noticing costs. It is possible that there may be a request for a budget
amendment in the next fiscal year depending on the remaining costs to fulfill the
noticing requirements.
Attached is a summary that identifies the reasons for the proposal, how each of the districts will
be grouped for consolidation, the chapters of code impacted , the status of drafting each text
change, a summary of each of the new districts including comparison charts of key development
regulations, and maps that show the locations of each of the existing districts to be consolidated.
PUBLIC PROCESS: There has not yet been any public process associated with this proposal
because it is still under development. A public engagement plan will be created in late
April/early May with the target start date for late May or June. The engagement process is
anticipated to go through the summer months, and the adoption process will likely begin in late
summer or fall. The goal is to transmit a recommendation from the Planning Commission by the
end of the calendar year.
EXHIBITS:
1)Zoning District Consolidation Project: Commercial and Mixed Use Districts Summary
EXHIBIT 1
Zoning District Consolidation Project:
Commercial and Mixed-Use Districts Summary
Zoning District Consolidation Project
Commercial and Mixed-Use Districts
Introduction
The Salt Lake City Zoning Code groups zoning districts based on category. Each category has
multiple zoning districts. The categories and number of individual districts include:
•Residential (18 districts)
•Commercial (15 districts)
•Form Based (5 districts)
•Manufacturing (2 districts)
•Downtown (4 districts)
•Gateway (1 district)
•Special Purpose (17 districts)
In total, there are 62 base zoning districts. In addition, there are 15 overlay zoning districts.
Each zoning district contains basic zoning standards (such as setbacks, building height, lot size
requirements, and others) plus additional standards found in other chapters of the zoning code.
These include:
•General provisions, which include requirements for buildings and lots fronting public
streets, how many buildings can be on a lot, and requirements for specific types of land
uses;
•Design Standards;
•Accessory Uses, Buildings, and Structures;
•Temporary Uses;
•Off-Street Parking;
•Signs; and,
•Landscaping.
Each of the additional chapters listed above contains hundreds of regulations to account for the
62 base zoning districts. In addition to all these standards, the 15 overlay zoning districts include
additional standards that apply to certain geographic areas of the city. All the regulations in
each of these chapters establish the land use regulations for the city.
The 62 zoning districts, seven chapters of additional regulations, and the 15 overlay zoning
districts are supposed to work together to help achieve the adopted land use goals of the city.
The adopted land use goals are identified in Plan Salt Lake, the Urban Design Element, 10
community plans, and 24 small area plans. All these plans, as well as other citywide plans,
collectively establish the city’s General Plan.
It is not hard to imagine how complicated and resource intensive it is to manage and administer
the number of plans, zoning districts, and regulations that have been adopted over the years.
This project is intended to simplify the zoning code by combining as many as 26 of the existing
commercial and mixed-use zoning districts. The goal is to reduce the total number of
regulations within the code, which will make the code easier to administer and use.
This report outlines the changes that will have to happen to consolidate zoning districts,
information regarding how zoning districts were grouped to be consolidated, the general work
plan and timeline, and what resources will be needed to accomplish the task.
Project Parameters
Consolidating zoning districts has the potential to change the regulations that apply to
thousands of properties within the city. Each zoning district contains regulations that include
things like setbacks, building heights, lot coverage, and others that are intended to align with
city land use goals. However, most of these regulations vary between zoning districts, sometimes
only slightly. The Planning Division established the following parameters to guide decision
making as decisions are made regarding consolidating zoning districts:
1.Minimize the reduction of existing property rights.
2.Minimize creating new nonconforming uses and noncomplying structures.
3.Group districts based on building scale, starting with building height.
4.When modifying setbacks, push setbacks closer to the street in favor of appropriate
buffering in rear yards.
5.Maintain regulations that trigger planned developments or design review.
6.Review conditional uses so uses that create similar impacts to permitted uses are listed
as permitted.
7.When districts that are to be consolidated have different allowed land uses, allow the
uses based on how most of the districts to be consolidated list the use.
8.Keep the regulations that are demonstrated to work and modify or eliminate those
regulations that do not.
9.Simplify the sign code and eliminate conflicting and outdated regulations.
Districts Proposed to be Consolidated
This proposal considers the commercial and mixed-use zoning districts found in chapters
21A.24 Residential Districts, 21A.26 Commercial Districts, 21A.27 Form Based Districts, and one
district found in 21A.32 Special Purpose Districts. A total of 26 zoning districts are included as
indicated in the table below.
PROPOSED
DISTRICT
CURRENT DISTRICTS TO BE CONSOLIDATED
MU2 CN, RB, SNB
MU3 CB, RMU-35
MU5 FB-UN2 (50’ height areas), CC, CS, FB-SE, RMU-45, TSA-UN-T, MU
MU6 FB-UN2 (65’ height areas), TSA-UC-T, TSA-SP-T, TSA-MUEC-T,
CSHBD2, RO, FB-SC
MU8 TSA-MUEC-C, TSA-SP-C, TSA-UN-C, RMF-75, RMU
MU11 CG, TSA-UC-C, CSHBD1
The RMF-75 zoning district is not considered a mixed-use district. However, it has been
included because several property owners have approached the city over the years about
converting ground floor space to some form of commercial. Doctor’s offices tend to be a
common ask. There are also a relatively small number of RMF-75 zone properties in the city.
The proposal includes utilizing a new chapter of the zoning code that the City Council adopted
as part of implementing the Ballpark Station Area Plan. Chapter 21A.25 was drafted to
implement the station plan and included one district, MU8. However, the chapter was
numbered and set up in preparation for this consolidation. In addition to MU8, there would be
five additional MU zones. The number in the title corresponds to the number of stories that are
allowed in each district.
The MU zones follow the template of the form-based codes and include regulations for each
building type that is allowed in the zone. This proposal utilizes the existing FB-UN2 zone as the
base zoning for the MU5 and the MU6 zone. The only difference will be in building height, with
MU5 allowing buildings up to 50 feet in height and MU6 allowing buildings up to 65 feet in
height.
The Council also recently adopted FB-UN11 to apply to the Fleet Block. The name of FB-UN11
will be changed to MU11 under this consolidation. With that, four of the six proposed districts
are already written and adopted into the code. Only the MU2 and MU3 districts would need to
be created. Following is a general description of each of the MU districts.
Code Sections Needing Modifications: The Planning Division has developed a workplan
that outlines each action that must be taken to complete the project up to the transmittal. The
workplan includes more detail, including status, responsibility, due date, and issues identified.
The work plan is considered an internal, working document to help manage the project. The list
of actions from the workplan (absent the detail) is provided below. Most of the changes in each
chapter replace references to the existing zones with references to the new zones. Some
regulations are proposed to be deleted if the regulation is no longer needed, outdated, or proven
to be unnecessary. The bulk of the changes will be in the new chapter 21A.25 Mixed Use Zoning
Districts; 21A.33 Land Use Tables, 21A.37 Design Standards, and 21A.46 Signs. The changes in
these chapters require changing a lot of the text and reconciling district specific regulations that
may currently only apply to one district and not the other districts being consolidated.
CHAPTER STATUS % COMPLETE
5.04.070 Enhanced services 100%
14.36.010 News racks 100%
14.36.040 News racks 100%
14.38.010 street artists Underway, working with Arts Council,
Econ Dev, Transp.
10%
21A.10 delete noticing for
TSA
100%
21A.22 Modify as needed 100%
21A.24 Residential Zones:
Delete zones being replaced
100%
21A.25: Draft MU2 Zone Started 2/26 80%
21A.25 Draft MU3 Zone Started 2/26 80%
21A.25 Move FB-UN2 to
MU5
Complete, need to check issues and
references.
75%
21A.25: Move FB-UN2 65' to
MU6
Complete, need to check issues and
references.
75%
21A.25: MU8: update as
adopted by City Council
In draft, MU district needs to monitor
process and changes.
85%
21A.25: Move FBUN11 to
MU11
Complete, need to check issues and
references.
75%
21A.26: Create ordinance
deleting 21A.26 Commercial
zones
100%
21A.27 Form based districts
delete districts
100%
21A.32.130: Create
ordinance deleting existing
MU zone
100%
21A.33: Create MU land use
tables
Finalizing 95%
Delete 21A.34.030
Transition Overlay
100%
21A.34.090: Delete South
State St. Overlay
100%
21A.34.100: Relocate M1H
Overlay Standards
100%
21A.34.110: Delete
Downtown Main St Overlay
100%
21A.36: Update General
Provisions
100%
21A.37: Create MU Design
Standards Table
Started 3/20 70%
21A.38 Nonconforming uses 100%
U21A.40: Accessory Use for
MU zones
100%
21A.42 Temp Uses for MU
zones
100%
21A.44 Parking: Update for
MU zones
Started 3/26 10%
Update 21A.46 Signs for MU
zones
Started 3/20 70%
21A.48 Landscaping:
Update for MU zones
100%
21A.52 Zoning Incentives:
Update for MU zones
Started 4/1 20%
21A.55 Planned
Developments: Update for
MU zones
100%
21A.59 Design Review 100%
Create MU zoning map Started 3/28 0%
Zoning Map
The zoning map will also be updated by replacing the districts that are proposed to be
consolidated with the corresponding MU districts. This project is not analyzing the zoning map
but may make some changes when properties are split zoned or there is an isolated property that
ends up being zoned to a specific MU zone but is surrounded by a more intense MU zone.
Timeline
The goal of this project is to have a recommendation from the Planning Commission by the end
of the 2024 calendar year. The purpose of the timeline is to pave the way for updating the future
land use designations in the community plans and add policies related to land use and water
planning. This is in anticipation of updating the City’s general plan to include land use and
water planning policies and actions, which under Utah Code must be complete by the end of
2025. Simplifying zoning and the future land use designations improves the ability to forecast
future water needs and establish policies that align with water needs.
The above timeline has built in contingencies to account for changing workloads, additional
priorities, staff availability, and commission agendas. Inevitably there will be issues that are
identified during the process. A target date in September provides some leeway to achieve the
goal of having the Planning Commission make a recommendation by the end of 2024.
This project does not have a specific budget allocation and will be done by staff. Other than staff
time, the next biggest resource need is noticing budget. The Utah Code requires certain mailed
notices to all property owners of pending zoning changes. This project includes thousands of
properties that will have to receive mailed notice. The timing of the project is split between two
budget years. This allows us to cover the cost of some noticing within the current budget year
and the remaining costs being spent in the next budget year.
Summary of Proposed MU Zones: District Specific Information
A summary sheet of each of the MU zoning districts can be found on the following pages. The
information in each table is the starting point. It is likely that some regulations will change
based on input received and more detailed analysis.
The summary sheets include information about:
1.the general requirements of each zone.
2.comparison tables of the bulk regulations of the existing zones that are to be
consolidated.
3.key points about each of the existing zoning districts.
The key points include unique aspects of the existing zones, areas where the existing zones that
have been grouped together conflict, and regulations that must be reconciled.
Proposed New District: MU 2: Mixed Use 2 Zoning District
Existing Districts Replaced: RB, SNB, CN
General Regulations:
• Allowed Building Types:
o Storefront
o Mixed Use
o Townhomes
o Multi-dwelling
• Where building types would be allowed:
o Storefront and Mixed Use: on any property within the zone.
o Multi-dwelling and Townhomes: on local streets as designated in the zone, when
commercial uses are included, and on properties that are currently used for
residential uses.
• Land Use Tables: Mostly uses CN zone land use table.
• Design Standards: Ground floor height requirements would likely limit this zone to 2
stories.
• Parking Context: RB and CN zones are in the Neighborhood Context. SNB is in the
General Context. If this zone is placed in Neighborhood context, the SNB would see a
decrease in parking requirements. This impact would be very isolated due to few
properties being zoned SNB.
• Signs: CN sign regulations
• Affordable Housing Incentive: TBD
Existing Zoning Districts Notes
• The minimum lot size is based on use, 8,000 sq. ft. minimum is for duplexes.
• District includes a maximum district size. In the SNB zone max district size is 16,500 sq.
ft. In the CN zone the max district size is 90,000 square feet.
• The minimum lot width is based on use. Most land uses require a minimum lot width of
50’ in the RB and SNB zone.
• The minimum front yard and corner side yard were reduced to bring buildings closer to
the sidewalk.
• The RB zone limits commercial uses, but the SNB zone is the most restrictive of the
three.
Comparison Chart between MU2, RB, SNB, CN
Regulation MU2 RB SNB CN
Minimum Lot Size None 0-8,000 sq ft.1 0-8,000 sq ft.1 none
Maximum Lot Size None None None2 16,500 sq ft2
Minimum Lot Width None 0-50’3 0-50’3 none
Maximum Lot Width TBD None None None
Building Height 30’ 30 25 25
Front/Corner Side Yard4 5’ 15 20 25/10
Interior Side Yard None (buffer
required)
8 7 0
Rear Yard None (buffer
required)
30 25 10
Lot Coverage5 TBD 50% NA NA
Maps of MU2 Areas: The following maps show the location of the existing CN, RB, and SNB zones. The
city is split into two maps, so they are legible.
Proposed New District: MU 3: Mixed Use 3 Zoning District
Existing Districts Replaced: R-MU-35 and CB
General Regulations:
• Allowed Building Types:
o Storefront
o Mixed Use
o Townhomes
o Multi-dwelling
• Where building types would be allowed:
o Storefront and Mixed Use: on any property within the zone.
o Multi-dwelling and Townhomes: on local streets as designated in the zone. when
commercial uses are included, and on properties that are currently used for
residential uses.
• Bulk Requirements: TBD
• Land Use Tables: Mostly used CB land use table but need to reconcile some uses
(including gas stations, drive-throughs, etc.).
• Design Standards: TBD
• Parking Context: Neighborhood Context (Both RMU35 and CB are in same context)
• Signs: TBD
• Affordable Housing Incentive: TBD
Existing Zoning Districts Notes
• The CB zone includes special provisions for design review.
• The R-MU-35 zone has varied minimum lot sizes based on use. Commercial uses have
no minimum lot size, residential uses require 2,500 sq ft. per dwelling, while places of
worship require 12,000 square feet.
• District includes a maximum district size. In the SNB zone max district size is 16,500 sq.
ft. In the CN zone the max district size is 90,000 square feet.
• Height can increase to 45’ through design review if property is not abutting a single- or
two-family zoning district. This provision would be eliminated under this proposal.
• RMU35 has different setback requirements based on use. This comparison uses the
setbacks for multi-family, commercial, and mixed-use buildings.
• The setback is 10’ when adjacent to single- or two-family zoning district and increases
one additional foot for every foot of building height over 25’. The additional setback for
height would be eliminated with this proposal because the height is only 7’ greater than
the max height in single- and two-family zoning district.
Comparison Chart between MU3, R-MU-35, and CB (refer to R-MU-35 and CB zones for specific
requirements)
Regulation MU3 R-MU-35 CB
Minimum Lot Size None 0-12,000 sq ft. None
Maximum Lot Size None Footnote None
Minimum Lot Width None 0-50’ 0-50’
Maximum Lot Width TBD None None
Building Height 35’ (40’ with design review) 35’ 25
Front/Corner Side Yard 5’ 5’ None
Interior Side Yard None (buffer required) 0-10’ None
Rear Yard None (buffer required) 25% of lot depth up to 30’ 10
Lot Coverage TBD 20% open space requirement NA
Maps of MU3 Areas: The following maps show the location of the existing CB and R-MU-35 zones. The
city is split into two maps, so they are legible.
Proposed New District: MU 5: Mixed Use 5 Zoning District
Existing Districts Replaced: FB-UN2, FB-SE, CC, CS, RMU45, TSA-UN-T, MU
General Regulations:
• Allowed Building Types:
o Cottage
o Townhome
o Multi-dwelling
o Mixed Use
o Storefront
• Where building types would be allowed:
o Storefront and Mixed Use: on any property within the zone.
o Multi-dwelling and Townhomes: on local streets as designated in the zone.
• Bulk Requirements (Uses FB-UN2 zone)
• Land Use Tables: Mostly follows FB-UN2, but some uses are not allowed in all the
existing zones.
• Design Standards: TBD
• Parking Context: Need to reconcile because the existing zones are in different parking
contexts. FB-UN2 is in Transit Context; MU is in Urban Center Context; RMU45, FB-
SE, TSA-UN-T and some CC is in Neighborhood Context; CS is in General Context. Each
context has different parking requirements.
• Signs: TBD
• Affordable Housing Incentive: TBD
Existing Zoning District Notes
• The CC zone allows buildings up to 45’ in height through the design review process.
• The MU zone is mostly found along the 300 West corridor, north of West High School.
• There is a large range in minimum lot widths requirement in this group, from no
requirement up to 150 feet.
• The CS zone requires planned development approval for all expansions, new
construction, and when a development is near residential development. This is a
problematic provision because the planned development process is discretionary with
the Planning Commission.
Comparison Chart between MU5 and zones being replaced. Please note, MU5 is the same as the
current FB-UN2 zoning district.
Regulation MU5 (FB-
UN2)
FB-SE CC CS RMU-
45
TSA
UN-T
MU
Minimum
Lot Size
None 4,000
Sq. ft.
10,000 sq.
ft.
60,000
sq. ft.
0-5,000
sq. ft.
2,500
Sq. ft.
0-6,000
sq. ft.
Maximum
Lot Size
None None None None None None None
Minimum
Lot Width
None 50’ 75’ 150’ 0-50 40’ 0-50’
Maximum
Lot Width
None None None None None None None
Building
Height
50’ 45’ 30’ (45’
w/ DR)
45’ 45’ (55’
w/ DR)
50’ 45’
Front/Corner
Side Yard
10’ for
ground floor
residential.
No
minimum
for most
commercial
uses.
0-25 ft
dependin
g on
street
type.
15’ 30’ 5’ for all
uses
o-10 ft
dependi
ng on
street.
10’
Interior Side
Yard
6’ Minimum
of 15’ when
adjacent to a
zoning
district with
a minimum
height of 35’
or less. May
be modified.
0-25’ 0 15’ None,
except
10’ when
next to
single- or
two-
family
district.
None,
except
25’
when
adjacent
to some
zones.
None
Rear Yard 10’ except
when the
rear yard is
adjacent to a
district with
a max height
of 30’ or
less, then
the
minimum is
10’
0-25’ 10’ 30’ None,
except
25’
when
adjacent
to some
zones.
25% of
lot depth
up to 30’
Lot Coverage 90% Based on
setbacks
Based on
setbacks
Based on
setbacks
Based on
setbacks
10% up
to 2,500
sq ft
20%
Maps of MU5 Areas: The following maps show the location of the existing CC, CS, FB-SE, FB-UN2 (50’
max building height), MU, RM-45, and TSA-UN-T < zones. The city is split into two maps, so the maps
are legible.
Proposed New District: MU 6: Mixed Use 5 Zoning District
Existing Districts Replaced: FB-UN2, FB-SC, RO, TSA-UC-T, TSA-SP-T, TSA-MUEC-
T, CSHBD2
General Regulations:
• Allowed Building Types:
o Cottage
o Townhome
o Multi-dwelling
o Mixed Use
o Storefront
• Where building types would be allowed:
o Storefront and Mixed Use: on any property within the zone.
o Multi-dwelling and Townhomes: on local streets as designated in the zone.
• Bulk Requirements (Uses FB-UN2 zone)
• Land Use Tables: Mostly follows FB-UN2, but some uses are not allowed in all the
existing zones.
• Design Standards: TBD
• Parking Context: Need to reconcile because the existing zones are in different parking
contexts. FB-UN2, FB-SC are in Transit Context; all TSA-T zones and CSHBD2 zones are
in Urban Center Context; RO is in General Context.
• Signs: TBD
• Affordable Housing Incentive: TBD
Existing Zoning Districts Notes
• FB-SC is only mapped along the S Line.
• The three TSA zones are essentially the same. The TSA zones require different setbacks
on different streets, which makes consolidating them with other districts more
challenging. The TSA zones include design standards in the base district in addition to
design standards in chapter 21A.37.
• CSHBD2 requires design review for buildings over 30’ and for buildings over a certain
total square footage. CSHBD2 also contains regulations not found in other districts, such
as limits on non-residential uses, special park strip requirements, and minimum
sidewalk widths.
• Determining which parking context to apply to this consolidation will result in some
zones having a decreased parking requirement.
Comparison Chart between MU6 and zones being replaced.
Please note, MU6 is the same as the current FB-UN2 zoning district.
Regulation MU6 (FB-
UN2)
FB-SC TSA-
UC-T
TSA-
SP-T
TSA-
MUEC-
T
CSHBD2 RO
Minimum
Lot Size
None 4,000
sq. ft.
2,500
sq ft.
2,500
sq ft
2,500 sq
ft
None 0-
12,000
sq. ft.
Maximum
Lot Size
None None None None None None None
Minimum
Lot Width
None 50’ 40’ 40’ 40’ None 0-100’
Maximum
Lot Width
None None None None None None None
Building
Height
50’ 60’ 60’ 60’ 60’ 30’, 60’
W/ DR
0-60’
Front/Corner
Side Yard
10’ for
ground
floor
residential.
No
minimum
for most
commercial
uses.
0-15’ None None none No
minimum,
max of 25’
20-25’
Interior Side
Yard
6’
Minimum
of 15’ when
adjacent to
a zoning
district
with a
minimum
height of
35’ or less.
0-25’
based on
adjacent
zone.
None,
except
25’ next
to some
zones
None,
except
25’ next
to some
zones
None,
except
25’ next
to some
zones
None 10-15’
Rear Yard 10’ except
when the
rear yard is
adjacent to
a district
with a max
height of
30’ or less,
then the
minimum
is 10’
0-25’
based on
adjacent
zone.
None,
except
25’ next
to some
zones
None,
except
25’ next
to some
zones
None,
except
25’ next
to some
zones
none 25% of
lot
depth
up to
30’
Lot Coverage 90% Based
on
setbacks
Up to
2,500
sq. ft.
open
space
required
Up to
2,500
sq. ft.
open
space
required
Up to
2,500
sq. ft.
open
space
required
100% 60%
Maps of MU6 Areas: The following maps show the location of the existing CSHBD2, FB-SC,FB-UN2
(65’ height areas) RO, TSA-MUEC-T, TSA-SP-T, and TSA-UC-T < zones. The city is split into two maps, so
the maps are legible.
Proposed New District: MU8: Mixed Use 5 Zoning District (pending adoption)
Existing Districts Replaced: TSA-MUEC, TSA-SP-C, TSA-UN-C, RMF-75, RMU
General Regulations:
• Allowed Building Types:
o Townhome
o Multi-dwelling
o Mixed Use
o Storefront
• Where building types would be allowed:
o Some of these zones have specific ground floor use requirements on some streets.
This would have to be reconciled.
o Multi-dwelling and Townhomes: on local streets as designated in the zone.
• Land Use Tables: proposed MU8 zone but may include some modifications.
• Design Standards: TBD
• Parking Context: Need to reconcile because the existing zones are in different parking
contexts. The TSA zones and RMU are in Transit Context; RMF is in General Context.
• Signs: Utilizes the proposed MU8 regulations.
• Affordable Housing Incentive: TBD
Existing Zoning Districts Notes:
• The three TSA zones are essentially the same. The TSA zones require different setbacks
on different streets, which makes consolidating them with other districts more
challenging. The TSA zones include design standards in the base district in addition to
design standards in chapter 21A.37.
• The RMU zone has different standards for different types of uses.
• The RMF-75 zone has been included because the allowed density should include a mix of
uses to help achieve city goals related to walkability and supporting small businesses.
• RMF-75 and RMU allow single family detached dwellings. MU8 does not.
• All the zones will see an increase in building height of 15’. This allows for one additional
story compared to what is allowed now.
Comparison Chart between MU8 and zones being replaced. MU8 is pending adoption by the
City Council.
Regulation MU8 TSA-
MUEC-C
TSA-
SP-C
TSA-
UN-C
RMF-75 RMU
Minimum
Lot Size
None 2,500 sq
ft.
2,500
sq ft.
2,500
sq ft
0-20,000
sq ft
0-8,000 sq ft
Maximum
Lot Size
None None None None None None
Minimum
Lot Width
None 50’ 40’ 40’ 0-140’0-50’
Maximum
Lot Width
None None None None none None
Building
Height
40-90’75’ 75’ 75’ 75’ 45’ for
nonresidential;
75’ for
residential.
Front/Corner
Side Yard
10’ 0-25’0-25’0-25’25’ 0-15’
Interior Side
Yard
0-10’None,
except 25’
next to
some
zones
None,
except
25’ next
to some
zones
None,
except
25’ next
to some
zones
4-15’0-10’
Rear Yard 0-20’None,
except 25’
next to
some
zones
None,
except
25’ next
to some
zones
None,
except
25’ next
to some
zones
25% of
lot depth
up to 30
25% of lot
depth up to 30’
Lot Coverage 80% Up to
2,500 sq.
ft. open
space
required
Up to
2,500
sq. ft.
open
space
required
Up to
2,500
sq. ft.
open
space
required
60% 80%
Maps of MU8 Areas: The following maps show the location of the existing RMF-75. RMU, TSA-MUEC-
C, TSA-SP-C, and TSA-UN-C < zones. The city is split into two maps, so the maps are legible.
Proposed New District: MU11: Mixed Use 11 Zoning District (Uses FB-UN11)
Existing Districts Replaced: FB-UN11, TSA-UC-C, CG, CSHBD1
General Regulations:
• Allowed Building Types:
o Townhome
o Multi-dwelling
o Mixed Use
o Storefront
• Where building types would be allowed:
o Some of these zones have specific ground floor use requirements on some streets.
This would have to be reconciled.
o Multi-dwelling and Townhomes: on local streets as designated in the zone.
• Land Use Tables: Uses FB-UN11 but may include some modifications.
• Design Standards: TBD
• Parking Context: Need to reconcile because the existing zones are in different parking
contexts. The FB-UN11 and TSA zones in Transit Context; CSHBD1 is in Urban Center
Context; CG is in General Context. This would need to be reconciled.
• Signs: Utilizes the proposed FB-UN11 regulations.
• Affordable Housing Incentive: Uses FB-UN11 incentives.
Existing Zoning Districts Notes
• The TSA zones require different setbacks on different streets, which makes consolidating
them with other districts more challenging. The TSA zones include design standards in
the base district in addition to design standards in chapter 21A.37.
• The CSHBD zone has regulations that are specific to that zone, such as upper level
stepbacks, design standards, triggers for design review, limitations on nonresidential
uses on upper floors, and streetscape (sidewalk and parkstrip) requirements that would
need to be addressed.
• The CG zone allows the broadest range of uses, some of which may no longer be
appropriate in areas where the CG zone is currently mapped and would not be
appropriate (due to impacts) in the other zones that are considered for consolidation.
• The TSA-UC-C and CG zones (except as indicated) will see an increase in height (25-35
feet) to accommodate buildings up to 11 stories. The CG zone allows buildings up to 150’
on the fleet block. This is 25-60’ higher than the FB-UN11, CSHBD1, and TSA-UC-C.
• The private petition to create the CSHBD-SUS complicates this consolidation.
Comparison Chart between MU11 and zones being replaced. MU 11 was adopted as FB-UN11.
Regulation MU11
(FB-
UN11)
TSA-UC-
C
CG CSHBD1
Minimum
Lot Size
None 2,500 sq
ft.
10,000 sq ft None
Maximum
Lot Size
None None None None
Minimum
Lot Width
None 40’ 60’ None
Maximum
Lot Width
None None None None
Building
Height
40-125’90’ 75’; up to 105’ with
DR; up to 150’ in
some areas.
30’; up to 75’ for
residential/mixed use; up to
105’ if parking is in a parking
structure.
Front/Corner
Side Yard
none 0-25’5’ None
Interior Side
Yard
None,
except
when
adjacent to
other
districts
None,
except 25’
next to
some
zones
None None
Rear Yard None,
except
when
adjacent to
other
districts
None,
except 25’
next to
some
zones
10’ None
Lot Coverage 90% Up to
2,500 sq.
ft. open
space
required
100% 100%
Maps of MU11
Areas: The following
map shows the location
of the existing CG,
CSHBD1, and TSA-UC-
C zones. The CG zone
on the left-hand side of
the map is located
within the Airport
Flight Path Overlay
Zone, which restricts
residential uses. This
project may propose
rezoning this strip to
M-1.
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:August 27, 2024
RE: Parking Text Amendment to Prohibit Demolition of Housing for Parking Uses
PLNPCM2023-00646
The Council will be briefed about a proposal requested by Mayor Mendenhall to prohibit demolition of
housing units to develop standalone parking facilities. It also prohibits demolition of dwellings to expand
parking facilities if the result is a net loss of housing units. It is worth noting that the proposal would allow
expansion of residential and commercial developments to add units while increasing parking, provided
there is not a net loss of dwelling units.
Thriving in Place, the City’s strategy and action plan addressing housing and community displacement
issues was adopted by the City Council in 2023. A series of City Code text amendments implement
Thriving in Place, including repealing the housing loss mitigation ordinance. That ordinance requires a
plan for mitigating housing loss when expanding parking in residential zoning districts resulted in a loss of
dwelling units. This proposed text amendment replaces that requirement with enhanced regulations
prohibiting demolition of housing for parking and would apply citywide.
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at its February 14, 2024 meeting and held a public
hearing at which one person spoke expressing concern for the loss of affordable housing units. The
Commission voted to table this item to give Planning staff additional time to clarify the proposed text
amendment’s intent. (Staff note: Planning staff’s original and updated recommendations are included in
the Additional Information section below.)
The Commission reviewed Planning staff’s updated recommendations and voted unanimously to
forward a positive recommendation to the City Council.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: August 27, 2024
Set Date: August 27, 2024
Public Hearing: September 17, 2024
Potential Action: October 1, 2024
Page | 2
Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed text amendment and determine if the Council supports
moving forward with the proposal.
POLICY QUESTION
1. Council Members may wish to discuss whether they support Planning staff’s updated
recommendations which received Planning Commission support.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
As discussed above, the Planning Commission asked staff to add clarifying language about the text
amendment’s intent. Planning staff’s original recommended and updated regulations are listed below.
Original recommended regulations:
1. Prevent the demolition of housing for the development of commercial parking lots, park-and-
ride lots, and off-site parking facilities.
2. Prevent the demolition of housing if it results in the expansion of existing parking or the
development of new parking.
Updated recommended regulations:
1. Prevent the demolition of housing if it results in the development of standalone parking
uses. Standalone parking uses are commercial parking lots, park and ride lots, and off-site
parking facilities. The proposed Zoning Ordinance text change would add a footnote to
all parking-related land uses in each of the land use tables and would prohibit the
particular use if it results in the demolition of a dwelling unit.
2. Prevent the expansion of parking for any existing land use when it includes the
demolition of a dwelling unless it results in the replacement of the dwelling unit. The
proposed amendments would add language to the Off-Street Parking chapter that would
prohibit “increasing the number of parking stalls or modifying a parking lot” for existing
uses if it results in a net loss of dwelling units. This language would allow for existing
residential and commercial developments to add units or expand their current
development while accommodating the required parking for their site, but not voluntary
expansion of parking when including demolition of housing.
KEY CONSIDERATION
Planning staff identified one key consideration related to the proposal, found on pages 2-3 of the Planning
Commission staff report, and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the Planning staff
report.
Consideration 1 – How the proposal helps implement city goals and policies identified in
adopted plans:
Planning staff found that the proposed amendment aligns with initiatives found in Plan Salt Lake and
Housing SLC to preserve naturally occurring affordable housing. Additionally, Planning noted:
While the proposed amendments seek to prohibit demolition of dwelling units when there is an
expansion of parking, it makes an exception when there is a net gain of units. While preservation
of housing is extremely important, especially when replaced by a stand-alone parking use, the net
gain of housing in the city is supported by this plan.
ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS
Attachment B (pages 8-9) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning text 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.
Page | 3
Factor Finding
Whether a proposed text 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 text amendment furthers the
specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance.
Complies
Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with
the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay
zoning districts which may impose additional standards.
Complies
The extent to which a proposed text amendment
implements best current, professional practices of urban
planning and design.
Complies
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
• August 4, 2023 – Petition initiated by Mayor Mendenhall.
• October 12, 2023 – Petition assigned to Cassie Younger, Senior Planner.
• November 15, 2023 – Early notification to all recognized community councils. 45-day comment
period begins.
• November 20, 2023 – Proposal posted for online open house.
• December 30, 2023 - 45-day recognized community organization notice period ends.
• February 1, 2024 –
o Agenda posted to Planning Commission website and State of Utah public notice webpage.
o Public hearing notice with project information and notice of the Planning Commission
public hearing physically posted at various library noticing points citywide.
• February 14, 2024 – Planning Commission briefing and public hearing. The Commission tabled
the item and directed staff to clarify proposed language.
• February 28, 2024 – Planning Commission reviewed changes and voted unanimously to forward a
positive recommendation to the City Council.
• March 1, 2024 – Planning Division requests ordinance from the City Attorney’s Office.
• March 19, 2024 – Ordinance from Attorney’s Office received by Planning Division.
• April 8, 2024 – Transmittal received in City Council Office.
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
City Council–August 27, 2024
PLNPCM2023-00646
PARKING TEXT
AMENDMENT
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
BACKGROUND: CITY
PLANS & ORDINANCES
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
Salt Lake City’s Anti Displacement Strategy
•Thriving in Place aims to create new ordinances to
replace the Housing Loss Mitigation Ordinance
•The HLMO required a mitigation plan for Conditional
Use applications that request to expand parking in a
residential zoning district.
THRIVING IN PLACE
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
PROPOSED TEXT
AMENDMENT
Salt Lake City //Planning Division
The proposed Text Amendment would
prohibit any stand-alone parking uses
if it included the demolition of a
dwelling unit. This includes:
•Commercial parking
•Park & Ride lots
•Parking structures
•Off-Site Parking
NEW PARKING USES
Salt Lake City //Planning Division
“The demolition of a dwelling unit for
the purpose of increasing the number
of parking stalls or modifying a
parking lot for an existing land use is
prohibited if the demolition results in
a net loss of dwellings.”
EXPANSION &
ADDITIONS
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
•Thriving in Place aims to PRESERVE existing affordable
housing to prevent Direct Displacement
•Parking uses only serve to house cars, not people
•The city should prioritize preserving existing housing
over parking uses throughout the city
SUMMARY
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
The Planning Commission forwarded a positive
recommendation to the City Council on February 28, 2024
RECOMMENDATION
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
Cassie Younger Cassie.younger@slcgov.com
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: _________________ ________________________
Jill Love, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 04/05/2024
Victoria Petro, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods
__________________________
SUBJECT: PLNPCM2023-00646 Text Amendment to prohibit demolition of dwelling units for
parking uses
STAFF CONTACT: Cassie Younger, Senior Planner, cassie.younger@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: The City Council adopt the proposed ordinance
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The City recently adopted Thriving in Place (TIP), a strategy and action plan addressing housing
and community displacement issues. As part of a package of City Code amendments intended to
implement TIP, the Housing Loss Mitigation Ordinance (HLMO) was repealed, and new
regulations are being adopted to address housing displacement. The HLMO required a mitigation
plan for proposals to expand parking in residential zoning districts. The proposed zoning
ordinance amendment is intended to replace this regulation with new, stronger regulations to
prohibit the demolition of housing for parking.
Planning Staff reviewed TIP and existing zoning regulations and recommended the following
new zoning regulations to the Planning Commission:
jill love (Apr 8, 2024 14:46 MDT)
jill love 04/08/2024
04/08/2024
1. Prevent the demolition of housing for the development of commercial parking lots, park-
and-ride lots, and off-site parking facilities.
2. Prevent the demolition of housing if it results in the expansion of existing parking or the
development of new parking.
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed regulations and asked Planning Staff to revise
and clarify regulation 2 above by stating expansion of parking or development of parking is
prohibited unless it is part of a development project that replaces the housing being demolished.
Planning Staff made the revisions and returned to the Planning Commission where the
Commission voted to recommend approval of the new zoning regulations. The specific zoning
rules recommended by the Planning Commission are as follows:
1. Prevent the demolition of housing if it results in the development of standalone parking
uses. Standalone parking uses are commercial parking lots, park and ride lots, and off-site
parking facilities. The proposed Zoning Ordinance text change would add a footnote to
all of the parking-related land uses in each of the land use tables and would prohibit the
particular use if it results in the demolition of a dwelling unit.
2. Prevent the expansion of parking for any existing land use when it includes the
demolition of a dwelling unless it results in the replacement of the dwelling unit. The
proposed amendments would add language to the Off-Street Parking chapter that would
prohibit “increasing the number of parking stalls or modifying a parking lot” for existing
uses if it results in a net loss of dwelling units. This language would allow for existing
residential and commercial developments to add units or expand their current
development while accommodating the required parking for their site, but not voluntary
expansion of parking when including demolition of housing.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
• The Planning Division provided a 45-day comment period notice to all Recognized
Community Organizations on December 20, 2023.
• An online open house has been on the Planning Division’s website since December 26,
2023.
• Public noticing of the Planning Commission hearing was completed on February 1, 2024.
• A Public hearing was held for this item at the February 14, 2024 meeting. The item was
tabled.
• Planning Commission voted to recommend the City Council approve the text
amendments as proposed at their meeting on February 28th, 2024.
Planning Commission (PC) Records
a) PC Agenda of February 14, 2024
b) PC Minutes of February 14, 2024
c) Planning Commission Staff Report of February 14, 2024
d) PC Agenda of February 28, 2024
e) PC Minutes of February 28, 2024
f) Planning Commission Staff Report of February 28, 2024
EXHIBITS:
1. Chronology
2. Notice of City Council Hearing
3. Petition Initiation Memo
1
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 development of commercial parking facilities)
An ordinance amending the text of various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City
Code pertaining to the development of commercial parking facilities pursuant to Petition No.
PLNPCM2023-00646.
WHEREAS, on February 28, 2024, 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 commercial parking
facilities (Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00646); and
WHEREAS, at its February 28, 2024 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 Table 21A.33.020. That Table 21A.33.020 of the
Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for
Residential Districts), shall be amended to add footnote 22, as follows:
a.Footnote 22 will be added to two use categories as follows: “Parking, off site (to
support nonconforming uses in a residential zone or uses in the CN or CB
Zones)22” and “Parking, park and ride lot shared with existing use22”.
2
b. Footnote 22 shall be added to the end of the list of “Qualifying provisions:” as
follows:
22. Prohibited when it includes the demolition of a dwelling unit.
SECTION 2. Amending the Text of Table 21A.33.030. That Table 21A.33.030 of the
Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for
Commercial Districts), shall be amended to add footnote 24, as follows:
a. Footnote 24 will be added to four use categories as follows: “Parking:
Commercial24”, “Parking: Off site24”, “Parking: Park and ride lot24”, and
“Parking: Park and ride lot shared with existing use24”.
b. Footnote 24 shall be added to the end of the list of “Qualifying provisions:” as
follows:
24. Prohibited when it includes the demolition of a dwelling unit.
SECTION 3. Amending the Text of Table 21A.33.035. That Table 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 amended to add footnote 13, as follows:
a. Footnote 13 will be added to five use categories as follows: “Parking:
Commercial (if located in a parking structure)13”, “Parking: Commercial (surface
lot)3, 13”, “Parking: Off site3, 13”, “Parking: Park and ride lot3, 13” and “Parking:
Park and ride lot shared with existing use13”.
b. Footnote 13 shall be added to the end of the list of “Qualifying provisions:” as
follows:
13. Prohibited when it includes the demolition of a dwelling unit.
3
SECTION 4. Amending the Text of Table 21A.33.050. That Table 21A.33.050 of the
Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for
Downtown Districts), shall be amended to add footnote 20, as follows:
a. Footnote 20 will be added to two use categories as follows: “Parking,
commercial20” and “Parking, off site20”.
b. Footnote 20 shall be added to the end of the list of “Qualifying provisions:” as
follows:
20. Prohibited when it includes the demolition of a dwelling unit.
SECTION 5. Amending the Text of Table 21A.33.060. That Table 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 amended to add footnote 10, as follows:
a. Footnote 10 will be added to four use categories as follows: “Parking:
Commercial10”, “Parking: Off site10”, “Parking: Park and ride lot10”, “Parking:
Park and ride lot shared with existing use10”.
b. Footnote 10 shall be added to the end of the list of “Qualifying provisions:” as
follows:
10. Prohibited when it includes the demolition of a dwelling unit.
SECTION 6. Amending the Text of Table 21A.33.070. That Table 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 amended to add footnote 25, as follows:
4
a. Footnote 25 will be added to five use categories as follows: “Parking:
Commercial25”, “Parking: Off site25”, “Parking: Off site (to support uses in an OS
or NOS Zoning District)25”, “Parking: Park and ride lot25”, “Parking: Park and
ride lot shared with existing use25”.
b. Footnote 25 shall be added to the end of the list of “Qualifying provisions:” as
follows:
25. Prohibited when it includes the demolition of a dwelling unit.
SECTION 7. Amending the Text of Table 21A.33.080. That Table 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 amended to add footnote 9, as follows:
a. Footnote 9 will be added to the use category “Parking, off site9”
b. Footnote 9 shall be added to the end of the list of “Qualifying provisions:” as
follows:
9. Prohibited when it includes the demolition of a dwelling unit.
SECTION 8. Enacting the Text of Subsection 21A.44.020.C. That Section 21A.44.020
is hereby amended to add a new subsection C as follows:
C. Demolition of Housing for Parking: The demolition of a dwelling unit for the purpose of
increasing the number of parking stalls or modifying a parking lot for an existing land use
is prohibited if the demolition results in a net loss of dwellings.
SECTION 9. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its
first publication.
5
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 limiting parking facility expansions (final)v1
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date: ___________________________
By: ____________________________
Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney
March 19, 2024
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.Chronology
2.Notice of City Council Public Hearing
3.Petition Initiation Memo
1)CHRONOLOGY
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
Petition: PLNPCM2023-00646
August 4, 2023 Mayor initiated a petition for a zoning text amendment that
would prohibit the demolition of housing to construct
standalone commercial parking lots/ structures.
October 12, 2023 Petition PLNPCM2023-00646 was assigned to Cassie
Younger, Senior Planner, for staff analysis and processing.
November 15, 2023 Notice was sent to all Recognized Community
Organizations informing them of the petition.
November 20, 2023 The proposal was posted for an online open house.
The proposal can still be viewed online.
December 30, 2023 The 45-day public comment period for Recognized
Organizations ended.
February 1, 2024 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 posted at
various libraries throughout the city.
February 9, 2024 Planning Commission Staff Report was posted.
February 14, 2024 Planning Commission held a public hearing and tabled the
item with directions to Staff to clarify the proposed
language.
February 23, 2024 Staff report with requested modifications was posted
February 28, 2024 Planning Commission discussed the changes and voted to
recommend approval of the proposed text amendments to
the City Council
March 1, 2024 Staff requested ordinance from the Attorney’s office
March 19, 2024 Ordinance from Attorney’s office was received.
2) NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2023-00646, a Zoning
Text Amendment to prohibit the demolition of dwelling units for stand-alone parking
uses and the expansion or modification of parking for existing uses.
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 PLNPCM2023-00646
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)PETITION INITIATION MEMO
Item B1 & B2
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:August 27, 2023
RE: 754 South State Street Zoning Map and Text Amendments (Sears Block)
PLNPCM2022-01109
MOTION 1 (close and defer)
I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting.
MOTION 2 (continue hearing)
I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting.
MOTION 3 (close and adopt)
I move that the Council close the hearing and consider adopting the ordinance with the changes identified in the
Work Session discussion.
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:August 27, 2024
RE: 754 South State Street Zoning Map and Text Amendments (Sears Block)
PLNPCM2022-01109
NEW INFORMATION
Since the July 11, 2023 briefing Council Members have met several times with representatives from
Intermountain Health (Intermountain) to discuss potential ground floor activation uses. Intermountain
created concept massing drawings that show potential ground floor activation uses that will benefit the
community while providing services necessary for an urban hospital.
Potential ground floor active uses proposed by Intermountain include a minimum of one acre of public
open space such as healing gardens and outdoor wellness areas on the property, mid-block walkways
through the property, a year-round food truck park, food market, coffee shop, cancer care salon, outpatient
pharmacy, and a community room available to non-profit organizations. Hospital related ground floor
activation includes emergency department/InstaCare/clinic reception, hospital reception and admitting,
and an outpatient pharmacy.
The Planning Division reviewed Intermountain’s concept drawings and noted that some uses such as
walkways, lobbies, and reception areas are not considered active ground floor uses in City code. The
concept drawings do not meet minimum percentages for ground floor activation required in code. Planning
staff is supportive of the proposed food market, but suggested expanding the use to be more of a grocery
store that could support current residents and those who will live in the many housing units coming to the
area.
Planning staff also noted that surface parking lots are not allowed in the downtown districts. Any surface
parking lots would need to be a temporary use.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: July 11, 2023,
August 27, 2024
Set Date: June 6, 2023,
July 9, 2024
Public Hearing: July 11, 2023,
August 27, 2024
Potential Action: September 3, 2024
Page | 2
The City Council will determine whether the zoning map amendment is approved. If a hospital is developed
on the property it would go through the design review process at the Planning Commission where details of
the hospital design, ground floor activation and walkways/green space are determined. As part of the
design review process, the Planning Commission may modify requirements outlined in City code such as
reducing the minimum percentage of ground floor activation.
The City Attorney’s Office suggested a potential option for the Council to consider is a development
agreement with specific requirements such as those proposed by Intermountain listed above if a hospital is
developed on the property.
Some options for the Council to consider include:
•Rejecting the ordinances to rezone the property and allow hospitals and ambulance services in the
D-1 (Central Business District) zone. The property would remain zoned D-2 (Downtown Support
District), and development would be required to meet standards for that zoning district.
•Adopt the ordinances with a condition that Intermountain enter a development agreement with the
City requiring inclusion of specific features that may include a minimum of one-acre of publicly
available open space such as healing gardens and outdoor wellness areas, a year-round food truck
park, or others if a hospital is developed on the property. The Council could also require that the
ordinances are not published until the development agreement is approved by the Planning
Commission and ratified by the Council.
•Adopt the ordinances as currently written with no additional conditions. As a reminder, zoning
runs with the land and if this option is selected, the property could be developed by Intermountain
or other future owners within D-1 zoning regulations in place at the time.
Potential straw polls for the Council to consider:
1. Is the Council supportive of adopting an ordinance subject to the Planning Commission reviewing
the development agreement which includes ground floor activation, open space, and food truck
park as proposed by Intermountain Health, and obtaining necessary design review and other
potential approvals?
2. Is the Council supportive of requiring that the ordinances are not to be published until the
development agreement and any other required processes are approved by the Planning
Commission and ratified by the Council?
3. Is the Council supportive of amending City code to add hospitals (including accessory lodging
facilities) and ambulance services (indoor and outdoor) as conditional uses in the D-1 Central
Business District?
The following information was provided previous Council meetings. It is included
again for background purposes.
The Council will be briefed on a proposed zoning map amendment for ten parcels totaling approximately
nine acres on the block bordered by 700 South, 800 South, State Street, and Main Street as shown in the
image below. This is the former Sears department store location which closed in 2018 and the buildings
have since been demolished. The property is currently zoned D-2 (Downtown Support District), and the
requested zoning designation is D-1 (Central Business District). Intermountain Health owns the property,
and their stated objective is to construct an urban hospital on the site.
Hospitals are not allowed as permitted or conditional uses under the proposed D-1 or current D-2 zoning.
Included with the zoning map amendment, the petitioner also requested a text amendment to section
21A.33.050 Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts found in Salt Lake City Code
Page | 3
to allow hospitals, including accessory lodging facilities, and ambulance services as permitted uses in the
D-1 zoning district. It is worth noting that the Planning Commission recommended the Council adopt the
text amendment to specify that these uses should be conditional rather than permitted. Additional
information follows later in this report.
Nine acres is significantly smaller than a typical hospital development, but the applicant indicated
additional height allowed under the proposed D-1 zoning district would allow them to build up rather than
out, so the site would accommodate their needs. (Building height is limited to 120 feet in the current D-2
zoning district. There is no height limit in the D-1 zone, but buildings taller than 200 feet are subject to
design review and conditions).
It is worth noting that Major Street is a public street entering the site mid-block from 700 South. During
the design process, if the petitioner wants to build over the street property rather than use it as an access
point, a separate street vacation petition would be required.
The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property and the accompanying text amendment.
No formal site plan has been submitted to the City nor is it within the scope of the Council’s role to review
the plans. Because zoning of a property can outlast the life of a building, any rezoning application should be
considered on the merits of changing the zoning of that property, not simply based on a potential project.
The Planning Commission reviewed this proposal at its March 22, 2023 meeting and held a public hearing
at which two people spoke. A representative of the Downtown Community Council expressed general
support and referenced a letter sent to Intermountain (included on pages 31-34 of the Planning
Commission staff report) which includes several requests for the potential hospital site that would be
reviewed later if the project advances. The other commenter shared concerns about potential adverse
effects to nearby neighbors from the hospital and helicopters landing there. When asked about the
anticipated frequency of helicopter landings, the petitioner said the hospital will not be a trauma one center
as are Intermountain Medical Center and the University of Utah Hospital, so helicopter traffic will be light.
Some patients will require transport via helicopter, with a projected average of one to two times per week.
This is based on what LDS Hospital experiences. Heliports are currently allowed as a conditional use in the
D-1 zone.
The Commission voted 7-3 to forward a positive recommendation to the Council amending the zoning map
for the subject parcels from D-2 to D-1, and add the following uses as Conditional within the D-1 district:
•Ambulance service (indoor)
•Ambulance service (outdoor)
•Hospital, including accessory lodging facility.
One Commissioner who voted against the motion previously made a motion to include the above uses as
permitted. A substitute motion was made to include the uses as conditional in the D-1 zoning district,
which a majority of the Commission voted to support. Others who voted against the motion did not specify
why they were opposed.
Page | 4
Vicinity map with the subject parcels outlined in yellow.
Note-other parcels on the block are under separate ownership and not included in this proposal.
Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division.
Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning map and text amendments, determine if the Council
supports moving forward with the proposal.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. The Council may wish to ask the petitioner whether they are planning to provide housing at or near
the proposed hospital site.
2. The Council may wish to ask the petitioner about what ground floor public facing amenities are
anticipated for the site such as retail and food establishments, in order to provide ground floor
activation for pedestrian traffic, as is the goal of other D-1 district parcels.
3. The Council may also with to ask about plans for other public-facing amenities such as open space,
etc. that could provide a benefit to the adjacent community.
4. The Council may wish to discuss policy goals for midblock walkways or other ways to break up the
building(s) and provide a more open feel to the site. As previously stated there is no current site
plan and the Council’s role is not to review site plans, although this could provide policy guidance
for the future as it relates to closure of Major Street, which fall under the Council’s purview.
5. The Council may wish to ask the petitioner if they have plans to provide healthcare services for
those staying at the homeless resource centers, or services not available from other providers.
6. As shown in the map below, if approved, this parcel would be zoned D-1 and would not be
contiguous with other D-1 properties. It would be separated by properties on the north side of 700
South which are zoned D-2. The Council may wish to ask the Planning Division if this is consistent
with best practices (previous concerns have been raised by the Administration and past Councils
about “spot zoning”), or if there are considerations for rezoning those properties in the future. As
noted in Planning’s analysis, the surrounding uses are compatible with the proposal.
Page | 5
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
Planning staff identified three key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 4-9 of
the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the
staff report.
Consideration 1-Neighborhood and Citywide Master Plan Considerations
The subject parcels are near the southern edge of the area covered by the Downtown Master Plan, adopted
in 2016. The plan acknowledges ongoing population growth and calls for improved access to services and
amenities that support current and future downtown residents. If the proposed hospital is built it would
provide healthcare and jobs for nearby residents and those in the region.
Existing infrastructure will not accommodate the level of demand a hospital would generate. The developer
will be required to make improvements to offsite water, sewer, and stormwater quality in addition to
nearby water mains. Other needed improvements will be identified if the hospital is built.
The subject parcels are less than one block south of the D-1 zoning district as shown in the area zoning map
below. Although the proposed zoning change to D-1 would allow for higher density development and taller
buildings called for in the Downtown Master Plan, Planning staff found the zoning supports initiatives
outlined in the plan and continues the established development framework.
If approved by the Council, the subject properties would be surrounded by D-2 zoning, but Planning
anticipates these property owners will eventually work toward rezoning their properties.
Planning staff identified the following guiding principles found in Plan Salt Lake (2015) that relate to the
proposed zoning map and text amendments.
•Neighborhoods that provide a safe environment, opportunities for social interaction, and services
needed for the wellbeing of the community therein.
•A beautiful city that is people focused.
•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 thrive.
Page | 6
Area zoning map with subject property outlined in red.
Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division.
Consideration 2-Development Potential
D-2 zoning limits building height to 120 feet. The requested D-1 zoning does not limit building height, but
buildings taller than 200 feet are subject to conditions and design review. One of the following conditions
would have to be provided as part of the design review process if a building taller than 200 feet is built:
•Midblock walkway that exceeds standard requirements by at least five feet,
•Affordable housing incentives,
•Additional ground floor use and visual interest,
•A restrictive covenant for a building older than 50 years and not listed as a local landmark site, or
•500 square feet of open space with a shade that covers 60% of the area.
Planning staff anticipates a design review application will be submitted requesting additional building
height.
Consideration 3- Compatibility with Adjacent Properties
As noted above, the subject property is less than one block south of the D-1 district and the Downtown
Master Plan anticipates this district to expand to approximately 900 South. Planning staff believes the
proposed rezone is compatible with development to the north and aligns with the community’s expectation
of downtown expansion. Surrounding businesses are smaller in scale and include restaurants, barber
shops, banks, and car dealerships.
Page | 7
The Central City neighborhood is located to the east of the subject property, and Central 9th is to the west.
Central City is an established residential neighborhood with some of the city’s oldest single-family homes.
Central 9th is also an older single-family residential neighborhood but is transitioning to more medium
density among the older homes. It is Planning staff’s opinion the surrounding community would not be
adversely impacted by the rezone. Additionally, if surrounding property owners work to rezone their
properties as is anticipated, development potential on those properties would be the same.
The subject site is within the Ballpark Community Council boundaries, but is within 600 feet of the Central
9th, Central City, and Downtown community council boundaries. It is within the Ballpark neighborhood,
but not included in the recently adopted Ballpark Small Area Plan. Rather, as noted above, it is located
within the Downtown Master Plan area.
If the proposed hospital is built, there will be a significant increase in area pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
Planning noted that designers would need to consider City plans related to streetscape design, midblock
connections, and activation on State and Main Streets. They also encouraged transit use for employees,
promote active transportation, and to be an example of how an urban hospital can revitalize a site. Those
recommendations would be reviewed if the project develops.
ZONING COMPARISON
The following table includes regulations in the zoning ordinance recently adopted by the Council.
Regulation Existing Zoning (D-2)Proposed Zoning (D-1)
Building Height Maximum height-65 feet by right
Above 65 feet up to 120 feet
subject to design review
Minimum height-100 feet
Maximum Height-no limit
Buildings taller than 200 feet
subject to design review and must
include at least one of the
following:
•Midblock walkway
•Affordable housing
•Exceed minimum ground
floor uses
•Restrictive covenant on
historic building to
preserve for at least 50
years
•Privately owned publicly
accessible open space of
at least 500 square feet
Yard Requirements Front/corner side yard-no
minimum.
Ten feet maximum.
Buildings with ground floor
residential: Minimum eight-foot
front yard setback, 16 foot
maximum. Provided yard shall
No minimum
Eight feet maximum. If provided
must include at least one of the
following:
•Minimum of one bench for
every 500 square feet of
yard space
•Landscaping that includes
increase of at least 25% of
Page | 8
be landscaped and provide at
least one of the following:
•Minimum of one bench for
every 500 square feet of
yard space
•Landscaping that includes
increase of at least 25% of
total number of required
trees
•Awning covering at least
five feet width and length
from all street-facing
building entrances
total number of required
trees
•Awning covering at least
five feet width and length
from all street-facing
building entrances
Analysis of Factors
Attachment D (pages 25-29) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning map and zoning text
amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal.
Zoning Map Amendments
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.
The proposed amendment is
generally consistent with the goals
and policies of the applicable
master plans.
Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the
specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance.
The proposal generally furthers
the specific purpose statements of
the zoning ordinance.
The extent to which a proposed map amendment will
affect adjacent properties
The change in zoning is not
anticipated to create any
substantial new negative impacts
that wouldn’t be anticipated with
the current zoning.
Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent
with the purposes and provisions of any applicable
overlay zoning districts which may impose additional
standards.
There is no applicable overlay
district that imposes additional
development standards on this
property.
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.
The redevelopment of the site will
require public facility upgrades.
Zoning Text Amendments
Factor Finding
Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent
with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of
the city as stated through its various adopted
planning documents.
The proposed amendment is
generally consistent with the goals
and policies of the applicable
master plans.
Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the
specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance.
The proposal generally furthers
the specific purpose statements of
the zoning ordinance.
Page | 9
Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent
with the purposes and provisions of any applicable
overlay zoning districts which may impose additional
standards.
The change in zoning is not
anticipated to create any
substantial new negative impacts
that wouldn’t be anticipated with
the current zoning.
The extent to which a proposed text amendment
implements best current, professional practices of
urban planning and design.
The redevelopment of the site will
require public facility upgrades.
City Department Review
During City review of the petitions, no responding departments or divisions expressed objections to the
proposal, but provided, or stated they would provide, comments that are applicable if the property is
developed.
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
• November 11, 2022-Petition for zoning map and text amendment received by Planning Division.
• November 23, 2022-Zoning map amendment petitions assigned to Amanda Roman, Urban
Designer.
• December 8, 2022-Notice sent to Ballpark, Central City, Central 9th, and Downtown Community
Councils, and Downtown Alliance. Early notification sent to property owners and residents within
300 feet of the proposal.
• December 12, 2022- Proposal posted for an online open house.
• March 10, 2023-Planning Commission public hearing notice sent. Agenda posted to Planning
Commission website and State Public Notice webpage.
• March 22, 2023-Planning Commission public hearing. The Commission forwarded a positive
recommendation to the City Council for the proposed zoning map amendment. The Commission
also forwarded a positive recommendation to add the proposed hospital and ambulance service
land uses to D-1 as conditional rather than the requested permitted uses.
• March 27, 2023-Ordinance requested from Attorney’s Office.
• April 14, 2023-Signed ordinance received from the Attorney’s Office.
• April 27, 2023-Transmittal received in City Council Office.
Intermountain
Health
SEARS SITE Discussion
June 11, 2024
Confidential and property of Intermountain Health
Confidential and property of Intermountain Health 2
Massing
Intermountain Working Session with Salt Lake City
Objective: To resolve any outstanding concerns and questions on Intermountain Health's
application for zone change and text amendment. Discussion items include follow up on:
• Street activation
• Parking
• Mechanism for implementing approval (conditional use, design review, development
agreement)
Intermountain’s Vision
Confidential and property of Intermountain Health 3
The new hospital campus will expand on the Intermountain Health downtown 120-
year legacy by providing better access to the highest quality of care to those near
and far, for the next 100 years.
To become a beacon of downtown Salt Lake City, where patients and staff feel safe
and proud to call home.
Intermountain’s Site Requirements include:
•Efficient use of site and built spaces –flexibility of built spaces
•Patient Centric design enabling efficient care delivery
•Intuitive and simplified wayfinding for vehicle and pedestrian flows
•A safe and walkable campus, accessible to and satisfying the needs of diverse patient populations
•Versatility and flexibility to allow future growth, program changes and mobility mode transition
•LEED silver equivalent campus with strategies to maximize efficient usage of resources
•Design considerations to minimize negative impact to on-site and adjacent buildings
•Meet budget and schedule requirements
•Achievable street activation with indoor and outdoor spaces for patients, families and community
•Density and Height allowances for appropriate massing and design for patients
Sears Site Assessment
Intermountain Considerations
• If zoning and density granted, the site should be able to
accommodate future growth both for the Hospital and Outpatient
Services
• Convenient access from I-15 north and southbound as well as I-
80 east and westbound
• Potential opportunities to engage the surrounding views of the
Salt Lake City valley for patients
• Potential parking below grade and above grade to support ease
of access
Confidential and property of Intermountain Health 4
Shared Intermountain / City Considerations
•Ideal direct access to mass transit (both TRAX and
UTA bus lines)
•Potential for Intermountain Health to become a gateway to
downtown Salt Lake City for easily accessible healthcare
•Potential to engage 800 South, Main Street, and State Street
•Potential entryways / focal points at key intersections around
the entire block
•Potential to become an anchor for the State Street corridor
• Provides continuing services to vulnerable patient populations of
Salt Lake City
• Provides hundreds of unique visits per day in incoming "traffic" to
the downtown area, positively impacting surrounding businesses
• Significant investment by Intermountain in the city and for patients
Confidential and property of Intermountain Health 5
Massing
Sears
Site Analysis
Vehicular Site Access from
Major Roadways
Two Turns
Three Turns
Turn Across Traffic
Major Roadway
Highways
Turning Movements
Confidential and property of Intermountain Health 6
Site Plan
Inpatient Tower
Interventional Services
Emergency / InstaCare
Radiology
Clinical Support
Public Space
ASC
Specialty Center
MOB / Clinic
Building Support
Landscaped Open Space
Food Truck Area
Potential Concept Massing (Scenario 1)
* 1,100 Parking stalls at structure west of
Main Street to serve Clinic + 500 below
grade + 125 stall parking lot at 700 South
Confidential and property of Intermountain Health 7
Site Plan
Inpatient Tower
Interventional Services
Emergency / InstaCare
Radiology
Clinical Support
Public Space
ASC
Specialty Center
MOB / Clinic
Building Support
Landscaped Open Space
Food Truck Area
Potential Concept Massing (Scenario 2)
* 1,250 Parking stalls at structure west of
Main Street to serve Clinic + 500 below
grade stalls
Use TBD
Potential Massing Birdseye
Confidential and property of Intermountain Health 8
Site Plan
Inpatient Tower
Interventional Services
Emergency / InstaCare
Radiology
Public Space
ASC
Building Support
Landscaped Open Space
Food Truck Area
* Structured below grade parking
accommodates 500 parking stalls
for Priority 1
Preferred Massing (complete, colored blocks)
Confidential and property of Intermountain Health 9
Site Plan Massing
Street Activation
Sears Site
Confidential and property of Intermountain Health 10
Mid State Street
Confidential and property of Intermountain Health 11
Site Plan Massing
Street Activation Opportunities
Local Partner Coffee Shop
Hosting a local coffee roaster will
engage passers-by and support
partnership opportunities.
Food Truck Park
Providing a space on the site for the
current thriving taco truck and other
food trucks provides activation and
supports small businesses.
Open Space
Open space such as healing gardens
and outdoor wellness areas support
both the hospital and the community.
Confidential and property of Intermountain Health 12
Street Activation Opportunities
Inviting Entryways
Entryways will be located at
key intersections with inviting
storefronts and high visibility.
Engaged Uses at the Ground Floor
Engaging hospital and clinic uses such as home health, conference center, wig
salon, and café would be located at the ground level. Other opportunities may
include therapy spaces such as art and fitness spaces.
Confidential and property of Intermountain Health 13
Activation Examples
Confidential and property of Intermountain Health 14
Healthcare-Oriented Activation Approach
Activation Areas
Confidential and property of Intermountain Health 15
Public Space (Street Activation)
Building Support
Landscaped Open Space
Food Truck Area
Ground Floor Activation Options:
• Hospital Reception / Admitting
• Emergency Department and
InstaCare Reception
• Clinic Reception
• Gift Shop
• Human Resource Office Lobby
• Conference Center
• Cafe
• Local Coffee Shop
• Salon
• Art Therapy Space(s)
• Outpatient Pharmacy
State Street
• 420 LF Frontage
• Up To 70% of Building
Frontage Activated
• Outdoor Activity / Food
Truck Area Active
• Mid-Block Walkway
800 South
• 645 LF Frontage
• 50% of Building
Frontage Activated
• Access Drive
Main Street (East)
• 650 LF Frontage
• Up To 70% of Building
Frontage Activated
• Mid-Block Walkway
700 South
• 475 LF Frontage
• 50% of Building
Frontage Activated
• Access Drive
• Parking and
Emergency Access
800 South and Main Street
Confidential and property of Intermountain Health 16
Site Plan
800 South and Main Street
Confidential and property of Intermountain Health 17
Site Plan Massing
700 South and Main Street
Confidential and property of Intermountain Health 18
Site Plan Massing
SPECIALTY CLINIC
700 South and Main Street
Confidential and property of Intermountain Health 19
Site Plan Massing
800 South and State Street
Confidential and property of Intermountain Health 20
Site Plan Massing
800 South and State Street
Confidential and property of Intermountain Health 21
Site Plan Massing
Confidential and property of Intermountain Health 22
Massing
Intermountain Working Session with Salt Lake City
DetailAreas of Discussion
D-1 Downtown Support District (with text amendment for Hospital)Zoning
Underground parking with Main Street access point
Above grade parking (potential: Main and/or 700 South)Parking
Adjustment to street level activation requirements (e.g. activation
requirement on State and Main):
• 50% on 700 S
• 50% on 800 S
• 70% on Main St
• 70% on State St
Street Level Activation
Summary:
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: _________________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: April 27, 2023
Darin Mano, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods
__________________________
SUBJECT: Zoning Map Amendment at approximately 754 S State Street
Petition PLNPCM2022-01109
STAFF CONTACT: Amanda Roman, Urban Designer
801-535-7660 or amanda.roman@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council follow the recommendation of the Planning
Commission to amend the zoning map of 10 parcels at approximately 754 S State Street from
D-2 Downtown Support District to D-1 Central Business District and amend section 21A.33.050
Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts to add the following uses as
Conditional within the D-1 zoning district:
•Ambulance service (indoor)
•Ambulance service (outdoor)
•Hospital, including accessory lodging facility
BUDGET IMPACT: None.
Lisa Shaffer (Apr 27, 2023 16:42 MDT)04/27/2023
04/27/2023
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The proposal includes a zoning map amendment to change the zoning of 10 parcels at
approximately 754 S State Street from D-2 Downtown Support District to D-1 Central Business
District. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to allow for the redevelopment of the property
with an urban hospital. To develop the property, the D-1 zoning district land use table also needs
to be amended to add hospitals and ambulance services as Permitted or Conditional uses.
Planning staff recommended that the two
proposed uses (Hospitals and Ambulance
Services) be adopted as Permitted uses in
the D-1 zoning district. During the
Planning Commission discussion period
on March 22, 2023, a majority of the
Commission (7:3) voted to modify staff’s
recommendation and forward the
proposal to the City Council with a
recommendation to adopt the uses as
Conditional rather than Permitted.
Additional discussion topics during the
March 22, 2023, Planning Commission
meeting included parking and housing
options on the site if the rezone is adopted.
The intent behind the rezone and text amendment request is to allow for more design flexibility
for the purpose of constructing an urban hospital. The building height in the D-2 zoning district is
limited to a maximum of 120 feet, with Design Review approval. The by-right building height in
the D-1 zone for buildings located on a block corner is 100 – 375 feet. Buildings taller than 375
feet must receive Design Review approval, but there is no maximum height.
The Planning Division has transmitted a proposed ordinance to the City Council that would
increase allowable building heights in the Downtown Districts while supporting human-scale
development, increased street activation, pedestrian accessibility, and community character. If
adopted, the Downtown Building Heights and Street Activation text amendment (PLNPCM2022-
00529) would directly affect the development potential of the subject property. The proposed
amendment would eliminate the distinction of corner and midblock lots and change the by-right
building height in the D-1 zone to 200 feet. Buildings over 200 feet would be required to receive
Design Review approval but would have no maximum height. The City Council was briefed on
the proposed text amendment on April 4, 2023. At the time of this transmittal, a vote has not been
taken to approve, modify, or deny the ordinance.
For specific information regarding the proposal, please refer to the Planning Commission Staff
Report.
ST
A
T
E
S
T
MA
I
N
ST
700 S
800 S
PUBLIC PROCESS:
• The Planning Division provided a 45-day comment period notice to the associated
community councils for the property: Ballpark, Central City, Central 9th, and Downtown.
The councils held a joint meeting with Planning staff and the applicant to discuss the
proposal on January 19, 2023. A formal letter was submitted and is included in the Planning
Commission Staff Report.
• Staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all residents and property
owners living within 300 feet of the project site providing notice about the proposal and
information on how to give public input on the project on December 12, 2022.
• An online open house has been posted to the Planning Division’s webpage since December
12, 2022. The page remains open for review.
• Four public comments were received prior to the Planning Commission meeting and three
were submitted either after the Commission staff report was published or after the meeting.
The three additional comments are included in Exhibit 4 of the transmittal.
Planning Commission (PC) Records (Click to Access)
PC Agenda for March 22, 2023
PC Minutes of March 22, 2023
PC Staff Report for March 22, 2023
EXHIBITS
1. Chronology
2. Notice of City Council Hearing
3. Petition Application
4. Additional Public Comments
5. Mailing List
1
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 2023
(An ordinance amending the zoning of property located at approximately 754 S State Street from
D-2 Downtown Support District to D-1 Central Business District)
An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to property located at approximately
754 S State Street from D-2 Downtown Support District to D-1 Central Business District
pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-01109.
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a
public hearing on March 22, 2023 to consider a petition by Tyler Buswell, counsel for the
property owner, to rezone ten parcels located at 754 S State Street (Tax ID Nos. 16-07-103-017-
0000, 16-07-103-001-0000, 16-07-103-002-0000, 16-07-103-003-0000, 16-07-103-004-0000,
16-07-103-008-0000, 16-07-103-009-0000, 16-07-103-010-0000, 16-07-103-011-0000, 16-07-
103-022-0000) from D-2 Downtown Support District to D-1 Central Business District pursuant
to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-01109; and
WHEREAS, at its March 22, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of
transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said
petition; and
WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that
adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted
by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and
hereby is amended to reflect that the property identified on Exhibit “A” hereto shall be and
hereby is rezoned from D-2 Downtown Support District to D-1 Central Business District.
2
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 rezoning 754 S State Street to D-1
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date:___________________________
By: ____________________________
Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney
April 14, 2023
3
EXHIBIT “A”
Legal Description and Map of Property Subject to Zoning Map Amendment:
Parcel Tax ID Nos.
16-07-103-017
16-07-103-001
16-07-103-002
16-07-103-003
16-07-103-004
16-07-103-008
16-07-103-009
16-07-103-010
16-07-103-011
16-07-103-022
PARCEL 16-07-103-001-0000:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 5, BLOCK 16, PLAT ''A'', SALT
LAKE CITY SURVEY AND RUNNING THENCE EAST 160 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 179
FEET; THENCE WEST 160 FEET; THENCE NORTH 179 FEET TO THE PLACE OF
BEGINNING.
PARCEL 16-07-103-004-0000:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 7, BLOCK 16, PLAT ''A'', SALT
LAKE CITY SURVEY AND RUNNING THENCE WEST 62.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 165
FEET; THENCE EAST 62.5 FEET; THENCE NORTH 165 FEET TO THE PLACE OF
BEGINNING.
PARCEL 16-07-103-008-0000:
PART OF LOTS 6 AND 7, BLOCK 16, PLAT ''A'', SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY, AND
COMMENCING 206.25 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 6, BLOCK
16, PLAT ''A'', SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY; THENCE WEST 82.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTH
41.25 FEET; THENCE EAST 105 FEET; THENCE NORTH 41.25 FEET; THENCE WEST
22.5 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL 16-07-103-009-0000:
COMMENCING AT A POINT 165 FEET SOUTH AND 44 FEET EAST OF THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 8, BLOCK 16, PLAT ''A'', SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY
AND RUNNING THENCE SOUTH 57.75 FEET; THENCE WEST 27.5 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 27.5 FEET; THENCE WEST 109 FEET; THENCE NORTH 85.25 FEET; THENCE
EAST 136.5 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING.
PARCELS 16-07-103-017-0000, 16-07-103-010-0000, and 16-07-103-011-0000:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 8, BLOCK 16, PLAT ''A'', SALT
LAKE CITY SURVEY AND RUNNING THENCE SOUTH 49.5 FEET; THENCE WEST 165
FEET; THENCE NORTH 49.5 FEET; THENCE WEST 92.5 FEET; THENCE NORTH 79.75
FEET; THENCE EAST 109 FEET; THENCE NORTH 27.5 FEET; THENCE EAST 148.5
FEET; THENCE SOUTH 107.25 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING.
4
PARCEL 16-07-103-002-0000:
BEGINNING AT A POINT 160 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 5,
BLOCK 16, PLAT "A", SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY, AND RUNNING THENCE EAST 87.5
FEET; THENCE SOUTH 179 FEET; THENCE WEST 87.5 FEET; THENCE NORTH 179
FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING.
ALSO: BEGINNING AT A POINT 4 FEET WEST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT
6, BLOCK 16, PLAT "A", SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY, AND RUNNING THENCE WEST
78.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 165 FEET; THENCE EAST 78.5 FEET; THENCE NORTH 165
FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING.
ALSO: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 7, BLOCK 16, PLAT "A",
SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY, AND RUNNING THENCE EAST 37.5 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 148.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY 22.4 FEET TO A POINT 165 FEET
SOUTH AND 22.5 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 7; THENCE
WEST 26.5 FEET; THENCE NORTH 165 FEET; THENCE EAST 4 FEET TO THE PLACE
OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL 16-07-103-003-0000:
BEGINNING 57.5 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 7, BLOCK 16,
PLAT "A", SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY, AND RUNNING THENCE EAST 45 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 165 FEET; THENCE WEST 30 FEET; THENCE NORTHWEST 22.4
FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT 148.5 FEET SOUTH FROM THE POINT OF
BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 148.5 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL 16-07-103-022-0000:
TRACT 1: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK 16, PLAT
''A'', SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY AND RUNNING THENCE NORTH 17 RODS; THENCE
WEST 10 RODS; THENCE NORTH 3 RODS; THENCE WEST 142.5 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 5 RODS; THENCE WEST 105 FEET; THENCE NORTH 68.5 FEET; THENCE
WEST 15 RODS; THENCE SOUTH 239 FEET; THENCE EAST 10 RODS; THENCE SOUTH
21 FEET; THENCE WEST 10 RODS; THENCE SOUTH 221 FEET; THENCE EAST 660
FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING.
TRACT 2: BEGINNING 165 FEET SOUTH FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 6,
BLOCK 16, PLAT ''A'', SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY AND RUNNING THENCE EAST 22.5
FEET; THENCE SOUTH 41.25 FEET; THENCE WEST 105 FEET; THENCE NORTH 41.25
FEET; THENCE EAST 82.5 FEET TO THE BEGINNING.
TRACT 3: BEGINNING AT A POINT 88 FEET SOUTH FROM THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF LOT 4, BLOCK 16, PLAT ''A'', SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY AND RUNNING
THENCE SOUTH 21 FEET; THENCE EAST 165 FEET; THENCE NORTH 21 FEET;
THENCE WEST 165 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL (S. Major St.):
PARCELS 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 AND 8 DESCRIBED ABOVE ARE TOGETHER WITH THE
FOLLOWING:
A RIGHT OF WAY IN COMMON WITH OTHERS: COMMENCING 37.5 FEET EAST
FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 7, BLOCK 16, PLAT ''A'', SALT LAKE CITY
5
SURVEY AND RUNNING THENCE SOUTH 148.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWEST 22.5
FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT 142.5 FEET WEST AND 165 FEET NORTH FROM
THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 7; THENCE SOUTH 165 FEET; THENCE
EAST 50 FEET; THENCE NORTH 165 FEET; THENCE NORTHWEST 22.5 FEET, MORE
OR LESS, TO A POINT 107.5 FEET WEST AND 11 RODS NORTH FROM THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 7; THENCE NORTH 148.5 FEET; THENCE WEST
20 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING.
1
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 2023
(An ordinance amending the text of Section 21A.33.050 of the Salt Lake City Code to add
Hospitals (including accessory lodging facility), Ambulance Services (indoor), and Ambulance
Services (outdoor) as Conditional Uses in the D-1 Central Business District)
An ordinance amending the text of Section 21A.33.050 of the Salt Lake City Code to add
Hospitals (including accessory lodging facility), Ambulance Services (indoor), and Ambulance
Services (outdoor) as conditional uses in the D-1 Central Business District pursuant to Petition
No. PLNPCM2022-01109.
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a
public hearing on March 22, 2023 to consider a petition by Tyler Buswell, counsel for the
property owner, to amend the text of Section of 21A.33.050 of the Salt Lake City Code to add
Hospitals (including accessory lodging facility), Ambulance Services (indoor), and Ambulance
Services (outdoor) as permitted uses in the D-1 Central Business District pursuant to Petition No.
PLNPCM2022-01109; and
WHEREAS, at its March 22, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of
transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) that
Section of 21A.33.050 of the Salt Lake City Code be amended to add Hospitals (including
accessory lodging facility), Ambulance Services (indoor), and Ambulance Services (outdoor) as
conditional uses in the D-1 Central Business District; 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:
2
SECTION 1. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.050 That
Section 21A.33.050 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Table of Permitted and Conditional
Uses for Downtown Districts) shall be and hereby is amended as follows:
21A.33.050: TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR DOWNTOWN
DISTRICTS:
Legend: C = Conditional P = Permitted
Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District
D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4
Accessory use, except those that are
otherwise specifically regulated elsewhere
in this title
P P P P
Adaptive reuse of a landmark site P P P P4
Alcohol:
Bar establishment (indoor) P6 C6 C6 P6
Bar establishment (outdoor) P6 C6 C6 P6
Brewpub (indoor) P6 P6 P6 P6
Brewpub (outdoor) P6 P6 P6 P6
Tavern (indoor) P6 C6 C6 P6
Tavern (outdoor) P6 C6 C6 P6
Ambulance Service (indoor) C
Ambulance Service (outdoor) C
Animal, veterinary office P P
Antenna, communication tower P P P P
Antenna, communication tower, exceeding
the maximum building height
C C C C
Art gallery P P P P
Artisan food production P14,18 P18 P18 P18
Bed and breakfast P P P P
Bed and breakfast inn P P P P
Bed and breakfast manor P P P P
Bio-medical facility P17,18 P17,18 P17,18 P17,18
Blood donation center P
Bus line station/terminal P7 P7 P7 P7
3
Bus line yard and repair facility P
Car wash P3
Check cashing/payday loan business P5
Clinic (medical, dental) P P P P
Commercial food preparation P18 P18 P18 P18
Community garden P P P P
Convention center P
Crematorium P P P
Daycare center, adult P P P P
Daycare center, child P P P P
Daycare, nonregistered home daycare P12 P12 P12 P12
Daycare, registered home daycare or
preschool
P12 P12 P12 P 12
Dwelling:
Artists' loft/studio P P P P
Assisted living facility (large) P P P P
Assisted living facility (limited
capacity)
P P P
Assisted living facility (small) P P P P
Congregate care facility (large) C C C C
Congregate care facility (small) P P P P
Group home (large) C C
Group home (small) P P P P
Multi-family P P P P
Residential support (large) C C
Residential support (small) C C
Exhibition hall P
Farmers' market P
Financial institution P P P P
Financial institution with drive-through
facility
P8 P8
Funeral home P P P
Gas station P P7 P7
Government facility C C C C
Government facility requiring special
design features for security purposes
P7 P7
4
Heliport, accessory C C C
Home occupation P13 P13 P13 P13
Homeless resource center C15 C15
Homeless shelter C15 C15
Hospital, including accessory lodging
facility
C
Hotel/motel P P P P
Industrial assembly C18 C18
Laboratory, medical related P18 P18 P18 P18
Laundry, commercial P18
Library P P P P
Limousine service P
Mixed use development P P P P
Mobile food business (operation in the
public right-of-way)
P P P P
Mobile food business (operation on private
property)
P P P P
Mobile food court P P P P
Municipal services uses including City
utility uses and police and fire stations
P P P P
Museum P P P P
Office P P P P
Office, publishing company P P P P
Open space on lots less than 4 acres in size P7 P7 P7 P7
Park P P P P
Parking, commercial C P C C
Parking, off site P P P P
Performing arts production facility P P P P
Place of worship P11 P11 P11 P11
Radio, television station P P P
Railroad, passenger station P P P P
Reception center P P P P
Recreation (indoor) P P P P
Recreation (outdoor) P
Research and development facility P18 P18 P18 P18
Restaurant P P P P
5
Restaurant with drive-through facility P8
Retail goods establishment P P P P
Retail service establishment P P P P
Retail service establishment, upholstery
shop
P P
Sales and display (outdoor) P P P P
School:
College or university P P P P
K - 12 private P P
K - 12 public P P
Music conservatory P P P P
Professional and vocational P P P P
Seminary and religious institute P P P P
Shared housing P P P P
Small brewery C18
Social service mission and charity dining
hall
C C
Stadium C C C
Storage, self P16 P P
Store:
Department P P P
Fashion oriented department P2
Mass merchandising P P P
Pawnshop P
Specialty P P P
Superstore and hypermarket P
Studio, art P P P P
Technology facility P18 P18 P18 P18
Theater, live performance P9 P9 P9 P9
Theater, movie P P P P
Utility, buildings or structure P1 P1 P1 P1
Utility, transmission wire, line, pipe or
pole
P1 P1 P1 P1
Vehicle:
Automobile repair (major) P P7 P7
Automobile repair (minor) P P7 P7
6
Automobile sales/rental and service P10 P P10
Vending cart, private property P P P P
Vending cart, public property
Warehouse P18
Warehouse, accessory P P
Wholesale distribution P18
Wireless telecommunications facility (see
section 21A.40.090, table 21A.40.090E of
this title)
Qualifying provisions:
1. Subject to conformance to the provisions in subsection 21A.02.050B 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. Subject to section 21A.36.130 of this title.
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.
SECTION 6. 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.
7
______________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________.
Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed.
______________________________
MAYOR
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. ________ of 2023.
Published: ______________.
Ordinance amending Section 21A.33.050 of
the Salt Lake City Code
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date:___________________________
By: ____________________________
Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney
April 14, 2023
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
2.NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
3.ORIGINAL PETITION
4.ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENTS
5.MAILING LIST
1) CHRONOLOGY
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
Petition: PLNPCM2022-01109
November 11, 2022
November 23, 2022
December 8, 2022
December 12, 2022
March 10, 2023
March 17, 2023
March 22, 2023
March 27, 2023
April 14, 2023
Application for a Zoning Map and Text Amendment.
Petition PLNPCM2022-01109 was assigned to Amanda
Roman, Urban Designer, for staff analysis and processing.
Notice sent to Recognized Community Organizations
informing them of the petition. The RCO’s notified
included the Ballpark, Central City, Central 9th, and
Downtown Community Councils, and the Downtown
Alliance.
Early notification of the project was also sent to property
owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposal.
The proposal was posted for an online open house through
March 22, 2023. The proposal can still be viewed online.
Planning Commission public hearing notices emailed to
interested parties and residents/property owners who
requested notice. Agenda posted to the Planning
Commission website and the State of Utah Public Notice
webpage.
Planning Commission Staff Report posted.
Planning Commission held a public hearing and made a
positive recommendation to the City Council to approve the
proposed map amendment.
The Commission also forwarded a recommendation to
approve the text amendment, but modified the
recommendation to add the land uses to the D-1 zoning
district as Conditional rather than Permitted.
Ordinance request sent to Attorney’s Office.
Signed ordinance received from Attorney’s Office.
2) NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2022-01109 Zoning Map
& Zoning Text Amendment for the property at approximately 754 S State Street. Kirton
McConkie, represented by Tyler Buswell, Attorney for IHC Health Services, Inc. (the
Property Owner), initiated a petition for a zoning map and zoning text amendment, which
would facilitate the development of an urban hospital at approximately 754 S State Street.
The zoning map amendment request is to rezone 10 parcels from D-2 Downtown Support
District to D-1 Central Business District. The 10 parcels included in this proposal are
listed below for reference.
Address Parcel ID Approximate Acreage
748 South State St. 16-07-103-017 .55
709 South Main St. 16-07-103-001 .66
36 E 700 S 16-07-103-002 .81
48 E 700 S 16-07-103-003 .17
56 E 700 S 16-07-103-004 .24
728 S Major St. 16-07-103-008 .10
725 S Major St. 16-07-103-009 .25
735 S Major St. 16-07-103-010 .10
739 S Major St. 16-07-103-011 .1o
754 S State St. 16-07-103-022 5.97
Major Street None Total Acreage: 8.95
The proposed text amendment to section 21A.33.050 Table of Permitted and Conditional
Uses for Downtown Districts would add the following uses as Conditional within the D-1
zoning district:
• Ambulance service (indoor)
• Ambulance service (outdoor)
• Hospital, including accessory lodging facility
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
Amanda Roman at 801-535-7660 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday, or via e-mail at amanda.roman@slcgov.com
The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting
the “Planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2022-01109.
People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may
include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make
requests at least two make a request, please contact the City Council Office at
council.comments@slcgov.com, (801)535-7600, or relay service 711.
3) ORIGINAL PETITION
Tyler Buswell
50 E. South Temple, Suite 400
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
4862-9323-6517
November 15, 2022
Nick Norris, Director
Salt Lake City – Planning Division
451 S. State St.
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
nick.norris@slcgov.com
RE: Letter in support of application for zoning map and text amendment.
Applicant: Kirton McConkie
Attn: Tyler L. Buswell
50 E. South Temple Street, #400
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
(801) 321-4820
tbuswell@kmclaw.com
Property
Addresses: 754 S. State St.
709 S. Main St.
36, 48, and 56 E. 700 S.
725, 727, 728, 735, and 739 S. Major St.
All of S. Major St.
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
As more fully described in Exhibit A
(collectively, the “Property”).
Totaling approx. 9.22 acres.
Amendments
Requested: Zoning map amendment of the Property from the D-2 Zone to the
D-1 Zone. And zoning text amendment to the D-1 Zone to allow
hospitals as a permitted use.
Application Fees: $2,036.95 for map amendment ($1,075 + $121 x 7.95 acres).
$1,075 for text amendment.
2 of 7
4862-9323-6517
Dear Mr. Norris:
This law firm represents IHC Health Services, Inc. (“Intermountain”), which is the
owner of the Property described above. This letter accompanies the zoning map and
text amendment application submitted concurrently with this letter. The purpose of this
letter is to address the submittal requirements of the City’s Zoning Amendment
application form. Specifically, this letter will provide the following: (1) a statement
declaring the purpose of the amendment, (2) a description of the proposed use of the
property being rezoned, (3) the reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate
for the area, (4) the parcel numbers for each parcel affected by the proposed map
amendment, and (5) the requested text revisions to the applicable zoning ordinance.
Intermountain and our firm look forward to working with the City regarding this
application. We hope to create an outcome that will benefit the City, the Property, and
residents of Salt Lake City.
(1) Purpose for the amendment.
Intermountain proposes to amend both the zoning map and the applicable text of
the D-1 zone. The Property is comprised of 10 separate tax parcels where the old Sears
building is located and an old, unused right of way (S. Major St.), all of which is situated
just south of downtown Salt Lake City. The current zoning of all such parcels is the D-2
Downtown Support District zone, and Intermountain proposes to amend the zoning map
to the D-1 Central Business District zone. As explained further in paragraph (5) below,
Intermountain also proposes to amend the text of the D-1 zone to allow Hospitals as a
permitted use, along with other uses to be designated as either permitted or conditional
uses.
Accordingly, the purpose of these proposed amendments is to allow for the re-
development of the majority of the Sears block to accommodate a new, downtown,
urban hospital. As the City has known for some time, the Sears property has been in
dire need of improvement and redevelopment for many years. The unique location of
the block, directly on the southern border of downtown and right along State Street,
makes it a prime location for a unique project in general, and an urban hospital in
particular.
The amendment to D-1 will allow for the maximum flexibility on the Property to
create a project that can both function as part of the downtown core, but also facilitate a
transition from the downtown uses to the supporting uses of the D-2 zone. Moreover,
the amendment will allow the Property to best meet the City’s vision for the South State
area as described in the Downtown Master Plan.
(2) Description of the proposed use of the property being rezoned.
While Intermountain has not created any formal or conceptual plans for the
Property, the hospital use would be akin to many urban hospitals across the country.
3 of 7
4862-9323-6517
The project would create and serve as an anchor and bookend on the south end of
downtown. The current border of the D-1 zone is less than half a block away to the
northwest of the Property, and approximately half a block away directly to the north of
the Property, so a hospital project would not only fit with the existing development
pattern in the surrounding area, but it would serve to revitalize the area. The hospital
would include the typical necessary accompanying uses for a hospital.
(3) Reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area.
The current zoning of D-2 for the Property is not appropriate because it has
created a site that is underperforming and is not the highest and best use for the
Property. The Property has sat largely vacant and underutilized for so long because the
D-2 zone does not foster and has not attracted the type of users and uses that this site
will support. Because the Property is located in a transition block from D-1 to D-2, it has
created a circumstance where more traditional downtown uses, such as high-rise office
or residential projects are not well suited, and the economics of lower-rise commercial,
office, or residential uses are not as financially viable.
The proposed use of a hospital can bridge the gap of those drawbacks created
by the Property’s location. The D-1 zone will allow Intermountain the flexibility in building
height while also not being out of character for the area with the Grand America being
two blocks away, and the new multi-story office/residential projects built on 600 South
and Main Street, 700 South Main Street, and 600 South State Street. The D-1 zone’s
building height and density flexibility will also help Intermountain in working with the City
to design a project that better incorporates permeability and walkability of the Property
that would not otherwise be possible given the small area of the Property compared to
the level of services Intermountain desires to include on the Property.
Amending the Property to D-1 will also be in line with the City’s vision of the
“South State” area in its Downtown Master Plan. A hospital will accomplish the goals of
re-urbanizing South State while not disrupting the integrity of the neighborhoods to the
east. It would also serve those neighborhoods by providing needed healthcare services
within walking distance to many residents.
The current state and zoning of the Property has failed to live up to or satisfy the
City’s vision for the area. So, Intermountain would strive to cooperate with the City in its
efforts to implement the Downtown Master Plan goals for this site. A hospital can blend
and accomplish the City’s desired outcomes for this area.
(4) Parcel numbers to be changed from D-2 to D-1 on the Zoning Map.
The following parcels are all proposed to be changed from D-2 to D-1 on the
City’s Zoning Map:
4 of 7
4862-9323-6517
Address Parcel Number Approx.
Acreage
709 S. Main St. 16-07-103-001-0000 0.66
56 E. 700 S. 16-07-103-004-0000 0.24
728 S. Major St. 16-07-103-008-0000 0.10
725-727 S. Major St. 16-07-103-009-0000 0.25
754 S. State St. 16-07-103-017-0000 0.55
735 S. Major St. 16-07-103-010-0000 0.10
739 S. Major St. 16-07-103-011-0000 0.10
36 E. 700 S. 16-07-103-002-0000 0.81
48 E. 700 S. 16-07-103-003-0000 0.17
754 S. State St. 16-07-103-022-0000 5.97
All of S. Major St. None
(5) Requested text amendments to the D-1 Zone.
Currently, a hospital is not specifically designated in the table of permitted and
conditional uses for the D-1 zone. Consequently, in addition to the requested map
amendments, Intermountain proposes the following text amendments to the D-1 zone.
(a) Edit to 21A.33.050, Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses For
Downton Districts.
Intermountain proposes to add the following uses to Table 21A.33.050:
“Ambulance service (indoor): Permitted.”
“Ambulance service (outdoor): Permitted.”
“Hospital, including accessory lodging facility: Permitted.”
“Retail, sales and service accessory use when located within a principal
building and operated primarily for the convenience of employees:
Permitted.”
(Note that the following uses that may be incorporated into the proposed hospital
are already either permitted or conditional uses in the D-1 zone as shown on Table
21A.33.050: Bio-medical facility (permitted); medical clinic (permitted); heliport
(conditional use); laboratory, medical related (permitted); mixed-use development
(permitted); office (permitted).)
5 of 7
4862-9323-6517
We look forward to working with the City on these proposed changes. Please feel
free to contact me at if you would like to
discuss.
Sincerely,
Kirton McConkie
Tyler L. Buswell
Counsel for Intermountain
6 of 7
4862-9323-6517
Exhibit A
Legal Description of the Property
Real property located in Salt Lake County, Utah, more particularly described as follows:
PARCEL 1 (16-07-103-001-0000):
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 5, BLOCK 16, PLAT ''A'', SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY
AND RUNNING THENCE EAST 160 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 179 FEET; THENCE WEST 160 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 179 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL 2 (16-07-103-004-0000):
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 7, BLOCK 16, PLAT ''A'', SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY AND
RUNNING THENCE WEST 62.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 165 FEET; THENCE EAST 62.5 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 165 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL 3 (16-07-103-008-0000):
PART OF LOTS 6 AND 7, BLOCK 16, PLAT ''A'', SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY, AND COMMENCING 206.25 FEET
SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 6, BLOCK 16, PLAT ''A'', SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY; THENCE
WEST 82.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 41.25 FEET; THENCE EAST 105 FEET; THENCE NORTH 41.25 FEET;
THENCE WEST 22.5 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL 4 (16-07-103-009-0000):
COMMENCING AT A POINT 165 FEET SOUTH AND 44 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT
8, BLOCK 16, PLAT ''A'', SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY AND RUNNING THENCE SOUTH 57.75 FEET; THENCE
WEST 27.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 27.5 FEET; THENCE WEST 109 FEET; THENCE NORTH 85.25 FEET;
THENCE EAST 136.5 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL 5 (16-07-103-017-0000, 16-07-103-010-0000, 16-07-103-011-0000):
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 8, BLOCK 16, PLAT ''A'', SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY
AND RUNNING THENCE SOUTH 49.5 FEET; THENCE WEST 165 FEET; THENCE NORTH 49.5 FEET; THENCE
WEST 92.5 FEET; THENCE NORTH 79.75 FEET; THENCE EAST 109 FEET; THENCE NORTH 27.5 FEET;
THENCE EAST 148.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 107.25 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL 6 (16-07-103-002-0000):
BEGINNING AT A POINT 160 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 5, BLOCK 16, PLAT "A",
SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY, AND RUNNING THENCE EAST 87.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 179 FEET; THENCE
WEST 87.5 FEET; THENCE NORTH 179 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING.
ALSO: BEGINNING AT A POINT 4 FEET WEST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 6, BLOCK 16, PLAT
"A", SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY, AND RUNNING THENCE WEST 78.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 165 FEET;
THENCE EAST 78.5 FEET; THENCE NORTH 165 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING.
ALSO: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 7, BLOCK 16, PLAT "A", SALT LAKE CITY
SURVEY, AND RUNNING THENCE EAST 37.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 148.5 FEET; THENCE
7 of 7
4862-9323-6517
SOUTHWESTERLY 22.4 FEET TO A POINT 165 FEET SOUTH AND 22.5 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF LOT 7; THENCE WEST 26.5 FEET; THENCE NORTH 165 FEET; THENCE EAST 4 FEET TO THE
PLACE OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL 7 (16-07-103-003-0000):
BEGINNING 57.5 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 7, BLOCK 16, PLAT "A", SALT LAKE
CITY SURVEY, AND RUNNING THENCE EAST 45 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 165 FEET; THENCE WEST 30
FEET; THENCE NORTHWEST 22.4 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT 148.5 FEET SOUTH FROM THE
POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 148.5 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL 8 (16-07-103-022-0000):
TRACT 1: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK 16, PLAT ''A'', SALT LAKE CITY
SURVEY AND RUNNING THENCE NORTH 17 RODS; THENCE WEST 10 RODS; THENCE NORTH 3 RODS;
THENCE WEST 142.5 FEET; THENCE NORTH 5 RODS; THENCE WEST 105 FEET; THENCE NORTH 68.5
FEET; THENCE WEST 15 RODS; THENCE SOUTH 239 FEET; THENCE EAST 10 RODS; THENCE SOUTH 21
FEET; THENCE WEST 10 RODS; THENCE SOUTH 221 FEET; THENCE EAST 660 FEET TO THE PLACE OF
BEGINNING.
TRACT 2: BEGINNING 165 FEET SOUTH FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 6, BLOCK 16, PLAT ''A'',
SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY AND RUNNING THENCE EAST 22.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 41.25 FEET; THENCE
WEST 105 FEET; THENCE NORTH 41.25 FEET; THENCE EAST 82.5 FEET TO THE BEGINNING.
TRACT 3: BEGINNING AT A POINT 88 FEET SOUTH FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 4, BLOCK
16, PLAT ''A'', SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY AND RUNNING THENCE SOUTH 21 FEET; THENCE EAST 165 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 21 FEET; THENCE WEST 165 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL 9 (S. Major St.):
PARCELS 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 AND 8 DESCRIBED ABOVE ARE TOGETHER WITH THE FOLLOWING:
A RIGHT OF WAY IN COMMON WITH OTHERS: COMMENCING 37.5 FEET EAST FROM THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF LOT 7, BLOCK 16, PLAT ''A'', SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY AND RUNNING THENCE SOUTH 148.5
FEET; THENCE SOUTHWEST 22.5 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT 142.5 FEET WEST AND 165 FEET
NORTH FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 7; THENCE SOUTH 165 FEET; THENCE EAST 50
FEET; THENCE NORTH 165 FEET; THENCE NORTHWEST 22.5 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT 107.5
FEET WEST AND 11 RODS NORTH FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 7; THENCE NORTH
148.5 FEET; THENCE WEST 20 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING.
4)ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENTS
From:Thomas Merrill
To:Roman, Amanda
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Downtown coalition requests re: Intermountain
Date:Tuesday, March 21, 2023 2:54:05 PM
Hi Amanda,
After having reviewed the excellent staff report prepared for tomorrow's agenda item entitled,
"Zoning Map & Text Amendment at Approximately 754 S State Street," we wondered what
opportunities there are to get our official requests from the 1/19 meeting with Intermountain
and Planning Commission staff on record? Those requests are summarized below:
1. Requirement of a concept plan prior to D1 zoning approval
We believe Intermountain is a unique entity that has a greater obligation to transparency with
regard to their planning process by virtue of their non-profit status and corresponding
community benefit obligations set forth by state and federal law. Specifically, we believe that
their request for D1 zoning approval be approved but conditioned upon first the submission of
a concept plan that demonstrates a sincere - even if preliminary - incorporation of community
feedback gathered to date. Note: we have communicated this request to our D4 Council
Member, Ana Valdemoros.
2. The fourth text amendment element re: internal retail should be conditional and
limited
As communicated by surrounding businesses, we are concerned that the fourth element of the
proposed text amendment, "Retail, sales and service accessory use when located within a
principal building and operated primarily for the convenience of employees: Permitted”
should be only conditionally approved and limited.We strongly recommend against internal
retail developments that impede the full beneficial impact of Intermountain's workforce and
clientele on the surrounding retail community. We understand that Intermountain would
reasonably want food options for employees that allow them to stay close to their
responsibilities but an approach similar to the Medical Center in Murray with a variety of
internal restaurants would undermine the objective to support the existing retail community.
Thank you for your consideration on this.
--
Tom Merrill
Downtown Community Council
From:Erik Bieging
To:Planning Public Comments
Subject:(EXTERNAL) No IHC hospital downtown without comprehensive reproductive healthcare
Date:Saturday, March 25, 2023 12:17:45 AM
Hello,
The following comments are intended to be read for the planning commission regarding
Intermountain Healthcare's request to rezone 754 S State Street (the Sears block):
With the passage of H.B. 467 during the most recent state legislative session, hospitals will
soon be the only institution legally allowed to provide abortion services in Utah. The two
providers of routine abortion in the state, Planned Parenthood and Wasatch Women's Center,
will soon be forced to close in May. Residents of Salt Lake City will have to travel hundreds
of miles to receive what the American Medical Association calls an essential healthcare
service.
Zoning offers communities the opportunity to align land uses with the needs of their residents.
When a new land use is granted, it should fulfill the needs of the community. At first glance, it
would seem that Intermountain Healthcare's proposal to add hospital functions as a permitted
use on their downtown property would improve access to healthcare for Salt Lake City
residents. However, Intermountain Healthcare has not and has made no intention to provide
routine abortion services at its hospitals, despite being uniquely positioned to do so. In Salt
Lake City, we already have access to tertiary care hospitals with extensive healthcare services,
but abortion care will soon be the exception. We should not grant a new hospital land use
unless the hospital will provide the essential healthcare services that our residents need most.
Thank you,
Erik Bieging
Salt Lake City Resident
From:Clark, Aubrey
To:Roman, Amanda
Cc:Norris, Nick; Oktay, Michaela
Subject:Bird Friendly Glass
Date:Thursday, April 6, 2023 5:16:06 PM
Attachments:image001.png
Just received this in the MySLC portal:
Hello, Council Member Dugan received the below email from a constituent and referred the constituent to planning. Council MemberDugan is interested in seeing bird friendly windows implemented at the new IHC building. Thanks!
From: Jeanne LeBer <j >Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2023 2:17 PM
To: Dugan, Dan <dan.dugan@slcgov.com>Cc: Jeanne LeBer <; Linda Johnson ; GSLA Membership; Barbara Brown ; Cooper Farr <>;
Christopher Merritt <Subject: (EXTERNAL) Who could we talk to about building with bird-friendly glass?
Dear Dan:Our Great Salt Lake Audubon Bird-window Collision Working Group recently talked with you about building with bird-friendly glass.We noted the hospital building being built on the old Sears property is still in the planning phases. (See link in email below from LindaJohnson.)
Can you suggest a contact person we could talk to about using bird-friendly glass in the structure.
Appreciate you getting back to us on this.
Let me know.Thanks.
Jeanne
I am sure applicants don’t want us giving out their info. What would the proper response be here?
Aubrey Clark | (She/Her/Hers)
Administrative Assistant
PLANNING DIVISION | SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
Direct: (801) 535-7759 or Mobile: (385) 415-4701
Email: Aubrey.Clark@slcgov.com
WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING WWW.SLC.GOV
Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions as accurately
as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or prior to application are not
binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in response to a complete application to
the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest
any property with development rights.
5) MAILING LIST
OWN_FULL_NAME OWN_ADDR own_unit OWN_CITY OWN_STAT OWN_ZIP
S & S ROBERTS INVESTMENTS, LTD 338 E SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
ADY-CHASE, LP 535 E FOURTH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
QUALITY OIL COMPANY 4625 S 2300 E # 203 HOLLADAY UT 84117
KEN GARFF ENTERPRISES, LLC 111 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
TAYLOR AIR, LLC PO BOX 3390 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84110
700 SOUTH PARTNERS, LLC 180 N UNIVERSITY AVE PROVO UT 84601
AXIOM PROPERTIES III, LLC PO BOX 3390 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84110
HARRIS & HARRIS, LC PO BOX 71979 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84171
D STEVEN BREWSTER; DANA S BREWSTER (JT)657 S MAIN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
THIRD RIVER REAL ESTATE CORPORATION 4701 N STONEHAVEN LOOP LEHI UT 84043
LOTUS WINTER, LLC 338 E SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
CITY GREEK LLC PO BOX 520795 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84152
DELUXE MANAGEMENT, INC 662 S STATE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
PEZELY, PROPERTIES LLC 1433 S CHANCELLOR WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108
BNOLLC 68 S MAIN ST # 200 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
SINCLAIR REAL ESTATE COMPANY PO BOX 30825 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84130
CUP OF SUGAR INC 1383 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105
STANLEY D SCHUBACH PO BOX 128 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84110
SHELTER THE HOMELESS COMMITTEE INC 242 W PARAMOUNT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115
AM TALBOT & SONS LLC 273 E SIXTH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
700 GS, LLC PO BOX 3390 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84110
MOUNTAIN AMERICA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION PO BOX 2331 SANDY UT 84091
LOUIS A. MATE 1172 HWY 89 FISH HAVEN ID 83287
FOOD ALLEY LLC 722 S STATE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
ALTAF H SIAL 777 S STATE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
WILLIAM B SUTTON 825 S MAIN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
DENA LLC 26 E 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
NINTH STREET DEVELOPMENT, LLC PO BOX 65809 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84165
VINA ENTERPRISES LLC; SHERRY VINA 3751 S WASATCH BLVD MILLCREEK UT 84109
WILLIAM B SUTTON 823 S MAIN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
KIMWELL CORPORATION 1000 S MAIN ST # 104 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
STORE CAPITAL ACQUISITIONS LLC 2410 LILLYVALE AVENUE LOS ANGELES CA 90032
WOLF BUILDING LLC 20 W CENTURY PARK WY SOUTH SALT LAKE UT 84115
LC SMGA HOLDINGS 801 S STATE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
GEORGE S CASSITY 801 S STATE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
Current Occupant 676 S MAIN ST Salt Lake City 84101 UT
Current Occupant 18 W 700 S Salt Lake City 84101 UT
Current Occupant 16 W 700 S Salt Lake City 84101 UT
Current Occupant 690 S MAIN ST Salt Lake City 84101 UT
Current Occupant 755 S RICHARDS ST Salt Lake City 84101 UT
Current Occupant 750 S MAIN ST Salt Lake City 84101 UT
Current Occupant 702 S MAIN ST Salt Lake City 84101 UT
Current Occupant 16 W 800 S Salt Lake City 84101 UT
Current Occupant 808 S MAIN ST Salt Lake City 84101 UT
Current Occupant 659 S MAIN ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 640 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 679 S MAIN ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 29 E 700 S Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 31 E 700 S Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 43 E 700 S Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 47 E 700 S Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 61 E 700 S Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 660 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 666 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 680 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 34 E EARDLEY PL Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 49 E 700 S Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 57 E 700 S Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 665 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 675 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 131 E 700 S Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 709 S MAIN ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 36 E 700 S Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 48 E 700 S Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 56 E 700 S Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 68 E 700 S Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 728 S MAJOR ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 725 S MAJOR ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 735 S MAJOR ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 739 S MAJOR ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 730 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 748 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 62 E 700 S Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 716 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 754 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 711 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 735 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 741 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 745 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 749 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 14 E 800 S Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 56 E 800 S Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 60 E 800 S Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 827 S MAIN ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 830 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 802 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 810 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 38 E 800 S Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 833 S MAIN ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 817 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT
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
www.slc.gov/council/
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Austin Kimmel
Policy Engagement Coordinator
DATE:August 27, 2024
RE: 2020 FOOTHILLS PLAN EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT
View the Administration’s proposal
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
In March 2020, the City Council reviewed and adopted the Foothills Trail System Plan (the Plan). Shortly after
its adoption, Phase I trail construction began, resulting in over 15 miles of newly built hiking and biking trails.
The following year, in May 2021, Phase I construction was paused after concerns were raised about the Plan’s
planning process and construction methods.
In the Fiscal Year 2022 (FY22) budget, the Council approved a budget contingency requesting the
administration work with stakeholders to review the Foothills Trail System Plan and subsequent
implementation. The contingency has since been adopted as part of the City’s annual budgets and was most
recently re-adopted in the FY25 budget.
In summary, the contingency reserved in a holding account any new funding for the construction, modification,
and decommissioning of trails until the administration completed the following steps:
1. Collaborate with a broad spectrum of community stakeholders to evaluate the Plan and its subsequent
Phase I implementation,
2. Identify necessary adjustments or areas for additional engagement with stakeholders,
3. Obtain the Council’s review and funding release before proceeding with any additional implementation
of the Plan.
The contingency also outlined the Council’s willingness to fund one or more outside experts to evaluate the
Plan’s land preservation and stewardship strategies, respect for Tribal concerns, and request that the
administration identify strategies for improvement. The complete text of the FY22 contingency is provided on
page 7 (section B) of this staff report.
Throughout this staff report, the Foothills Trail System Plan, which was adopted in 2020, is frequently referred
to as “the Plan.” The Foothills Trail System Evaluation and Recommendations is frequently referred to as “the
evaluation” in this staff report.
Page | 2
Goal of the briefing: The Council will consider the department’s request for approval of the evaluation
findings and recommendations (the evaluation), and remove the existing hold on trail construction funding.
During the briefing, the Department of Public Lands will share more about the steps taken following the
adoption of the FY22 contingency, including the findings by hired consulting agencies and recommendations
for future trail development and maintenance.
Council staff is seeking a straw poll to determine whether the Council supports removing the trail construction
funding contingency, allowing the Department of Public Lands to continue implementing the Foothills Trail
System Plan and developing additional trail plans.
A public hearing is not required for this request.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. The evaluation recommends using big data and geolocation technologies to inform decision-making.
The Council may wish to ask the administration how, if it takes this approach, it plans to address
potential privacy concerns related to the use of geolocation data.
2. One of the evaluation’s recommendations was to break up the City’s trail network into smaller
geographical areas and apply unique “Foothill Open Space Zones” (FOSZ) to each area based on its
location. This may cause confusion because the term “zone” is generally used to refer to land use and
planning procedures. The Council may wish to recommend the administration use a different term when
applying the FOSZ concept to the City’s trail networks.
3. The evaluation emphasizes the need for a consistent public communication strategy, including dedicated
foothills rangers, improved signage, and coordination with stakeholder groups. The Council may wish to
ask the administration how it plans to fund and implement these communication efforts and whether
the administration believes more rangers or other personnel will be necessary as future trails are
developed.
4. The Council may wish to ask the administration to clarify the next steps and timelines for implementing
the evaluation’s recommendations, including the implementation of the FOSZ plans for the Foothills
Natural Area.
5. The evaluation suggests adopting a segment-by-segment planning and implementation process for
future trail projects involving planning, design, and implementation phases. The Council may wish to
inquire about the details of this proposed process, including how it will ensure thorough environmental
and cultural reviews, stakeholder coordination, and budgeting for each project.
ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Following the pause in new trail construction, Public Lands hired three primary consultants to independently
evaluate the 2020 Foothills Trail System Plan from three distinct areas of expertise:
SE Group evaluated the Plan and the subsequent Phase I trail construction. It also provided several
recommendations for the Administration. SE Group’s Foothill Trail System Evaluation and Recommendations
(the evaluation) can be found in Attachment B.
SWCA Environmental Consultants provided a baseline pre-NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act)
ecological and cultural report to inform future areas for trail development, restoration, and conservation.
SWCA’s final Foothills Natural Area Trails Baseline Environmental Evaluation Report can be found in
Attachment C.
DEA Inc. assisted the department and collaborated with the other two consultants with public communication
efforts.
Throughout the evaluation process, the Department of Public Lands worked with several stakeholders, including
other City staff and departments, residents, accessibility advocates, Indigenous community members, and other
agencies and groups such as the US Forest Service, the University of Utah, and local community council
representatives.
Page | 3
A. Summary of Consultant’s Evaluation:
The administration outlines that if the Council approves this evaluation and its recommendations, the
development of the Foothills Open Space Zones (FOSZ) should begin immediately. The evaluation
recommends additional trail management guidance to support the overall trail system to guide the work in
each area of the Foothills.
The transmittal notes that approximately $380,000 remains in existing Foothills Master Plan capital
funding. In a separate communication (see Attachment D), the Department of Public Lands indicated to
Council staff that it intends to use part of this funding to develop the FOSZ Plan. It also intends to
coordinate with key land management partners to create a formal agreement between SLC Public Lands,
SLC Public Utilities, the University of Utah, Utah State Parks, and the US Forest Service. Lastly, the
remaining funding will be used for new trail construction, landscape restoration, and wayfinding signage.
Public Lands anticipates that each FOSZ will include a request for more funding for planning and
construction. Because each FOSZ plan will identify specific trail system improvements, an exact cost for all
future trail construction could not be provided.
I. Methodology
The Foothills evaluation consisted of three components: an evaluation of the 2020 Foothills Plan and its
goals, an evaluation of the Phase I implementation management and the trails constructed during this
phase, and recommendations for future design and implementation. SE Group led the evaluation, which
worked with two additional open space recreation and restoration experts.
II. Findings
This section summarizes the evaluation findings. The summary below is divided into three sections:
Evaluation of the 2020 Foothills Plan, Evaluation of the Plan Goals, and Evaluation of the Plan
implementation.
a.Evaluation of the 2020 Plan
What the Foothills Plan does well
• Includes a significant amount of input from stakeholders and the public.
• Identifies the desire and need for an expanded, managed trail system to increase accessibility,
safety, and enjoyment for users and protection of the environment
• Identifies the diversity of potential users in the Foothills and their needs
• The Foothills Plan successfully identifies conceptual trail corridors to increase accessibility and
minimize conflicts between trail user types.
• The Foothills Plan provides high-level initial direction for the vision and goals of an expanded and
improved Foothills Trail System.
• The Foothills Plan’s goal of providing enjoyable recreation opportunities to the largest demographic
of residents and visitors is valuable.
What the Foothills Plan could improve upon
• Clarify and elaborate on the environmental damage caused by many unplanned trails.
• Include more specific implementation procedures.
• Propose more extensive trail alignment planning to match desired user experiences.
• Suggest more specific implementation strategies for managing natural and cultural resources
Page | 4
• The Foothills Plan does not accurately discuss how the existing and unmanaged 60+ mile system of
unplanned trails were damaging the Foothills and detracting from a sustainable trail system.
• The Foothills Plan lacks specificity in its implementation strategies
• The Foothills Plan provides only a high level reference to existing natural and cultural resources
within the City’s Foothills.
• The Foothills Plan depicts recommended alignments on a map for future trail development without
documenting segment purpose and experience.
The evaluation also found that the Plan and trail map in the 2020 document does not explicitly
acknowledge the illustrated trail alignments as conceptual, which may lead to confusion among staff,
stakeholders, and residents. It also does not emphasize the importance of conducting further field
analysis before moving forward with trail construction.
b.Evaluation of the Plan goals
The 2020 Foothills Trail Plan developed five goals for Salt Lake City trails: The trail system should be
Environmentally Sustainable, Enjoyable, Safe, Accessible, and Low-Maintenance.
SE Group analyzed each of these five goals and whether the Plan as written achieves the goals. The goals
are scored as meets goals, partially meets goals, and does not meet goals. The analysis is summarized
as follows:
Foothills Trail Plan Goal Does the Plan achieve the goal?
Goal 1: Environmentally Sustainable Partially meets goals
Goal 2: Enjoyable Partially meets goals
Goal 3: Accessible Does not meet goals
Goal 4: Safe Meets goals
Goal 5: Low Maintenance Does not meet goals
c. Evaluation of the Plan implementation
Phase I implementation of the Plan began immediately following the Council’s approval. It included four
primary projects: Lower City Creek Loop, Avenues Ridge/19th Ave/BST Valleyview, Popperton Trails,
and Twin Peaks/Dry Creek. A summary of the evaluation is included here for convenience.
What Phase I implementation did well
• New trail corridors enhanced user access to desired Foothills destinations.
• Trail design and construction created user-specific trails (separate alignments for downhill bikes
and hiking) meeting the Foothills Plan’s goals for increased safety and enjoyment.
• Closed eroding trail segments and replaced them with sustainably constructed alignments.
What Phase I implementation could improve upon
• Trail development occurred in some areas constrained by both overly steep terrain and challenging
soils.
• Construction quality of some segments was poor due to Inefficient planning and insufficient
oversight.
• Some trail segments were developed without a well defined purpose.
• Insufficient community outreach around changes to the trail network resulted in negative
community reactions to many changes, both good and bad.
Page | 5
• The existing unmanaged trail network and related restoration needs/historic impacts was not fully
accounted for in Phase 1 implementation.
III. Evaluation Recommendations
SE Group drafted several recommendations for the administration to consider in its future
implementation of the Foothills Trails Plan. These recommendations are one of the components which
the administration wishes for the Council to consider and approve.
As the evaluation from SE Group points out, it is important to note that these recommendations provide
suggestions and lay the groundwork for the administration’s future work. The recommendations do not
constitute a new or altered plan. Instead, they will inform a future management plan that the
Department of Public Lands will work on as it proceeds with future implementation of the 2020 Plan.
The evaluation identifies the following recommendations. These recommendations are discussed in
greater detail below.
•Conduct Restoration and Recreation Planning by Zone
•Adopt a Segment by Segment Planning and Implementation Process
•Develop and implement a Consistent Public Communication Strategy
•Prioritize the Maintenance and Enhancement of Existing Facilities
•Integrate Clear Wayfinding, Signage, and Information
•Increase Data Use to inform Decision Making
•Develop a Management Plan for the Foothills Natural Area
•Conduct Restoration and Recreation Planning by Zone
It is recommended that Public Lands develop a new zoning system to identify separate segments of
Salt Lake City’s foothills area. Currently, the Foothills are approached as one single unit, not
accounting for the differences in each area. As the evaluation points out, what may be a good approach
for the University area may not be the same for the area behind the Avenues.
The new zoning system is referred to as the “Foothills Open Space Zones (FOSZ)” in the evaluation
and is broken down in the chart below:
The zones should also account for individual area needs such as trail development, wayfinding
enhancements, restoration needs, and other amenities.
In communication with the department apart from the transmitted information (see Attachment D),
Public Lands indicated that each of the seven FOSZs will be developed individually and will likely
Page | 6
include a request for future funding for planning and construction work. This funding could come in
the form of Park Impact Fee funding requested through the Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
process and matching grants from the state. They will also explore private and federal funding
sources.
Each of the seven proposed Foothills zones and their needs are discussed in greater detail on pages 30
to 46 in Attachment B.
•Adopt a Segment by Segment Planning and Implementation Process
Following the implementation of the FOSZ, the evaluation recommends that the city adopt a more
formal, NEPA-like process that will help Public Lands to develop trails more thoughtfully, rehabilitate
trails, and access projects.
The recommendation outlines three phases for any future trail project: Phase 1: Planning, Phase 2:
Design, and Phase 3: Implementation. This approach would help the department define the project's
purpose and need, conduct a cultural and environmental review, and establish a clear construction
budget and specifications, all while coordinating with stakeholders along the way to create safe and
environmentally sustainable trails.
•Develop and implement a Consistent Public Communication Strategy
A primary concern the public had following the Phase 1 implementation of the 2020 Plan was a need
for more communication. It is recommended that the department develop and maintain a high level of
communication with the public going forward. The plan recommends strategies to do this, some of
which have already been implemented:
•Two dedicated Foothills Rangers.
•Improved trailhead, wayfinding, and field signage.
•Foothill Communications Channels (social media, dedicated website, email updates).
•Coordinating with the PNUT (Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry & Trails Advisory Board)
and community councils.
•Establishment of a "Key Stakeholder Group" to help inform future planning efforts.
•Prioritize the Maintenance and Enhancement of Existing Facilities
The evaluation recognizes the Foothills Plan does not provide an assessment of existing trails in the
foothills, which is essential in managing the overall system and expanding future trail development.
Existing and established trails have historically received minimal maintenance. Those trails should be
evaluated to determine if they provide value to the overall system.
•Integrate Clear Wayfinding, Signage, and Information
The evaluation recommends the administration create a unified wayfinding system, incorporate
educational signage, promote responsible trail usage, provide safety and emergency contacts and
guidelines, identify restoration zones, communicate community engagement opportunities, and
highlight accessible routes. The wayfinding system should also accommodate accessibility standards,
such as using colorblind safe colors.
•Increase Data Use to inform Decision Making
Since 2016, the City has maintained trail count data to help inform its work. The evaluation
recommends that the City continue using these trail counting systems and consider additional strategies
to collect this informative data. The recommended strategies include permanent and mobile counters,
manual counts and community surveys, integrating “big data” technology to collect this data, and
partnering with regional universities to assist with the dataset analysis workload.
Page | 7
•Develop a Management Plan for the Foothills Natural Area
A management plan should be developed and implemented to address the needs and preservation of
historic and new trails. Historically, the Foothills Natural Area has never been actively managed. The
management plan should be developed alongside the FOSZ plan.
Trail maintenance should be guided by the following principles: visitor safety, resource protection,
public investment preservation, and user convenience. The plan should also address ongoing
maintenance, which is needed regularly, and large-scale deferred maintenance projects.
B. FY22 Trails Funding Contingency
From Section 4 (Budget Contingencies) of the Council Budget Motion Sheet for Fiscal Year 2021-22:
2. Conditional appropriation about future dollars spent on foothill trails–Existing and new
funds for the construction, modification and decommissioning of trails built under the Foothills Trail
System Master Plan, Phase 1, will be placed on hold contingent on the Administration’s review in
collaboration with a broad spectrum of community stakeholders of:
a) the implementation to date of the master plan;
b) identification of adjustments or additional engagement as warranted; and
c) the Council’s authorization to move forward after the Council evaluates the results of the
process.
The City Council is willing to provide funding to the Administration for one or more outside experts who
can objectively evaluate the technical and public policy aspects of the trail changes and additions
completed to date and anticipated in the masterplan. That written evaluation should focus on, but not be
limited to, the extent to which trail planning and development have been consistent with the vision,
goals, and principles in the Master Plan, including best practices, strategies for the preservation and
stewardship of the land; and respect for Tribal concerns. In addition, the written evaluation should
include an analysis of how the process could be adapted to better meet the needs and desires of all users.
Existing and new funds for environmental studies will not be on hold, so long as such funds are not used
for construction or decommissioning of trails. Existing and new funds for maintenance or repair of
existing trails will be on hold, but may be released incrementally by the Council as information about
adherence to best practices and progress on community feedback is received.
C. Timeline
June 2016 – October 2018 – Salt Lake City begins drafting the Foothills Trail System Plan, conducts
outreach events, and coordinates with various stakeholders.
January 2019 – the Council receives its first briefing about the Salt Lake City Foothill Trail System Plan and
its goals to create an environmentally sustainable, enjoyable, accessible, safe, and low-maintenance trail
system.
January 2020 – the Council receives a briefing on an updated draft of the Foothills Trail System Master
Plan.
February 2020 – the Council holds a public hearing about the Foothills Trail System Master Plan, hearing
from nearly 30 residents.
March 2020 – the Council adopts the Foothills Trail System Master Plan following a follow-up discussion in
which concerns raised during the earlier public hearing were addressed.
March 2020 to May 2021 – the Department of Public Lands carries out Phase I implementation of the
Foothills Plan, which included the construction of over 15 miles of new trails.
Page | 8
May 2021 – Mayor Mendenhall holds a press conference to announce the continued pause of trail
construction while the City works with consultants to analyze the Foothills plan, the work completed in
2020-2021, and the Foothills Natural Area. June 2021 – the Council adopts a budget contingency placing
trail construction funding on hold in conjunction with the adoption of the FY22 budget.
January 2022 – February 2024 – three primary consulting agencies hired by the administration worked in
concert to produce the Foothills Trail System Evaluation (SE Group), the Foothills Environmental and
Cultural Resource Assessment (SWCA), and a Foothills Trails Public Communications effort (DEA Group).
ACRONYM GLOSSARY
•BST – Bonneville Shoreline Trail, a mixed-use trail in Utah following the shoreline of the ancient Lake
Bonneville.
•CIP – Capital Improvement Program – A multi-year plan of large project and equipment purchases that
are typically over $50,000 each. The City Council reviews the plan each year and decides which items to
fund.
•FOSZ – Foothills Open Space Zones, a proposed zoning approach to help inform a comprehensive
management plan for each of the seven zones, accounting for ecological and geographic differences.
•FY – Fiscal Year, the 12-month period used for budgeting, taxing, and accounting for government funds.
Utah cities have a fiscal year running July 1 through June 30.
•NEPA – the National Environmental Policy Act (signed into law in 1970) requires federal agencies to
evaluate the environmental effects of proposed actions before making decisions.
•PNUT – the Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry & Trails Advisory Board is tasked with providing and
overseeing strong stewardship of the City’s parks, natural lands, urban forest, and trails.
ATTACHMENTS
A.Administrative Transmittal
B.Foothill Trail System Evaluation (SE Group)
C.Foothills Natural Area Trails Baseline Environmental Evaluation Report (SWCA)
D.Staff Questions and Responses from the Administration
JANUARY 2024
FOOTHILLS TRAIL
SYSTEM EVALUATION
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
2Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Evaluation History 5
How to Use this Document 6
Project Process 7
Engagement and Outreach 7
Methodology & Trail Evaluation Criteria 8
Existing Use 9
Comparable Region Evaluation 13
Case Studies 14
THE 2020 Foothills Plan Evaluation 17
Methodology 17
Plan Overview 18
Goals Evaluation 20
Evaluation of Phase I Implementation 22
Lower City Creek Loop 23
Avenues Ridge/19th Ave/BST Valleyview 24
Popperton Trails 25
Twin Peaks & Dry Creek 26
Evaluation Summary 27
Recommendations Summary 29
Restoration and Recreation Planning by Zone 30
Prioritization of FOSZ Planning and Implementation 32
FOSZ Planning and Implementation Process 47
PHASE 1: PLANNING 47
PHASE 2: DESIGN 48
PHASE 3: IMPLEMENTATION 48
Public Communications Strategy 49
Prioritize the Maintenance and Enhancement of
Existing Facilities 50
Develop a Unified Wayfinding System 51
Increase the Power of Trail Counts 52
Develop a Management Plan 53
Operations and Maintenance 54
Maintaining the Outdoors: The Blueprint for Trail Care 55
Methods to Accomplish Quarterly Inspections 56
Next Steps 57
INTRODUCTION 3 RECOMMENDATIONS 28
EVALUATION SUMMARIES 16
INTRODUCTION
4Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Introduction
Salt Lake City is among the fastest growing metropolitan
areas in the nation. With a thriving population of outdoor
enthusiasts, and more new residents looking to take advantage
of Salt Lake City’s recreational resources daily, the Salt Lake
City Foothills are the vanguard of the city’s outdoor recreation
offerings. With more than 60 miles of natural surface trail and
several access points along the nearly 10-mile span of the
Bonneville Shoreline trail, the Foothills Trail system offers world-
class outdoors access to the City.
Historically, trail access throughout Salt Lake City’s Foothills
were largely unmanaged, beyond improvements to the
Bonneville Shoreline Trail. This changed when the Salt Lake
City Public Lands Department adopted the Foothills Trail
System Plan (the Foothills Plan), which provided detailed
layout, design, and management recommendations for a
non-motorized recreational trail system within the Foothills.
The multi-year planning process included extensive public
engagement and outreach, a three-phased trail development
plan, and design guidelines and implementation steps to
guide the Public Lands Department in the development and
management of an extensive regional trail system.
From 2020 to 2021, the City implemented Phase I of the
Foothills Plan which built and enhanced approximately 15
miles of new trails. Phase I removed some pre-existing trails
and altered some use restrictions of the current trail system.
Public reaction to Phase I implementation ranged from
strong support to significant concern regarding the impact
and quality of new trail construction. Some members of
the public expressed concern about the City implementing
new trail construction without established maintenance or
management plans.
Due to this mixed response, the City paused the
implementation process to evaluate Phase I work. This
evaluation has taken the form of a detailed environmental
review (Foothills Environmental and Cultural Resource
Assessment) and this document, which identifies appropriate
processes and methodologies to follow as the Foothills Trail
System Plan is implemented.
This document represents provides guidance and
recommendations for:
•The establishment of Foothills Open Space Zones to
guide land and trail management decisions.
•The adoption of a more robust planning and
implementation process that incorporates additional
ecological and community inputs and tiered design
process to achieve the vision of the 2020 Foothills Trail
System Plan
•Improving public communications
•Prioritizing maintenance of existing facilities
•Developing a unified wayfinding system to improve
overall sustainability and safety
•Expanding data resources to inform decision making
•Establishing a management plan for Foothills Natural
Area
Bonneville Shoreline
Trail
5Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Introduction
EVALUATION HISTORY
The Salt Lake City Department of Public Lands launched
the 2020 Foothills Trail System Plan (the Foothills Plan) after
extensive planning and public engagement with landowners,
stakeholder groups, and invested residents and trail users.
The Foothills Plan was an important first step to begin
management of a previously unmanaged urban-adjacent
open space resource. The Foothills Plan developed five goals
for the trails, considering the City’s growing, diverse population
and the high desert climate and ecosystems of the Foothills:
the trail system should be Environmentally Sustainable,
Enjoyable, Safe, Accessible, and Low Maintenance.
Phase I implementation of the Foothills Plan in 2020-2021
was both celebrated and criticized by the community. The
15+ miles of newly built and signed trails saw significant use
but also raised questions and concerns about planning and
construction methods. The City paused trail construction
in the summer of 2021 to conduct a thorough evaluation of
the Foothills Plan working to fulfill the promise of a “world-
class trail system” that employs best practices for its design,
construction, and maintenance.
The City hired three consultants to independently evaluate
the Foothills Plan from their various areas of expertise. SWCA
Environmental Consultants were hired to complete a baseline
pre-NEPA ecological and cultural report that will inform future
areas for trail development and for conservation. SWCA’s
evaluation was completed in May 2023 and was shared in
community meetings and online.
Natural area recreation planning specialists SE Group and their
subcontractors, trail industry experts Kay-Linn Enterprises and
Applied Trails Research, were hired to complete a thorough
evaluation of Phase I construction and plan implementation,
which has culminated in this plan document. This team
was also tasked with creating an additional appendix and
recommendations for inclusion in the Foothills Plan.
The SE team met extensively with SWCA’s team for more than
6 months to ensure a complete analysis was conducted. Lastly,
DEA Inc civil planning communications consultants were
brought on board to assist with community engagement and
bolster communications efforts to more effectively deliver
messaging to the City’s constituents.
This report documents the findings and recommendations
of the evaluation performed by SE Group and its team of
recreation and natural resource experts. Specifically, the scope
of SE Group’s work included:
Evaluation of and Recommendations for:
•The 2020 Foothills Trail System Plan, led by Alta Planning &
Design
•Phase I implementation for the Foothills Plan
•Future trail planning and implementation
Providing recommended procedures for:
•Developing a wayfinding and signage system
•Developing a maintenance plan
•Evaluating current and future trail use
•Integrating the 2020 Plan into a future Foothills
Management Plan
6Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Introduction
HOW TO USE THIS DOCUMENT
To Learn the History of Salt Lake City’s Planning for
improvements to the Foothills Trail System, refer to the
introduction portion of this plan.
To Understand the strengths and drawbacks of the original
2020 Foothills Plan and the phase 1 trail construction that
came after, refer to the evaluation portion of this plan.
To Review the Recommended changes to the trail design
and development process that will guide future changes in
the Foothills, refer to the recommendations portion of this
plan.
Introduction Evaluation Recommendations
7Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Introduction
PROJECT PROCESS
This Foothills Trail System Evaluation has been conducted in
concert with two other projects:
•The Foothills Environmental and Cultural Resource
Assessment
•A Foothills Trails Public Communications effort
These efforts have been sponsored by the Salt Lake City
to implement the Foothills Plan vision methodically and
transparently while following environmentally sound practices.
The Foothills Environmental and Cultural Resource Assessment
is a preliminary, landscape-level environmental evaluation. The
assessment does not provide a level of detail suitable for trail
construction. This more granular level of detail is intended to
occur at later dates as precise trail alignments are determined.
Historically, a NEPA-level environmental review has only
been required for projects on United States Forest Service
(USFS) and other federal lands. The City Department of Public
Lands has determined that NEPA-level evaluation should be
performed on all future alignment proposals regardless of
land ownership. Findings from the environmental and cultural
resource assessment have directly informed this document’s
consideration of potential environmental, cultural, and
geotechnical resources throughout the foothills.
Additionally, the Department of Public Lands enlisted
the services of a communications consultant to enhance
transparency within this Foothills Plan evaluation process, and
convey expectations for future planning and development
within the Foothills. The consultant has been tasked to
support public communication on Foothills projects, guiding
engagement and messaging to residents, stakeholders, and
trail users.
Engagement and Outreach
This report summarizes professional assessments of the
Foothills Plan and Phase I implementation, along with Salt
Lake City residents, City staff, and stakeholder assessment.
Stakeholders consulted during this process include:
•SLC Engineering
•SLC Communications
•SLC Sustainability
•SLC Fire
•SLC Planning
•SLC Emergency Services
•SLC Public Utilities
•SLC Public Lands
•SLC Transportation
•SLC Mayors Office
•SLC Community Council Representatives
•Diversity advocates, US Forest Service, and Indigenous
community members
•Accessibility Advocates
•University of Utah
•Salt Lake City and regional trail and conservation advocates
The project team conducted an extensive listening tour of
these City Departments, stakeholder and leadership groups
from October 2022 through March 2023. Additional follow-up
sessions were conducted to fully address concerns and identify
an appropriate process for Trail System Plan Implementation.
Ten internal stakeholder interviews, four external stakeholder
meetings, two public workshops and two public presentations
were coordinated to gather broad public feedback regarding
the perceived benefits and drawbacks of the first phase of
implementing the Foothills Plan.
Key themes from this engagement process included:
•A need for improved wayfinding and signage throughout
the Foothills
•A need for improved communications to the public and
within city departments for plans and activities within the
Foothills.
•A need to promote responsible trail etiquette among users
•A need for clear evaluation of environmental impacts of any
proposed changes to the Foothills landscape
•A need to balance recreation, accessibility, and
environmental stewardship throughout the Foothills
These themes and additional feedback are integrated into this
document’s recommendations and summary.
8Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Introduction
METHODOLOGY & TRAIL EVALUATION CRITERIA
Before reviewing the 2020 Foothills Trail System Plan (the
Foothills Plan), the project team developed both sustainable
trail objectives and trail system guiding principles to provide
foundational guidance to the Foothills Trails Evaluation.
Sustainable Trail Objectives
Sustainable trail objectives provide a common language
between the City’s Public Lands Department, elected officials,
and the community. These sustainable trail objectives identify
best-practice outcomes for trail systems which provide long-
lasting and low-impact resources. These objectives include:
•Maintenance & Stewardship: Trail systems should require
minimal maintenance and be supported by appropriate
resources for ongoing enhancements and maintenance.
•Ecological Sustainability: Trail design should minimize
use-related ecological impacts on surrounding habitats and
ecosystems.
•Physical Sustainability: Trails should be built to retain
physical form over time while meeting the diverse needs
of different user types. Sustainable trails which maintain
physical resilience should actively minimize user conflict
through strategic design, such as maintaining line of sight
and appropriate widths where possible.
•Social Sustainability: Trails should prioritize social
sustainability to ensure easily navigable spaces for all users
regardless of age, level or ability. Trails should allow users
to reach desired destinations, such as viewpoints, with
clearly defined and purposeful construction. Cultural and
ecological interpretative signage as well as wayfinding and
regulatory signage is a crucial part of telling the “story” of
the Foothills and educating users regarding appropriate
use.
Trail System Guiding Principles
Guiding principles serve as broad criteria for evaluating
Salt Lake City Foothills management decisions. Rather
than strict guidelines, these principles act as focal points
during the decision-making process. Decisions can be
made outside these principles, but such deviations should
be intentional, accompanied by clear justification, and a
rationale demonstrating how the decision aligns with the goals
established in the Foothills Plan or other guiding documents.
These principles are:
•Support current and future use with minimal impact to the
area’s natural systems and wildlife
•Develop trails in areas already influenced by human activity
•Provide buffers to avoid/protect sensitive ecological and
hydrological systems
•Produce negligible soil loss or movement while allowing
native vegetation to inhabit the area
•Provide ongoing stewardship of the trails and adjoining
natural systems
•Ensure continued management and maintenance for the
system
•Accommodate existing sustainable use while allowing only
appropriate future use
•Recognize cultural needs in and around trail systems
•Work to provide a diverse system with inclusive
opportunities for all users
When applied to the Foothills Plan, these objectives and
principles reveal gaps and inconsistencies related to best
practice techniques, design guidelines, key construction
and maintenance principles, management strategies, and
proposed trail locations.
Sustainable Trail Example
Unsustainable
: Erosion and
trail braiding
due to steep
alignment and
trail design
Unsustainabl
e: Trail
widening or
“braiding”
9Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Introduction
EXISTING USE
To understand current trends and conditions regarding
trail use in the Foothills system, the project team consulted
available trail data. This informed the analysis of the 2020
Foothills Plan and subsequent recommendations.
The Salt Lake City Foothills Natural Area represents a valuable
open space asset adjacent to a large metropolitan population.
This asset should be open and accessible to visitors of all ages,
abilities, and backgrounds.
For years, many Salt Lake City hikers and bikers have enjoyed
access to the Foothills trails. Yet significant barriers remain for
large portions of the City’s population. Informal access points,
limited wayfinding and information, and steep and challenging
terrain create barriers for entry for many residents and visitors.
Experienced trail users may not recognize these hurdles and
these users only represent a fraction of the potential user base.
The City has compiled trail use data from crowdsourced apps
and trail counters at key access points along the Foothills.
These data provide important insights into trail use. However,
they do not tell the full story of access to the Foothills trails.
Beyond this data, the City is learning more about the real and
perceived barriers to entry for many community members
including those who face barriers to trail access or do not feel
comfortable using the trails.
The City acknowledges these barriers and will work to meet
unmet demand and make the Foothills Trail System an
inclusive community resource.
University Medical Campus Utility Road
10Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Introduction
Ensign Frontside Trail Use
Salt Lake City’s Trail Count Data
Since 2017, Salt Lake City has operated multiple infrared trail
counters throughout its trail network. 16 unique sites have
been measured, 9 of them within the Foothills. The inset map
illustrates current Salt Lake City trail counter locations (in pink).
Many locations have been gathering data for five years or more,
providing excellent opportunity for analysis and use of data
to guide decision making. This technology identifies users
crossing an infrared beam, but can not distinguish between
user types (hiker, biker, etc)
This data can be consulted when building each year’s
maintenance and restoration priorities. Use in a given area can
be measured by Average Daily Traffic (ADT) - a simple average
of users measured passing through a trailhead on an hourly,
daily, seasonal, or annual basis.
These data systems are not foolproof and data must be
reviewed by staff familiar with the dynamics of Foothills use to
scrub data for outliers or errors. Once cleaned of data outliers
and errors, each of these locations has a large amount of 24/7
data that can illustrate use patterns across time and compare
use between sites.
Data from these counters were used to generate information
on this and the following page, providing a brief overview of
trail user data in the Foothills.
Ensign Trail Data
The popular Ensign Peak Trail has approximately 4 full years
of data available between 2019 and 2023. Illustrated to the
right, this trail sees significant use throughout the year. Spring
peak use volumes are notable, cresting at figures that relate to
approximately 36 users each daylight hour in May.
Seasonal fluctuations are mirrored across this and other
counter datasets - with peak use happening in April / May /
June, and lowest use levels occurring in the coldest months of
December / January / February.
Trail Counter Locations as of winter 2023
source: trafx.com
Ensign Trail Use
20,000
18,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Ensign 2019 Ensign 2020 Ensign 2021 Ensign 2022 Ensign 2023
Foothills Sites Number of
data years Est 2022* ADT
Emigration Canyon Trailhead 7 521
18th Avenue TH 7 469
Ensign Peak TH 7 350
Tunnel Springs Trailhead 6 231
Mouth of Dry Creek 8 113
H-Rock/Devonshire 6 102
Bottom of Bobsled 6 58
Victory Road TH 6 42
Tomahawk Drive TH 6 28
Other Public Lands Sites
PHNP Main Road 2 937*
PHNP Upper Gate West Side 7 726
PHNP Upper Gate East Side 7 668
Hidden Hollow 6 461
Miller Park 6 101
Wasatch Hollow 6 35
McClelland Trail 6 91
*Indicates Average Daily Traffic (ADT) from years prior to 2022 due to data
avail.
11Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Introduction
Public TH Use Comparison
Trailhead Data
Three trailhead entrances have associated counts: Emigration
Canyon, 18th Avenue, and Tunnel Springs Trailhead.
Emigration Canyon and 18th Ave Trailhead have the most
complete datasets (most full years of counts available), and
after review and removal of outlier counts, the chart on this
page was produced to provide an overview of their historic use
patterns.
The takeaway from Foothills trailhead data is the significant
volumes of use at all times of the year. Averages of 15,000 to
20,000 users is not unusual during spring months and reflects
a baseline for use in the future. Even in the winter, low counts
show 5,000-6,000 users at a trailhead every month (or a
minimum of 166 users a day).
These data illustrate differences between individual trailheads,
such as differences in seasonal use rates. An example of this
would be that between November and February, Emigration
Canyon Trailhead averages higher use rates than I Street
Trailhead.
Trailhead Data Collection
In addition to this count data, Public Lands is developing a
novel method to measure relative levels of use throughout the
system - signage with a special QR ‘check-in’ code. Users will be
encouraged to scan a QR code (unique to each specific public
trailhead) that inquires about the user’s zip code, and type of
use (i.e. hike vs. bike; dogs). In turn, this will provide the City
with data to review the time, location, and volume of check-ins
across the network.
This system will by no means count every trail user, but can
represent a portion of total user access. This portion will likely
be consistent across the network. By correlating QR use with
known trailhead counts, Public Lands will be able to gauge
a relative level of use at each trailhead. The data will inform
maintenance and management of trailheads and can also be
used to apply for grant funding.
A low cost way to further leverage this data could be to partner
with a university to conduct manual user counts at trailheads
with QR codes, and specifically note what percent of trailhead
visitors engage with the QR codes. Manual intercept user
surveys can also help identify the distribution of user types -
something not possible with traditional trail counters. Survey
and manual count approaches are described in greater detail
in the recommendations section of this document.
In addition to surveys and manual counts, “Big Data” on
human mobility information from vendors like Placer.AI and
Strava Metro can help illuminate usage patterns, particularly
when paired with a robust trail counter dataset.
40000
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Emigration 2018 Emigraiton 2019 Emigration 2020 Emigraiton 2021 Emigration 2022 Emigraiton 2023
I st 2018 I st 2019 I st 2020 I st 2021 I st 2022 I st 2023
Public Trailhead Use Comparison
TRAILHEAD
USE AVERAGES
BETWEEN
160 AND 600
USERS DAILY.
12Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Introduction
Broader Growth Trends
More people on the Wasatch Front means more demands on
the Foothills. Plan for Growth.
Salt Lake City is a rapidly growing metropolitan area in a fast
growing state. This translates directly into surging demand
for and use of public trail and open space resources. As any
state demographer would point out - Utah must plan and
outdoor recreation sector contributes a significant $6.1 billion
to the state’s economy, employing over 66,000 individuals
and representing 2.7% of the state’s gross domestic product.
Outdoor recreation is a primary driver of Utah’s thriving tourism
industry.
The outdoor recreation sector has experienced substantial
growth, with a 27.3% increase from 2020 to 2021. In the Salt
Lake City Metro Area, the surge in outdoor recreation is evident
in the rising counts of trail use, corroborated by data and
anecdote alike.
prepare for more demands on resources, be they housing,
transportation, or the Salt Lake City Foothills.
By 2023, the population of the Salt Lake City Metropolitan
Area, (SLC and Tooele Counties per the US Census) reached
approximately 1,203,000, indicating a 0.92% increase compared
to the previous year. In recent years, both the metro area and
Salt Lake County have consistently demonstrated significant
population growth rates, with the metro area growing at a rate
of approximately one percent annually and Salt Lake County
experiencing growth of about 1.25% annually.
Projections from the University of Utah suggest that Salt
Lake County will continue this robust growth trend, with the
population projected to reach around 1.67 million by 2060. The
demand for recreational activities is expected to follow this
same growth pattern.
In recent years, participation in outdoor recreation in the
United States has witnessed a notable increase, as indicated
by a record-breaking 54% of Americans aged 6 and above
engaging in outdoor activities at least once in 2021, according
to the Outdoor Foundation’s 2021 Report. This upward trend
has been consistent over the past few years and was further
fueled by the COVID-19 pandemic. The State of Utah mirrors
this pattern, particularly in terms of its economic impact.
The Utah Division of Outdoor Recreation reveals that the
OUTDOOR RECREATION PARTICIPANT COUNT AND
PARTICIPATION RATE 2007 TO 2022
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
56%
54%
52%
50%
48%
46%
44%
Source: Outdoor Foundation’s 2023 Outdoor Participation Trends Report.
O
U
T
D
O
O
R
R
E
C
R
E
A
T
I
O
N
P
A
R
T
I
C
I
P
A
N
T
S
(
M
I
L
L
I
O
N
S
)
P
A
R
T
I
C
I
P
A
T
I
O
N
R
A
T
E
13Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Introduction
COMPARABLE REGION EVALUATION
How will case studies help this plan?
Case studies are instrumental in providing valuable insights,
facilitating informed decision-making, and optimizing the
effectiveness of this evaluation. To offer a comprehensive
perspective, three peer agencies from comparable
communities across the western United States have been
selected. These agencies were chosen for their parallel
approaches to trail development, community engagement,
and sustainable land management, making them relevant
benchmarks for Salt Lake City’s Foothills Trail System.
Jefferson County Open Space (Jeffco) has coped with growth
similar to Salt Lake City’s. Jeffco has dealt with growth and
demand by renewing focus on partnerships with local
organizations and municipalities through a grant program and
overarching open space management guidance.
Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks offers an example
of how a public agency can commit to maintaining steep
and informal trails. This agency is also known for proactively
planning for future growth and managing staff sustainability
and equitably.
In Boise, a trails-focused Ridges To Rivers partnership manages
trails on a variety of BLM, USFS, City and State lands with
highly skilled staff with strong volunteer support. They are
an excellent example of a capitol city-adjacent open space
district working well among numerous state and federal land
managers.
As SLC Public Lands strives for growth and innovation, case
studies offer opportunities for learning from peers. SLC Public
Lands should look to these organization for model strategies
and approaches that can be adopted and tailored to Salt Lake
City’s foothills.
Summary of Comparable Region Case Studies
Comparison
Location Population Staff Management
Strategy
Maturity of
Management
Plan
Trails/Acres
Managed
Partnership
Entities
Jefferson
County, CO 579,581 120, 300 active
volunteers
Managed By County
Department and
Friends Of group,
Strategic Plan
updated every
5-Years;
Established in
1972
265 miles of trail;
56,000 acres of
preserved land
Neighboring
jurisdictions,
USFS, Colo.
Parks and
Wildlife, CO Dept
of Agriculture,
Nonprofits
Boulder, CO 105,485 133
Managed By City
Department with
management/
acquisition
recommendations
by Open Space
Board of Trustees
Established in
1967
155 miles of trail;
100,000 acres of
open space and
managed land
USFS, Colo. Parks
and Wildlife,
Nonprofits
Boise, ID 511,931
10 Paid Staff;
15 Volunteer
Rangers
MOU Partnership Established in
1992
210 miles of trail
crossing and
connecting
85,000 acres of
land
City of Boise,
Ada County,
BLM Four Rivers
Office, Boise
National Forest,
Idaho Dept of
Fish and Game
Salt Lake City,
UT
City – 199,153
County -
1,068,295
3 Paid Staff;
2 Paid
Rangers
Managed by City
department with
MOU partnerships
with USFS, Utah
State Parks, and
University of Utah.
Foothills Plan
established in
2020.
City – 6,000 acres;
60 miles of trail
USFS, U of U,
Utah State Parks,
SLC Public
Utilities
14Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Introduction
CASE STUDIES
Jefferson County Open Space (Colorado)
Jeffco Open Space was founded as a land conservation
organization in 1972 by PLAN Jeffco and The League of Women
Voters of Jefferson County. These organizations proposed a
unique concept to the Board of County Commissioners to
preserve the scenic vistas and open lands within the county
using the collection of one-half of one percent tax on sales
in Jefferson County to fund the program. The voters agreed,
ensuring perpetual land conservation, stewardship of open
space and parklands, and access for public enjoyment.
Jeffco Open Space contributes to city and park district projects,
has preserved more than 56,000 acres, and manages 27
open space parks and 265+ miles of trails in Jefferson County,
Colorado.
Planning is completed on a variety of levels in a recurring
fashion. Designated mostly as parks, site-specific, detailed
individual park master plans are developed to concur with
an overarching, short range Jeffco Trails Plan and a similar
broad, strategic 5-year recurring Jefferson County Open Space,
Conservation Greenprint, both of which provide Jeffco Open
Space vision, goals, and metrics.
Jeffco Open Space has historically operated successful
volunteer trail stewardship programs, engaging individuals
and groups in trail assessments and volunteer work events.
As the municipalities within the County have rapidly grown,
Jeffco Open Space has developed the more formal Trails
Partnership Program to more efficiently target organized
groups and municipalities in assisting Open Space with
mutually beneficial projects. Key to this engagement is a grant
program that provides supplemental funding to assist partners
in implementing their priority projects (i.e. trail construction,
maintenance, amenities, stream restoration, tree planting,
etc.) within Jefferson County. Grants are awarded on an annual
basis. One grant application per year may be submitted by
each partner. Jeffco Open Space will consider funding up
to 25% for local projects and 50% for regional projects. Local
projects are defined as projects occurring within a single
jurisdiction while regional projects occur across multiple
jurisdictions.
Jefferson County, CO Open
Space
15Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Introduction
City of Boulder Open Space & Mountain Parks (Colorado)
Originally Boulder Mountain Parks, the conservation of
the foothills backdrop to the City of Boulder was originally
driven by not just a desire for conserving important lands for
habitat and recreation, but also to protect a visual backdrop
of undeveloped land to the west of the City. Formal trail and
natural resource planning was minimal for decades until steep,
informally developed routes, primarily to access numerous rock
climbing areas, were significantly degrading natural resource
conditions and spawning parallel routes, trampling vegetation,
and increasing erosion.
Trail by trail reconstruction of these routes began in the late
1980’s at great expense to staff time and labor. The amount
of resource damage so overwhelmed staff that, with the
advent of mountain biking, staff and City Council formally
banned mountain biking on Open Space trails in 1994 for
fear of more trail damage. That use ban was lifted in 2005
and recent research by the Open Space staff indicates no
greater deterioration on trails shared by mountain bikes and
pedestrians, as well as the highest percentage of individuals
remaining on trail by use type (mountain bikers, hikers, trail
runners, dog walkers, and equestrians). Additionally, the trails
shared by mountain bikers are collaboratively maintained by
local volunteers and Open Space staff.
Trail reconstruction of the steeper hiking/climbing trails that
began in the 1980’s continues today, often at great expense
and far beyond the capabilities of staff or volunteers. Millions of
dollars have been allocated to specialized trail contractors over
the last decade on less than 20 miles of trails as the demand for
accessing these locations remains incredibly high. With more
than 46,000 acres of open space to manage, Boulder Open
Space and Mountain Parks initiated a strategy for developing
trail plans for smaller, contiguous geographic areas around
2010.
That strategy helped balance specific resource management
needs with public access and recreation rather than
depending on one overarching approach to its entire open
space system. As subsequent areas went through formal trail
planning, adopted area plans were being implemented by staff
and partners.
City of Boise, Ridge to Rivers (Idaho)
The vision of preserving the foothills of Boise dates back to the
1940s when community leaders were discussing the future
of the hills that had been part of the Boise Army Barracks
military training area. In 1992 a variety of local, state and
federal agencies combined their efforts to turn this dream
into reality - the Ridge to Rivers partnership was formed. The
Ridge to Rivers partnership consists of the City of Boise, Ada
County, the Bureau of Land Management Four Rivers Field
Office, the Boise National Forest and the Idaho Department
of Fish and Game. The Partnership exists under a multi-
agency Memorandum of Understanding, with the City of Boise
serving as the lead agency. The success of the Ridge to Rivers
partnership is based on the concept of sharing funding and
expertise. By pooling limited funds and specialized knowledge,
this partnership effort can accomplish community goals
while using tax dollars efficiently. With a small staff of ten, but
including a full-time dedicated trail crew, the organization has
had great success in developing and maintaining a 210-mile
trail system.
Many landowners and citizens have given time and energy to
achieve the goal of an interconnected system of trails and open
space. With so many of the existing trails crossing private lands,
the landowners have been an important partner in creating
what has become a critical element of Boise’s quality of life.
Volunteers are also an important part of the maintenance of
the trails. Over 2,000 volunteer hours are applied each year in
caring for the foothills.
The organization operates in accordance with a 10-Year Trails
Plan, last updated in 2016, with guidance based on experience
zones (social to solitude) shaped roughly by proximity to the
City and elevation and/or distance from access points.
Boulder County, CO Open Space
EVALUATION
SUMMARIES
17Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Evaluation
THE 2020 FOOTHILLS PLAN EVALUATION
Methodology
The scope of this Foothills evaluation has three components:
an evaluation of the Foothills Plan and its goals; an evaluation
of the Phase I implementation management and the specific
trails; and an evaluation of the design and implementation
process for the future trail system in the Foothills.
The evaluation was led by a national recreation planning firm,
SE Group, which has a local office in Salt Lake City. In addition,
SE Group subcontracted two open space recreation and
restoration planning experts to lead field evaluation efforts.
Kay-Linn Enterprises has consulted on hundreds of trail
projects around the country to aid land managers in protecting
natural resources and enhancing community sustainability.
Their principal Scott Linnenburger holds a master’s degree
from Duke University in Environmental Management with a
focus on restoration and habitat planning and was a keynote
speaker at the International Trails Summit in April 2023.
Applied Trails Research is led by Jeremy Wimpey, PhD., one
of the country’s leading recreation ecology practitioners.
His applied field investigations help public lands managers
understand the phenomena and mechanisms associated with
visitor-use-related impacts to wildlife, water, vegetation, and
soils, and impacts to other users (degradation or enhancement
of users’ experiences) in outdoor settings. Jeremy and Scott
have partnered on dozens of projects around the country,
including many in the arid climate of the American West, to
address challenging and complex and recreation management
concerns.
This evaluation was conducted through geospatial and in-
person field review. The evaluation also integrated findings
from the 2022 pre-NEPA environmental and cultural resource
assessment to better understand cultural, ecological and soil
interaction with existing and proposed Foothills facilities.
In addition to this technical foundation, project team members
met with numerous SLC departments, committees, outside
agencies, and other stakeholders to gain an improved
knowledge and perspective on the implementation and
management of the Foothills Plan.
The project team conducted a thorough 14-day site review
and Foothills tour to gain a detailed understanding of current
conditions, Phase 1 implementation, and areas recommended
by the Foothills Plan for future development. During these
on-site reviews, the project team evaluated the condition
of existing and recently implemented trail sections, the
prevalence of invasive species along the trail corridors, erosion
and restoration needs, topography, soils and geology, and
future sustainable trail feasibility.
A comprehensive inventory of existing trail assets and
trailheads was developed using geospatial material from
the City, Utah’s State Geographic Information Database
(SGID), geospatial data produced through the pre-NEPA
environmental review, and data provided by local stakeholders
and agencies. This data was used to further support the
assessments presented in this evaluation.
18Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Evaluation
THE 2020 FOOTHILLS PLAN EVALUATION
Plan Overview
Overall, the 2020 Foothills Plan lays out an excellent framework
for the desired ‘world-class’ trail system. The goals are
appropriate and realistic for Salt Lake City’s high desert, urban
open space given the diversity of its residents and visitors and
the physical geography of the Foothills. Given the dynamic
nature of open space conservation and recreation planning,
the Foothills Plan has strengths and weaknesses.
What the Foothills Plan does well:
•Includes a significant amount of input from stakeholders
and the public.
•Identifies the desire and need for an expanded, managed
trail system to increase accessibility, safety, and enjoyment
for users and protection of the environment
•Identifies the diversity of potential users in the Foothills and
their needs.
What the Foothills Plan could improve upon:
•Clarify and elaborate on the environmental damage caused
by many unplanned trails.
•Include more specific implementation procedures.
•Propose more extensive trail alignment planning to match
desired user experiences.
•Suggest more specific implementation strategies for
managing natural and cultural resources.
The Foothills Plan provides high-level initial direction for
the vision and goals of an expanded and improved Foothills
Trail System.
The Foothills Plan successfully identifies conceptual trail
corridors to increase accessibility and minimize conflicts
between trail user types. By proposing alignments that
create more gradual trails, the proposed corridors should be
able to service more trail users. By separating uses in some
areas to specific trail corridors, such as separating downhill
bikes from other users, the Foothills Plan outlines the vision for
a safer and more enjoyable urban-adjacent trail network.
The Foothills Plan’s goal of providing enjoyable recreation
opportunities to the largest demographic of residents and
visitors is valuable. Extensive public engagement during the
initial planning process and during implementation identified
the desire and need for an expanded trail system that meets
the broader needs of the large and growing urban area of
Salt Lake City and the greater Wasatch Front. This goal should
continue to drive the implementation of projects across the
Foothills.
The Foothills Plan does not accurately discuss how the
existing and unmanaged 60+ mile system of unplanned
trails were damaging the Foothills and detracting from
a sustainable trail system. The Foothills Plan inadequately
accounted for the true extent of impacts resulting from
decades of unmanaged trail use, off-highway vehicles and
utilities creating scars to the landscape, invasive species spread,
and other activities encouraged by a historical legacy of little to
no formal management.
While the Foothills Plan recommends that some overly steep
routes be passively closed, it did not clearly communicate how
passive decommissioning is unrealistic in the arid Foothills
environment. Addressing the detrimental natural resource
impacts of widening and eroding ridgeline and riparian
gully trails, where species diversity and wildlife presence and
movement is generally higher, often requires permanent
closure through active restoration, barriers, signage and
community education.
The Foothills Plan lacks specificity in its implementation
strategies. It fails to equip the Public Lands Department,
a new trail system manager, with a thorough analysis of
suitable areas for trail development, as well as guidance on
construction and maintenance techniques. Furthermore, the
Foothills Plan recommends a simplified, contractor-driven
design-build approach, rather than offering detailed advice on
the comprehensive analysis of potential trail locations and the
provision of construction and maintenance guidelines.
19Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Evaluation
4400I2I2
I2
I2
I2
I2I2 D O W N T O W N
I2 I2 I2
I2
700 S
C E N T R A L C I T Y
I2
900 S
BELMONT AVE Liberty
Park
R
O
B
E
R
T
A
S
T B
L
A
I
R
S
T
P
A
R
K
S
T
200 S
400 S
COLFAX AVE 640 S
LOWELL AVE
VAN NESS PL
HUBBARD AVE
P
L
E
A
S
A
N
T
C
T
600 S
800 S
4
0
0
E
5
0
0
E
300 S
D
U
B
E
I
C
T
100 S
9
0
0
W
6
0
0
E
H
A
W
K
E
S
C
T
DA N S
EMERIL AVE
SOUTH TEMPLE
ST
IE DR
0 S
K
I
L
B
Y
C
T
3
0
0
W
ORCHARD PL
4
0
0
W
W
A
S
H
IN
G
T
O
N
S
T
100 S
6
0
0
W
20
0
W
20
0
E
700 E
8
0
0
E
500 S
3
0
0
E
W
IN
D
S
O
R
S
T
9
0
0
E
EAST
PL
11
0
0
E
BUENO
AVE
LINDEN AVE
FULLER AVE
E
L
I
Z
A
B
E
T
H
ST
1ST AVE
ST
A
TE S
T
S
T
R
I
N
G
F
E
L
L
O
W
C
T
12
0
0
E
2ND AVE
80
0
W
R
I
O
G
R
A
N
D
E
S
T
W
E
S
T
T
E
M
P
L
E
S
T
M
A
I
N
ST
O
S
T
P
S
T
Q
S
T
R
ST
S
S
T
D
O
U
G
LA
S
S
T
T ST
50 N
GENESEE AVE
E
L
I
Z
A
B
E
T
H
S
T
10
0
0
E
E
870 W
R
E
G
E
N
T
S
T
G
A
L
E
S
T
IO
W
A
S
T
L
IN
C
O
L
N
ST
HANOVER
PL
W
A
S
H
IN
G
T
O
N
S
T
J
E
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
H
A
X
T
O
N
P
L
1
0
0
0
E
G
R
A
N
D
S
T
LOWELL
AVE
G
R
E
E
N
ST
M
C
C
L
E
L
L
A
N
D
ST
SEGO
AVE
J
E
R
E
M
Y
S
T
E
D
I
S
O
N
S
T
LINDEN AVE
0 S
CIR
ARAPAHOE AVE
R
I
C
H
A
R
D
S
ST
W
E
S
T
C
T
D
O
O
L
E
Y
C
T
ELY
PL
W
O
O
D
B
I
N
E
S
T
PIERPONT
AVE
M
C
C
L
E
L
L
A
N
D
ST
SOCIAL HALL AVE
UPTON PL
V
O
L
N
E
Y
CT
M
A
J
O
R
ST GALLACHER PL
CHASE AVE
ALPINE
PL
PIERPONT AVE
300 S 300 S
L
IN
C
O
L
N
S
T
1
0
0
0
E
D
O
U
G
L
A
S
ST
700 S
700 W
ALAMEDA AVE
400 S
W
E
S
T
T
E
M
P
L
E
400 S
600 S
10
0
0
E
100 S
SUNNYSIDE
AVE
MICHIGAN
700
W
5
0
0
W
L
A
K
E
S
T
PACIFIC
AVE
500 S
13
0
0
E
U
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
ST
FIN
CH
GI
City
Creek
7000
74
0
0
7600
80 0 0
7 80 0
C I TYCREEK
THE 2020 FOOTHILLS PLAN EVALUATION
The Foothills Plan depicts recommended alignments on
a map for future trail development without documenting
segment purpose and experience. The Foothills Plan lacks
detailed specifications beyond regulated trail use to clearly
define the desired trail experiences, identify the beneficiaries
of each trail, and ensure that the Foothills Plan’s overarching
goals are achieved as alignments evolve through subsequent
site analyses, design phases, and construction processes. It
is essential to note that the trail alignments presented in the
Foothills Plan are purely conceptual and have not undergone
extensive ground-truthing for feasibility.
The Foothills Plan does not explicitly acknowledge the
preliminary nature of conceptual alignments nor emphasize
the importance of conducting further field reviews and design
assessments before moving forward with contracting and
construction activities. This phrasing may lead to confusion
among stakeholders, staff, and the community from believing
what is shown on the map will be constructed.
The Foothills Plan provides only a high level reference to
existing natural and cultural resources within the City’s
Foothills. The Foothills Plan delineates future habitat study
areas, many on United States Forest Service (USFS) land, but
does not provide specific guidance or a review process to
direct how to address the interaction between trail alignments
and identified natural and cultural resources. Importantly,
the USFS requires a more holistic approach that outlines the
time and evaluation process needed prior to trail design and
construction. This need is well articulated in the USFS Land &
Resource Management Plan. It is recommended that Public
Lands implement a more complete natural and cultural
resource analysis for all lands within the Foothills Trails System.
Tunnel Springs
Trailhead
!(
DAVIS COUNTY
SALT LAKE COUNTY
##MERIDIAN PEAK5948
2020 Foothills Plan Trail Map
The value of the Foothills Plan is as a set of master plan
recommendations - not specific trail alignments. The
Foothills map’s detailed presentation can incorrectly
communicate the message of a blueprint rather than an
outline. This map represents conceptual connectivity,
not specific alignments. (see page 4 of chapter 4 of the
Foothills Plan)
##ENSIGN PEAK5407 ##TWIN PEAKS6247
N
(!
Ensign
Downs
Park
(!
900 N !(
Warm Springs
VE
800 N Trailhead (!
REED AVE
Red Butte Canyon
Research Natural Area
PO HCR
A DR 700 N 15 FERN
AVE
700 N !((! Bonneville
Trailhead
600 N 600 N
500 N
400 N 400 N
C A P I T O L
H I L L
400 N
LER ##M O UNT VAN COTT6302
OURAY AVE
ARDMORE
Lindsey
Gardens
Park
KRISTIANNA CIR
PL AP OT
G R E A T E R
A V E N U E S
300 N
Memory Grove
Park Salt Lake
City Cemetery
HOYT PL
!(
Popperton
Trailhead
HILLSIDE AVE
200 N 200 N 200 N S ##RED BUTTE6598
DESTINATIONS + BOUNDARIES
Proposed Minor Trailhead
TRAIL NETWORK
EXISTING
Multi-directional Shared Use
Open To All Uphill Users/Downhill Bikes Prohibited
2ND AVE
NO ##
Proposed Major Trailhead I2 MOUNT WI
7106
(!
Existing Access Point Downhill Bikes Only U N I V E R S I T Y
O F U T A H 2I
TRAX Station Foot Traffic Only
School Bonneville Shoreline Trail !(
Project Boundary I2 2I
Habitat Study Area
PROPOSED
Multi-directional Shared Use
500 S
Cemetery Open To All Uphill Users/Downhill Bikes Prohibited Mount Olivet
Cemetery
Parks Downhill Bikes Only
Water Body Foot Traffic Only ¯E A S T
B E N C H
Sunnyside
Park
Salt Lake City SUNNYSIDE AVE
MILES
(!
Emigration
Trailhead
!(!(
0 0.5 1 HUBBARD AVE
MER DR
1600 N
DULUTH AVE
1500 N
EVERETT
AVE
17TH AVE
700 N
13TH AVE
12TH AVE600 N PENNY PARADE DR
11TH AVE
10TH AVE500 N
9TH AVEOURAY AVE
8TH AVE
GUNNELL PL 7TH AVESIMONDI AVE
5TH AVE
200 N
3RD AVE
E
A K
DR
DR
H
C
3RD AVE
M
L
Y
RI
Y
H
Y
D
A
W
DR
U
E
S
R
D
N
DRIVEWAY
I
L
V
T
R HOL O
L
A
I
P
T
E
N
R
F
C
A
IC
L
N
S
L
R
E
5600
L
O
E
FAIR
F
A
X
RD
E
I
R
HH
N
NO
R
T
H
HIL
L
S
DR
N
E
L
P
R
N IS
U
R
E
DR
W
W
K
D
A
I
E ST
H
L
RV
E
L
KOMAS
D
R
A
C
E
A
T
2
0
3
0 E
D
K
AL
S
I
EA
I
W
A
S
A
T
C
H
D
R
S
S
D
C
A
5400
B
E
C
K
S
T
T
A
D
W
M
M
E
1
9
0
0
E
S
2
0
3
0
E
E
E
54
0
0
C
H
I
P
E
T
A
W
A
Y
T
N
T
R
1
8
0
0
E
O
C
O
L
O
R
O
W
D
R
C
O
N
N
O
R
R
D
F
O
R
T
D
O
U
G
L
A
S
B
L
V
D
6
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
E
1
8
5
0
E
R
0
0
M
A
R
A
C
E
V
I
C
T
O
R
Y
R
D
L
M
S
E
W
A
L
L
S
T
P
I
S
T
F
O
O
T
H
I
L
L
D
R
B
R
R
H
N
G
S
4
8
0
0
I
M
6
4
0
0
4
0
A
M
E
L
PL
0
A
Z
U
9
0
0
W
C
O
N
N
O
R
S
T
R
D
R
E
C
I
I
C
H
T
C
A
P
L
6
O
5
S
5600
5
9
0
0
W
D
E
X
T
E
R
S
T
B
T
8
0
0
W
G
R
A
N
T
ST
7
0
0 W
RE
N
D
O
N
C
T
B
L
I
S
S
CT
B
E
A
U
M
O
N
T
C
T
5
0
0
W
5
0
0
W
P
U
G
S
L
E
Y
ST
B
A
LT
IC
C
T
Q
U
I
N
C
E
ST
M
A
I
N
S
T
C
O
L
U
M
B
U
S
ST
D
E
S
O
TO
S
T
C
O
R
TE
Z
ST
A
ST
B
S
T C
S
T D
ST
E
S
T
F
S
T
H
ST
J
S
T
K
ST
L
S
T
M
ST
M
ST
N
ST
ST
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
ST
V
I
R
G
I
N
I
A
ST
ALTA S
T
W
O
L
C
O
T
T S
T
15
0
G
U
A
R
D
S
M
A
N
W
AY
19
0
0
E
20
0
0
E
21
0
0
E
22
0
0
E
P
A
D
L
E
Y
ST
A
R
A
P
E
E
N
D
R
23
0
0
E
S
A
L
T
L
A
K
E
C
IT
Y
U
N
I
N
C
O
R
P
O
R
A
T
E
D
S
A
L
T
L
A
K
E
C
O
U
N
T
Y
6600
14
0
0
E
U
S
89
S
E
S
E
T
ER
CK
0
46
0
0
B
LG
E
EA
E
TS
L
C
E
O
L
R
A
P
I
5600
V
E
N EN
E
660
0
S
A
OL
T
RD
U
68
I
660
0 0
L
WAKARA
WAY
0
60
0
0
A P
64
0
0
E
D
TE
C
M
C
P
TT A
D
POLLO
C
K
RD
1700 N
0
E
E
N5800PCN
P
6200
R
EXPLORATION
WAY
N
U
B
S
0
STUDE
N
T
LIFE
WAY
U T
H
NO
R
T E
I
O
D
Red B
u
t
t
e
Creek
C
H
Y
E
6
R
2
A
E
A
B
C
O
ON
W
T
E
R
K
O
R
R
H
A
N
N
H
A
M
E
S
H
O
ST
A
RT
S
NTE
F
N
T
I
L
G T
5200
AL O
N
S
I
P
CAPITOL OAKS LN
N
C
R
ORE
G
D
ST
SI
T
T
VE
E
700 N
SALLIE
AVE
E
Y
H DR
A R
20Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Evaluation
GOALS EVALUATION
The Foothills Plan provides a set of five goals to capture the
vision for the Foothills Trail System. The goals aim for a Foothills
Trail network that is: Environmentally Sustainable,
Enjoyable, Accessible, Safe, and Low Maintenance.
The Foothills Plan’s achievement of each of its stated goals
varies, and is discussed further below.
Additionally, the Foothills Plan states that “the most suitable
slopes for trail construction are 8-20% in grade and require less
an unfortunate typo, as trails with tread gradients of 3-20% are
a generally recognized goal for sustainability.
Gradual slopes are problematic because it is difficult to
manage water off of trails built in these locations and social
trails can proliferate on these easily traversed slopes. This is
evidenced where sections of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail are
located on very gentle slopes and have developed muddiness,
trail widening and braiding, and other issues that make
for greater maintenance needs over time. A more refined
recommendation for sideslopes to accommodate sustainable
trails is 20-60%. These slopes are better at confining use to the
trail tread and can more readily accommodate trail designs
that are less prone to erosion.
destinations in as short a distance possible. While these types
of “peak bagging” trails are very prevalent throughout the
Foothills, they have considerable erosion, braiding, widening,
and natural resource-degrading issues. However, these
types of trails can be durably, if expensively, constructed and
maintained. If the Foothills Plan better recognized existing
use patterns associated with some of these steep, high-use
trails, Public Lands could take advantage of opportunities to
enhance existing informally developed facilities and focus on
connections rather than entirely new trail system development
- a potential cost and labor savings for the city’s teams as well.
Evaluation of Environmental Goal
The Foothills Plan identifies some sensitive ecological areas,
referenced as “Natural Habitat Areas.” Yet these areas did not
have formal recognition by the City or supporting evidence
for such a designation. The Foothills Plan could better
provide specific recommended actions to reduce erosion
and disturbance during construction and management of
the trail network. Despite well intentioned efforts, without
a clearly outlined Management Plan for environmental and
erosion issues, Salt Lake City staff are limited in their ability
to implement planned trail development and manage
environmental impacts.
Evaluation of Enjoyable Goal
The Foothills Plan correctly identifies the need to build “a
variety of experiences for users with different abilities and
interests.” Designing and building directional trails and
separate hiking, biking, or other user group specific trails is
a key facet of modern, high-use trail systems design. This
approach accommodates user desires while minimizing
conflicts between uses. This use-specific design and
management should be retained in future trail development.
A potential use consideration not covered by the Foothills Plan
is the desire of some pedestrian users (hikers and trail runners)
for a very steep, difficult experience that attains high quality
Evaluation of Accessible Goal
This goal seeks to expand access to recreation for users
of all ages and abilities. Yet the Foothills Plan conceptual
trail alignments cater heavily to experiences that would be
desirable for experienced and fit trail users such as longer
distances with higher elevation destinations and long loops.
Future trail planning should expand access to a broader suite
of abilities and address how new and less experienced trail
users might access, interact, and interpret the opportunities
presented. Shorter loops, out-and-back routes to easily
accessible scenic vistas, opportunities for passive enjoyment,
formalized barrier-free ADA experiences, mellow cross slopes
and appropriate trail widths for adaptive mountain bikes, etc.
should be considered, especially at major trailheads or transit-
accessed trails.
Goal 2: Enjoyable
Trails cater to a variety of recreation types, and to a variety
of desired experiences, including solitude, escape and
connection to the natural world; challenge and exercise;
and fun and excitement. Trail layout and construction is
optimized to the intended user group(s) of any individual
trail segment, and trails are routed to take users to
desirable areas and points of interest.
Goal 3: Accessible
Trails are accessible to a broad audience of beginner-to-
intermediate trail users, including families, seniors, and
people with disabilities. Trailheads are sited and designed
to make it easy for people to get on the trails, and are
connected to transportation routes. Wayfinding signage
and supplemental trail information makes it easy for
people to understand and navigate the trail system.
Foothills Trail System Evaluation Scoring
Green - Meets goals
Yellow - Partially meets goals
Red - Does not meet goals
Goal 1: Environmentally Sustainable
Trails avoid sensitive habitat, minimize erosion /
sedimentation and vegetation disturbance, and make
efficient use of available natural lands. The wild and scenic
nature of the Foothills landscape is protected. Fragile
natural or cultural features are avoided and trails direct
users away from closed or protected watershed areas.
21Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Evaluation
Evaluation of Safety Goal
These are excellent goals for modern, urban open space trail
system management. This goal is closely related to Goal 2
and the Enjoyability Assessment. Keys to avoiding potential
conflicts are the maintenance of adequate sight lines and
managing closing speeds between different users. Reducing
conflicts related to goal interference between users (i.e. passive
enjoyment of natural surroundings vs. fast paced fitness
training) is accomplished through messaging at trail access
points and ongoing on-trail outreach by rangers and volunteer
stewards.
Salt Lake City Public Lands can significantly improve
Emergency Management Services (EMS) efficacy in the
Foothills by enhancing wayfinding signage, establishing
emergency routes, and understanding road conditions.
There is a need for clear signage that integrates utility roads,
streamlining EMS access, reducing response times, and
optimizing efficiency. A comprehensive understanding of road
and trail networks together ensures emergency responders
and trail users can navigate with confidence, ultimately
enhancing safety throughout the Salt Lake City Foothills Trail
system.
Evaluation of Maintenance Goal
While thoughtful trail layout does reduce the creation and use
of informal trails, the Foothills Plan could have benefited from
greater clarity on the maintenance and/or restoration needs
for these existing routes and the “trade off” between new trail
construction and maintaining routes in-place. With a long
history of limited or no management of informally created
routes across the Foothills, there are long-established use
patterns that are difficult to change. These often much steeper
routes can be maintained in-place at a higher-than-typical
cost/labor burden. The Foothills Plan indicates that 41 miles
of existing routes would be incorporated into the formal trail
system, but does not hint at the different maintenance needs
for these trails above trails designed with improved water
management, lower trail gradients, and contour alignment.
Further, the Foothills Plan states 20.9 miles of trails will be
passively decommissioned. In a landscape of predominantly
arid grassland, passive trail closure is a near impossibility as a
limited number of use passes will keep these routes and their
destinations visible and eroding. Active closure and restoration
will be necessary to restore natural habitat and watershed
hydrology on these routes.
The Foothills Plan lacks a clear reference to the
maintenance needs and natural resource impacts of the
existing informal trail network. Addressing this issue going
forward should be a key focus of future Foothills land
management.
The lack of clear direction regarding the closure and repair
of the existing trail network has created confusion and
consternation for some trail users regarding the existing
impacts of the informal routes and the direction of long-term
management.
Goal 4: Safe
Trail user collisions and conflicts are mitigated and
minimized through trail design and use regulations.
Signage and natural barriers minimize incidences of lost
or disoriented persons, and make it easier for emergency
personnel to respond when needed. Trails are routed
to discourage trespassing on private property. CPTED
principles are incorporated in trailhead design to mitigate
theft and vandalism to parked cars.
Goal 5: Low Maintenance
Trails drain water naturally, follow contours instead of fall-
lines, and effectively encourage users to remain on-trail,
minimizing maintenance and reconstruction needs and
costs. Thoughtful trail layout reduces the creation and use
of informal trails and routes. Trails are sited to bring regular
trail users through “problem areas” to reduce incidences of
vandalism, graffiti, and illicit activity.
Seasonal Trail
Closure
22Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Evaluation
EVALUATION OF PHASE I IMPLEMENTATION
Following the adoption of the 2020 Foothills Plan by Salt Lake
City, Phase 1 Implementation began. This phase immediately
went to work developing recommended trail alignments
primarily in the area of the foothills behind the Avenues
neighborhood.
Key Projects included construction of:
•Lower City Creek Loop
•Avenues Ridge / 19th Ave / BST Valleyview
•Popperton Trails
•Twin Peaks / Dry Creek
The Phase I implementation of the Foothills Plan was both
celebrated and criticized by the community. This is to be
expected given the strengths and omissions of the Foothills
Plan as noted earlier.
What Phase I did well:
•New trail corridors enhanced user access to desired Foothills
destinations.
•Trail design and construction created user-specific trails
(separate alignments for downhill bikes and hiking)
meeting the Foothills Plan’s goals for increased safety and
enjoyment.
•Closed eroding trail segments and replaced them with
sustainably constructed alignments.
What Phase I could improve upon:
•Trail development occurred in some areas constrained by
both overly steep terrain and challenging soils.
•Construction quality of some segments was poor due to
Inefficient planning and insufficient oversight.
•Some trail segments were developed without a well defined
purpose.
•Insufficient community outreach around changes to the
trail network resulted in negative community reactions to
many changes, both good and bad.
•The existing unmanaged trail network and related
restoration needs/historic impacts was not fully accounted
for in Phase 1 implementation.
The following pages provide specific descriptions and photos
of the Phase I trail projects to evaluate the work and to educate
staff, stakeholders, and the community on best practices for
future Foothills Trail System development.
Round Circle teaching on the
BST
23Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Evaluation
EVALUATION OF PHASE I IMPLEMENTATION
Lower City Creek Loop
Pros:
•Good conceptual planning connecting the Capitol and
downtown and Memory Grove to natural lands with natural
surface trails; a much needed, access point to support a
diversity of new users.
•Thoughtful anchor points – places of interest such as views
of the Capitol and City Creek Canyon.
Cons:
•Slumping, unconsolidated soils are present in spots where
overly steep terrain and challenging soils are combined.
•Complex water management issues exist due to the
presence of the impervious road surfaces above much of
the trail.
•Improved specifications for the alignment and construction
practices would have mitigated the temporary large visual
impacts and left a more sustainable trail. Specifically,
utilizing a narrower trail excavator would have lessened the
height of the back slope cut, as well as installing enhanced
grade reversals and spot hardening of the trail in key
locations to better channel stormwater discharge from
Bonneville Boulevard.
BST East City Creek creates an important connection to Upper
Avenues trails with reasonable grades and enjoyable vistas.
Insufficient specifications for trail design and equipment
created unnecessary sloughing and visual impacts.
Inadequate slope analysis and design prior to construction
resulted in excessive impacts.
Lower City Creek Loop provides easy access trail experience
close to the Capitol.
24Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Evaluation
EVALUATION OF PHASE I IMPLEMENTATION
Avenues Ridge/19th Ave/BST Valleyview
Pros:
•The design of user-specific trails (separate alignments for
downhill bikes and hiking) follows best practices in modern
trail planning and meets the Foothills Plan’s goals for
increased safety and enjoyment.
•The re-routing and closing of the BST Valleyview segment
on the fall-aligned ridge to a trail that follows a natural
contour is more sustainable long term and will require less
maintenance.
19th Ave, Meadow, Avenues Ridge trail use: Densely designed
user- specific trails increasing safety and enjoyment for users
minimize impacted ecological areas
Cons:
•The 19th Ave trail was not executed to be a “beginner to
intermediate” trail for less experienced users as desired.
Redesign of many of the turns can address most of the
difficulty issues present.
•Changing the purpose of the Avenues Ridge Trail
(eliminating uphill biking) after construction began meant
that the alignment was not designed to be a hiking-only
trail which changes average grade and the design of turns.
Upper Aves mid saddle: New user-specific trails converge at
strategic junctions but ineffective restoration and
decommissioning efforts result in eroding and widening trails.
Comprehensive wayfinding efforts will be important to address
these issues.
•The closure of the BST ridge trail above Terrace Hills with
trenches was ineffective and not appropriate application
for the Foothills, which can be improved with more
experienced trail system management.
•The Upper Avenues area would have benefited from a more
thorough recreation and restoration planning by zone (See
p. 28 in Recommendations section) process. This process
would have given the Public Lands team and trail users a
specific vision and plan to accurately communicate and
implement.
19th Ave advanced option: 19th Ave trail built with over-
challenging features (left) redesigned to be more accessible
(right)
25Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Evaluation
EVALUATION OF PHASE I IMPLEMENTATION
Popperton Trails
Pros:
•Excellent conceptual planning with three distinct zones
(West, East, South) having well-defined goals. The Foothills
Plan’s goals of enjoyment and accessibility and safety are
all met by offering beginner skill and shorter distance
experiences. Given that Popperton is a lower Foothills
neighborhood open space and is adjacent to a City park
and community garden, its trails planning and design
align with the neighborhood’s character.
•The trail alignment’s designs and construction were of
good quality.
Cons:
•Pre-existing routes in need of restoration were not repaired
or actively decommissioned.
•The absence of a well-established trailhead and
insufficient wayfinding signage disrupts the user
experience and Popperton’s connection to the broader
trail system.
South Popperton erosion: South Popperton Walking Trail is
textbook “fall line” trail that should be realigned to shed water
and prevent erosion.
South Pop Bike Loop offers a safe and fun quarter-mile bike
circuit for beginner riders and children.
Popperton Ecological Site Visit: Public Lands Ecologists and
Natural Resource Specialists advised on alignments to avoid
sensitive ecology.
Popperton Kiosk: Minimal trailhead information is currently
available.
26Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Evaluation
EVALUATION OF PHASE I IMPLEMENTATION
Twin Peaks & Dry Creek
Pros:
•The Twin Peaks Trail represents a solid example of what
an intermediate to advanced trail to a peak can look like
elsewhere in the system. It has texture and grade reversals,
provides a longer outing at higher elevations, and integrates
steeper sections where rock, soils, and hydrology allow. The
new alignment would replace an overly steep ridge trail that
is only for the highest skill and fitness users.
•A sound decision was made by Public Lands to not move
forward with a Dry Creek trail alternate until a purpose is
defined and an appropriate alignment can be determined
on the ground. Given that the Dry Creek BST lies in a
seasonal creek bed, determining a new alignment could be
a priority.
Cons:
•The Twin Peaks Trail, while constructed well, did not have a
clearly defined purpose and its use-restriction was changed
after construction began. Planning the trail to allow uphill
bikes without having a descent for bikes was an oversight by
Public Lands staff.
Bonneville Shoreline Trail is built along contours in many
segments but needs tread repair to combat rutting water
erosion.
Dry Creek Trail: Trails in gully bottoms are prone to significant
water erosion and disturb critical wildlife habitat
27Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Evaluation
EVALUATION SUMMARY
The Foothills Trail System Plan suggests that its alignments are
conceptual and should be interpreted at a master plan level,
and will need further refinement:
“Proposed trail alignments shown in this chapter are a
‘planning-level’ representation of intended routes, which
provide connections between destination points, and
desirable trail experiences for a variety of users. In the final
implementation of proposed trail alignments, ‘construction-
level’ adjustments and modifications to the alignments
shown in this chapter are expected. “
Alignments alone do not communicate intended trail use
and purpose.
Developing a narrative for each identified zone within the
Foothills will help guide the development of trail segments
and connections which are well planned, designed, and
implemented. Effective communication will be supported
through a proposed system of sub-zones identified for the
Foothills (see recommendations chapter). These zones will help
develop context-sensitive trail opportunities and goals. This will
enable the City to provide a diversity of facilities for different
user types and build towards a trail network that provides
opportunities for all ages and abilities.
Environmental and cultural review of the Foothills Natural
Area has identified a wide variety of constraints.
A comprehensive environmental and cultural review
generally consistent with NEPA (National Environmental
Policy Act) standards is recommended for future proposed
trail corridors. This review should align with high-level
environmental standards and undergo a NEPA-level process
to determine specific alignment location and suitability
prior to implementation. This can be accomplished through
approaching the Foothills as a series of individual zones, rather
than a single entity. This can create a more manageable
workflow and efficient results and ultimately reduce the
number of lengthy review processes. Preliminary cultural
assessments of the area reveal that some sites are eligible
for the National Register of Historic Places. These spaces can
accommodate visitation within their vicinity by strategically
designing and developing trails that protect or showcase
cultural sites and interpret them from a distance.
Additional segment-by-segment evaluation is
recommended through implementation.
Establishing a flexible development strategy in which Public
Lands project managers work directly with trail design
and resource specialists on a segment-by-segment basis
is recommended to identify preferred alignments within a
designated corridor following an in-depth environmental
review. This strategy affords the City the flexibility needed
to make informed decisions during implementation, while
staying within the parameters of a thorough review process.
Some alignments identified within the Foothills Plan
should not be pursued for future trail development.
This specifically applies to trails routed along ridge tops and
within the bottom of gullies, areas which may be significantly
impacted by erosion and ecological damage. These alignments
should instead follow hillside contours with an appropriate
slope, crossing ridges and drainages as needed to provide
meaningful routes, connectivity, and access.
This report’s recommendations chapter provides additional
detail on areas where alignments may be inappropriate
and where additional environmental study and review is
recommended.
FOOTHILLS
TRAILS SYSTEM
RECOMMENDATIONS
29Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY
These recommendations are intended to support the 2020
Salt Lake City Foothills Trail System Plan vision and goals. By
addressing specific maintenance and management issues,
this report seeks to strengthen and expand on the framework
developed in the Foothills Plan.
Directing visitor use onto properly developed and well-
maintained trails should be the primary management
strategy for the overall vitality of the City’s Foothills Natural
Area. Focusing visitor use (rather than allowing it to disperse)
mitigates the impact of user created trails and establishes
sustainable long-term use patterns and habits among
trail users. With use patterns focused on sustainable trail
alignments, active environmental restoration of the user-
created and/or unsustainable routes is an additional, vital
component to responsible natural resource management.
These recommendations serve as a starting point for the
development and assessment of management approaches for
the Foothills. It is crucial to note that these recommendations
do not constitute a comprehensive management plan. Instead,
they lay the groundwork for future considerations.
Moving forward, it is anticipated that a more thorough Foothills
Trail System management plan will be established. This
future plan can delve into specific areas of concern, such as
steep hillsides and critical habitats, with the aim of crafting
appropriate land designations and implementing protective
measures.
It is important to recognize that these initial recommendations
provide essential insights for future planning, and their
implementation, even without a comprehensive management
plan in place, is vital to preventing potential harm to the
Foothills.
These recommendations include updated strategies to
responsibly design, approve, and implement the 2020 Foothills
Plan, with the objective to provide high-quality recreation
opportunities while preserving open space functions and
values with minimal impact to important environmental and
cultural resources.
Recommendations to implement the Foothills Plan through a
more balanced and environmentally sensitive planning process
include:
•Conduct Restoration and Recreation Planning by Zone
•Adopt a Segment by Segment Planning and
Implementation Process
•Develop and implement a Consistent Public
Communication Strategy
•Prioritize the Maintenance and Enhancement of Existing
Facilities
•Integrate Clear Wayfinding, Signage, and Information
•Increase Data Use to inform Decision Making
•Develop a Management Plan for the Foothills Natural
Area
The Foothills Trails System
Evaluation is part of an ongoing
review process for the Foothills
Trail System. It recognizes the
importance of on the ground
evaluation and thorough
environmental review prior to
implementation. This is intended
to address alignment concerns
early in a process and allow for
flexibility for alignment changes
based upon environmental and
technical findings.
30Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
CONDUCT RESTORATION AND RECREATION PLANNING BY ZONE
The Salt Lake City Foothills are not a uniform landmass.
The terrain, ecology, land use and social context varies
greatly across the area considered Salt Lake City’s Foothills.
Approached as a single unit, difficulties arise. What’s good for
the land behind the University may not be good for the land
behind the Avenues, or vice versa.
The use of a zoned system is recommended to improve the
implementation process of the Foothills Plan. Seven Zones
are outlined in this recommendation. Each zone boundary is
roughly based on sub-watersheds rather than property lines to
better reflect landscape character. The seven Foothills Open
Space Zones (FOSZ) are listed below from north to south, and
assessed in greater detail on following pages.
•Meridian Peak & Shoreline Preserve
•North Capitol
•East City Creek & Upper Avenues
•Perry’s Hollow, Twin Peaks & Dry Creek
•Mt. Van Cott & The University
•Mt Wire & Red Butte
•East Bench
These zones are the framework by which the Foothills Plan
should be implemented moving forward. The table at right
illustrates a broad overview of each zone, and the pages that
follow outline each zones’ unique set of recommendations to
be considered for improvement.
** DISCLAIMER: Included maps and data are for conceptual
purposes only and do not account for land ownership complexities
within the depicted Foothills Open Space Zones (FHOZ). The FHOZ
boundaries are generated conceptually and may not accurately
reflect legal or property ownership considerations. Detailed land
ownership considerations will be addressed during the segment by
segment planning and implementation process. Users should not rely
on this map for legal decisions, and thorough analysis is recommended
Kiosk at the “City Creek Saddle”
junction
FOSZ NAME Area (Acres)Number of Trailheads Trail Access Points
Meridian Peak & Shoreline Preserve 766 1 0
North Capitol, West City Creek, Ensign Creek 968 4 6
East City Creek & Upper Avenues 438 1 2
Perry’s Hollow, Twin Peaks & Dry Creek 2.399 1 5
Mt. Van Cott & University of Utah 476 0 1
Mt. Wire & Red Butte 1,418 1 4
East Bench 2,082 1 6
31Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
during subsequent planning processes. **
32Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
** Disclaimer: See Page 30 **
1.Recommendations for using the FOSZ
Develop a more robust, comprehensive management plan
that encompasses all seven zones. This overarching plan
will address various aspects, including trail development,
restoration, wayfinding enhancements, amenities, and
management strategies to cater to the diverse user types and
skill levels across the entire area. The development of these
plans should build upon the foundation provided by the
Foothills Plan and the information presented in this document.
Each Zone’s plan should include at least:
•an assessment of ecology and geography
•proposed trail alignments
•recommended land restoration and unsustainable trail
closures
•wayfinding and informational signage plan
•proposed amenities (seating, shelters, tables, etc)
•communications and public engagement process
•maintenance plan and budget
2.Evaluation of Individual Trail Alignments
Once a zone plan is complete, the proposed trail alignments
within that zone should be evaluated on a segment-by-
segment basis to identify alignments compliant with the
guiding principles of sustainable trail development. Proposed
trail alignments include existing trail realignment, restoration,
or closure. New trail maintenance or construction projects
are anticipated, particularly in cases of environmental
deterioration.
Following a thorough evaluation of the proposed alignment,
the City should proceed with the implementation of a zone
plan’s recommended restoration, ecological, and trail system
projects.
The following pages guide the development of zone-specific
plans, trail alignments, and environmental restoration projects.
Click on a zone to the right to be directed to that zone’s specific
recommendations page.
Map of Foothills Open Space Zones
Click on a Zone
to jump to a full
description
33Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
Prioritization of FOSZ Planning and Implementation
The table below is designed to facilitate Salt Lake City’s approach to segment by segment
planning and implementation of the Foothills Plan. This guide is not prescriptive, but instead
provides a relative level of complexity for each zone that can identify a logical process to
approach less complex land areas first, and more complex land areas later.
FOSZ Name Complexity Level Rationale
Meridian Peak &
Shoreline Preserve Low
Supportive terrain for trail expansion. Robust
Trailhead established. Minimal adjacent land-
use practices and ownership.
North Capitol: West City
Creek, Ensign Peak &
Hell Canyon
Low
Clear and high demand for improvements to
existing trails. Few adjacent land-use concerns
due to capitol complex.
East City Creek & Upper
Avenues Medium
Trails implemented during phase 1
implementation should be revisited through
future planning efforts.
Perry’s Hollow, Twin
Peaks & Dry Creek High
Existing trail use conflicts and extensive user
trail network and habitat increase complexity of
trail improvements here.
Mt Van Cott & the
University Medium
Supportive partnership with University
conducting its own land use evaluation creates
opportunities for collaboration and efficiencies.
User trail prevalence and need for restoration
is high; along with trailhead access and
infrastructure.
Mt. Wire & Red Butte Medium/High
Trailhead access improvements needed
alongside any trail improvement / expansion
projects. Steep slopes of lands increase
complexity of implementation.
East Bench High
No prior planning document to guide FOSZ
process. Residential property adjacencies
increase complexity.
** Disclaimer: See Page 30 **
34Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
** Disclaimer: See Page 30 **
Foothills Open Space Zone:
Meridian Peak & Shoreline
Preserve
Description: This is the northernmost extent of the area known
as the Salt Lake City Foothills. Bounded by the Davis / Salt Lake
City line to the north, the southern boundary is the ridge line
running between Jones and Hell Canyon, topping out at the
western ridge of City Creek Canyon. This zone consists of more
gradual terrain along the slopes of Meridian Peak, which is ideal
for providing various trail types and trail network connections.
This zone is one of the more approachable for trail development.
Land Management: USFS manages a significant portion of this
Foothills property and has indicated a willingness to partner
with the City in trails and land management processes. The zone
abuts Davis County and USFS lands to the north. Utah Open
Lands holds a conservation easement on 57 acres of open space
along the BST bench just south of Tunnel Springs Trailhead.
Adjacent Land Use: Davis County is currently working on
establishing a trail system near this zone, which may prove to be
a good partnership in trail development.
Environmental / Cultural Sensitivities: The Meridian Peak zone
consists of around 400 acres of grassland and other dispersed
brushwood. Salt Lake City Public Lands commissioned a
baseline environmental evaluation for the Foothills Natural Area.
This work, completed by SWCA Environmental Consultants,
considered vegetation, wildlife, aquatic, soil, geologic, and
cultural resources. That work should be considered and
supplemented if needed when planning within this FOSZ. The
NEPA process has already been completed for the majority of
USFS lands in this area as part of Davis County’s BST project.
Initial trail development proposed through that project has been
approved.
MERIDIAN PEAK & SHORELINE
PRESERVE FOSZ
AREA: 766 ACRES
TRAILHEADS/ACCESS: 1
MILES OF TRAIL: 3.6
35Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
Restoration Needs:
The trails in this zone exhibit medium environmental impact
and have moderate restoration needs. Restoration strategies
may include seeding of native grasses to stabilize the soil,
rerouting parts of the trail to more sustainable paths, and
employing simple erosion control measures like check
dams and grade reversals to address soil erosion and habitat
disruption.
Trail System Conditions: The Meridian zone presents a good
opportunity for trail development as there is little formalized
trail development already in place. Social trails are a concern
throughout. Throughout Meridian Peak and Shoreline
Preserve, less steep hillside slopes than in other Foothills
Open Space Zones support future sustainable shared use trail
alignments.
Public Access: This zone enjoys excellent public access from
North Salt Lake’s Tunnel Springs Park and Trailhead with
amenities such as restrooms and parking for 75+ vehicles,
making it ideal for youth bike teams as well as hikers with lower
skill or fitness. Users looking for longer excursions can also
access this FOSZ via Ensign Peak and Victory Road trailheads.
2020 Foothills Plan Recommendations: A network of single
and multi use trails are recommended across Meridian Peak,
increasing trail opportunities and density in this area. The
Foothills Plan also recognizes the need for habitat study
through the entirety of the area above the proposed Bonneville
Shoreline Trail Corridor. Much of this study has occurred as part
of Davis County BST NEPA process and will be reviewed again
with any proposed trail alignments.
Implementation Guidance: Meridian Peak should be
considered a first opportunity to expand the trail network
following this evaluation’s recommended processes.
Med
Meridian Peak & Shoreline Preserve Landscape
** Disclaimer: See Page 30 **
Foothills Open Space Zone:
North Capitol: West City Creek,
Ensign Peak & Hell Canyon
Description: Ensign Peak’s iconic vistas are part of Salt Lake
City’s identity. Yet steep side slopes and decades of significant
use create challenging access conditions to support a constant
level of use. This area receives extremely high use due to the
popularity of Ensign peak as a destination for Salt Lake City
residents, Utah school outings, and visitors from across the
globe.
Land Management: Salt lake City Public Utilities and Public
Lands manages the majority of lands in this zone, with smaller
parcels controlled by private interests.
Adjacent Land Use: The primary adjacent land use to this
zone is the Utah State Capitol complex. A historic residential
neighborhood lies adjacent to this zone as well, and care
should be taken that future improvements to the trail system
take into account this neighborhood’s access and concerns.
Environmental / Cultural Sensitivities: Salt Lake City Public
Lands commissioned a baseline environmental evaluation
for the Foothills Natural Area. This work, completed by SWCA
Environmental Consultants, considered vegetation, wildlife,
aquatic, soil, geologic, and cultural resources. That work should
be considered and supplemented if needed when planning
within this FOSZ.
Restoration Needs:
This area has been heavily utilized over time. Non-system trails
are prevalent and many are actively eroding and/or widening. A
concerted effort is necessary to restore this area.
35Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
High
NORTH CAPITOL / ENSIGN
PEAK FOSZ
AREA: 968 ACRES
TRAILHEADS/ACCESS: 10
MILES OF TRAIL: 14.1
Trail System Conditions: The Bonneville Shoreline Trail, Ensign
Peak Trails, and utility roads are the major trails in this area. The
Ensign Peak area is severely degraded due to extensive use,
steep slopes, social trail networks and limited management
resources. The Victory Road / Hell Canyon Trail, built by Public
Lands before the Foothills Plan offers an important access
point to the City’s west side.
Public Access: This FOSZ contains numerous public access
points. Multiple major trailheads and minor trail access points
are available throughout Lower City Creek and through
Dorchester Pointe and Colombus Court HOAs. Additional
overflow parking is available at the state capitol building.
2020 Foothills Plan Recommendations: A renewed
focus on the Ensign Peak Trail is needed to improve the
sustainability and user experience of this very highly used trail.
Redevelopment of the steep switchbacks on the BST which
climb out of City Creek would help support an improved
shared-use experience. It could also provide additional
connectivity from the proposed North City Creek Trail to
the Towers Trail. adding looping options, supporting more
dispersed use and increasing the utility of the City Creek TH.
Public Lands should consider removal of the Over the Cliff and
a proposed portion of the Lakeview Trail from the Foothills Plan
if a sustainable route is not possible through the steep rocks.
Alternatively, managing these routes for pedestrian use only
might be appropriate if only a narrow route can be established.
Implementation Guidance: As recommended in the Foothills
Plan, Ensign Peak Trail redevelopment should be a primary
focus. It will be a costly process, as much of the work will need
to be completed in or near the existing trail corridor and
will involve significant materials, equipment, and adjacent
drainage improvements. Yet the trail could become the jewel
of the North Foothills.
36Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
Hell Canyon
Trail
Foothills Open Space Zone:
East City Creek & Upper Avenues
Description: Similar to Meridian Peak, there are less steep
sideslopes and more amenable terrain in this FOSZ than
elsewhere in the system. This site was the first portion of the
2020 Foothills Plan to be built, and though the improvements
were seen as positive by many, the adjacent neighborhood
impacts and response to additional use in this area have
created conflicts.
Land Management: These lands are primarily managed
by Salt Lake City Public Land and Public Utilities with small
portions of private land ownership along the residential
boundaries.
Adjacent Land Use: Salt Lake City’s Avenues neighborhood
is located adjacent to this FOSZ. Access to the Foothills in
this zone should always consider residential impacts. Directly
north is the City Creek Canyon watershed which has unique
needs and regulations (such as no dogs allowed). Community
education about the watershed boundary is critical.
Environmental / Cultural Sensitivities: Salt Lake City Public
Lands commissioned a baseline environmental evaluation
for the Foothills Natural Area. This work, completed by SWCA
Environmental Consultants, considered vegetation, wildlife,
aquatic, soil, geologic, and cultural resources. That work should
be considered and supplemented if needed when planning
within this FOSZ.
Restoration Needs:
The legacy routes and social trails in this FOSZ create moderate
to high restoration need in this FOSZ. Most of these are direct-
ascent (fall-aligned) trails along ridges and gullies and will
need full restoration following improvement/additions to the
formal trail system. Many are old motorized routes, which will
not recover on their own due to large footprints and incision;
these will continue to carry water even if use can be shifted
elsewhere.
37Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
High
** Disclaimer: See Page 30 **
EAST CITY CREEK & UPPER
AVENUES FOSZ
AREA: 438 ACRES
TRAILHEAD/ACCESS: 3
MILES OF TRAIL: 10.5
38Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
Trail System Conditions: This zone’s trails have largely been
built out as a result of the Phase 1 implementation of the
Foothills Plan. Although trail development in this area has
not been without conflict due to neighborhood impacts
and environmental concerns, the expansion of trail access
in this FOSZ has been perceived as largely beneficial by the
recreational community.
Public Access: This FOSZ has two major trailheads (Bonneville
Boulevard and 18th Avenue) that have improvements
scheduled for 2024 to increase parking and add trailhead
amenities. Terrace Hills Drive has two trail access points at its
northern terminus that should receive improved wayfinding
signage in 2024. The residential proximity of the popular 18th
Avenue and Terrace Hills trailheads creates a need for the City
to continue to educate trail users on the respectful and low
impact trailhead access and use.
2020 Foothills Plan Recommendations: More direct
pedestrian access from the 18th Avenue/Morris Meadow TH to
the BST to provide a short, scenic loop opportunity would be
a great addition when the trailhead is redeveloped in the near
future. The incorporation of the existing utility road network in
maps and signage would improve navigation and wayfinding
Implementation Guidance: While the majority of new trails
in this zone were built in Phase I, additional elements should
be planned and implemented in future FOSZ planning
processes. When the trailhead is redeveloped and a short trail
constructed to connect up the south aspect to the BST, a few
interpretive pull-offs could be created to provide vistas into the
city. Narrowing the Morris Meadows utility road with fencing,
rectifying drainage issues on the road, and providing etiquette,
restoration, stay on trail, and dog management information
at this highly utilized trailhead may help to educate visitors on
proper use of the area.
Photos from East City Creek & Upper Avenues
39Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
** Disclaimer: See Page 30 **
Foothills Open Space Zone:
Perry’s Hollow, Twin Peaks &
Dry Creek
Description: This is the largest designated FOSZ in the Foothills
encompassing over 2,000 acres. Perry’s Hollow to the west is
similar to the Upper Avenues FOSZ in that abuts many residential
homes. It is bisected by the infamous “Bobsled Trail”. Twin
Peaks anchors the center of the FOSZ and has been a popular
destination for hikers and bikers via ridge line social trails. The Dry
Creek watershed cuts deep into Foothills with its north and south
forks and separates City Creek Canyon Watershed from the Red
Butte Canyon Research Natural Area.
Land Management: The land management of this zone is the
most complex in the Foothills. The USFS has a large parcel on
the western slope of Twin Peaks. Much of Perry’s Hollow and the
open space above Tomahawk Drive is privately owned, and the
University of Utah has shared holdings with the City in much of
lower Dry Creek Canyon and the eastern slopes of Twin Peaks.
Adjacent Land use: Popperton Park and the surrounding
residential neighborhoods are nestled within this zone.
The upper north and south forks of Dry Creek Canyon are
sandwiched between the City’s watershed area (City Creek
Canyon) and the Red Butte Canyon, the University of Utah’s
research area.
Environmental / Cultural Sensitivities: Salt Lake City Public
Lands commissioned a baseline environmental evaluation
for the Foothills Natural Area. This work, completed by SWCA
Environmental Consultants, considered vegetation, wildlife,
aquatic, soil, geologic, and cultural resources. This included an
in-depth cultural investigation of indigenous heritage connected
to the Twin Peaks Area. The Lime Kiln, managed by the
University of Utah, is a historic site that should be preserved and
acknowledged.
PERRY’S HOLLOW, TWIN
PEAKS & DRY CREEK FOSZ
AREA: 2399 ACRES
TRAILHEAD/ACCESS: 6
MILES OF TRAIL: 10.1
40Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
Photos from Perry’s Hollow, Twin Peaks, and Dry
Creek
Restoration Needs:
The trails in this zone exhibit significant environmental
impact and would benefit from comprehensive restoration
measures. Techniques for these areas may involve extensive
re-vegetation projects, complete trail realignment to minimize
environmental impact, and the construction of more
advanced erosion control structures, such as retaining walls
or boardwalks to mitigate ongoing degradation. Intensified
education and enforcement are also vital to reduce further
impacts on these trails.
Trail System Conditions: The BST runs through the heart of
this FOSZ. Access trails from residential trailheads connect to
the BST in multiple locations. An extensive user-created social
trail system exists, particularly in lower Perry’s Hollow and the
south and west slopes of Twin Peaks. Fewer significant trails
run up the forks of Dry Creek Canyon but signs of social trails
are increasing. In Phase I, the Twin Peaks Trail was 80% built
but paused for this evaluation. Popperton Park’s open space
received new use-specific hiking and biking trails which have
been applauded by the community.
Public Access: Popperton Park and a neighborhood access
point on Tomahawk Drive are the two official access points.
Popperton Trailhead is the one major trailhead in this FOSZ
and has significant improvements scheduled for 2024.
Popperton’s parking capacity will increase by 40-50 spaces
and a restroom will be installed which will make this one of the
most important access points to the City’s Foothills. The four
residential trail access points off of Tomahawk Drive should
receive improved wayfinding signage in 2024 as well.
2020 Foothills Plan Recommendations: The proposed BST
uphill/Dry Creek would be an exceedingly challenging trail to
build due to steep slopes. An alternative management and
trail development strategy would involve restricting mountain
bike traffic to uphill only on the existing Dry Creek Trail and
developing a new downhill mountain bike alternative from the
existing Twin Peaks Trail junction down to the Dry Creek TH.
Implementation Guidance: To address user conflicts on the
Twin Peaks trail and promote sustainability, specific measures
are proposed in Popperton Park. Clear signage and maps
should guide visitors directly to the Foothills trail networks.
Additional trail development in the area north and east of Twin
Peaks (North Fork Dry Creek Trail, and Dry Spell) is dependent
on further study of wildlife habitat and potential impacts to
that habitat. This review and decision process will take time to
complete. The completion of the shared-use Twin Peaks Trail,
Avenues Ridge Trail and the pedestrian-only Gullies & Hollows,
Perry’s Hollow West Loop, East Fork Perry’s, East Fork Parleys,
and Block can likely proceed on a shorter timeline. The new
trail construction should be combined with active restoration
of informal trails and improvements to the drainage on existing
routes.
High
41Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
** Disclaimer: See Page 30 **
Foothills Open Space Zone:
Mt. Van Cott & The University
Description: Due to years of uncontrolled use directly adjacent
to the University of Utah and the significant foot traffic an
institution of that nature will generate, there is a significant
web of social trails established throughout this zone. At the
farthest eastern reaches of this zone lies a research area and
restricted access reservoir.
Land Management: This land is managed by either USFS or
owned by the University of Utah.
Adjacent Land Use: This is the University of Utah’s back door.
Land is primarily owned and managed by the University of
Utah, who is a supportive partner in an effort to manage and
improve access to the Foothills trail network outside of its
classrooms, fields, and research labs.
Environmental / Cultural Sensitivities: Salt Lake City Public
Lands commissioned a baseline environmental evaluation
for the Foothills Natural Area. This work, completed by SWCA
Environmental Consultants, considered vegetation, wildlife,
aquatic, soil, geologic, and cultural resources. That work should
be considered and supplemented if needed when planning
within this FOSZ.
Restoration Needs:
The trails in this zone exhibit moderate environmental impact
and have some restoration needs. Rocky Mountain Power has
a utility easement along the BST and recently conducted a
power pole replacement project that left significant impacts
for restoration and repair. Strategies may include seeding
native grasses to stabilize the soil, rerouting parts of the trail
with more sustainable design, employing simple erosion
control measures like drain fans and grade reversals, and
directing trail users with clear signage and fencing off closed
areas.
Med
MT. VAN COTT & THE UNIVERSITY
FOSZ
AREA: 476 ACRES
TRAILHEAD/ACCESS: 1
MILES OF TRAIL: 1.4
42Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
Photos from Mt. Van Cott & University of
Utah
Trail System Conditions: Intensive social trail proliferation
characterizes this zone, primarily stemming from uncontrolled
use adjacent to the University of Utah. The University’s
significant foot traffic and ownership make closure
challenging. Restoration needs are moderate, requiring
efforts like native vegetation planting and trail rerouting. The
challenge lies in balancing environmental preservation with
ongoing University-related use.
Public Access: Despite the increased growth of the University
of Utah, there are no formal trailheads or available un-
permitted parking areas in this FOSZ. The base of Red Butte
Canyon Road and the trail access from Medical Campus Drive
are two key sites under consideration for future trailhead
development.
2020 Foothills Plan Recommendations: Reducing trail user
numbers and potential use conflicts in Dry Creek should be a
focal aim and the development of the proposed relocation of
the BST and the addition of the Dry Creek South Fork would
only attract more use to the area. Altering the proposed
shared-use Mt. Van Cott Trail to form a complete loop with
connections to the Skyline Nature Trail West and a direct,
armored pedestrian-only spur to the Mt. Van Cott summit
and active restoration of the Van Cott Ridgeline Trail would
reduce trail user traffic in Dry Creek canyon. This work should
be completed in concert with drainage improvements of
Skyline Nature Trail West and active informal trail closure and
restoration of the numerous summit routes and fall-aligned
routes down to the university. With a more accessible summit
access, care will need to be taken to preserve the north-facing
meadow.
Dry Creek canyon and Red Butte Gardens corridor could be
redeveloped with the BST routed onto the higher Skyline
Nature Trail West out of the Red Butte Trailhead and the
existing BST/Med Campus Trail corridor more formally
developed as park space to provide a number of shorter, more
accessible trail experiences from the Medical Campus and
Red Butte Trailhead and better preserve a sense of a park/
conservation corridor.
Implementation Guidance: Guided by the recognition
of extensive social trail proliferation the implementation
strategy for this zone focuses on trailhead enhancement and
restoration initiatives. Improving existing informal trailheads
and prioritizing restoration efforts on medium-impacted trails
should be a priority. Collaboration with the University of Utah is
emphasized, acknowledging their ownership and supportive
partnership for effective land management and improved trail
access. With the majority of this area owned by the University
of Utah and active construction at the Medical Campus, the
planning for a Medical Campus Park will need time to fully
develop and set the stage for trail construction and trail
restoration.
Foothills Open Space Zone:
Mt. Wire & Red Butte
Description: Mt. Wire and Red Butte stand above the rest of
the Foothills with Wire’s summit (also known as “Big Beacon”)
peaking at 7146 feet. Mt. Wire’s expansive slopes run down
the Lithograph Fork into Emigration Canyon and down into
George’s Hollow to the west. Various routes to the popular
“Living Room” run up the steep slopes below Red Butte.
Land Management: Primarily USFS managed parcels, there
are some University of Utah holdings interspersed in this zone.
Utah State Parks owns approximately 200 acres of open space
east of This Is The Place Heritage Park.
Adjacent Land Use: Primary neighbors are institutional in
this zone and include The University of Utah’s Research Park,
Red Butte Gardens, Natural History Museum, and This is the
Place Heritage Park. Emigration Township to the east has been
discussing trail planning and connectivity to the Foothills.
Environmental / Cultural Sensitivities: Salt Lake City Public
Lands commissioned a baseline environmental evaluation
for the Foothills Natural Area. This work, completed by SWCA
Environmental Consultants, considered vegetation, wildlife,
aquatic, soil, geologic, and cultural resources. That work should
be considered and supplemented if needed when planning
within this FOSZ.
Restoration Needs:
The trails in this zone, particularly around George’s Hollow, the
Living Room access routes, and the braided and widening
BST, exhibit significant environmental impacts and should
be addressed with comprehensive restoration measures.
Techniques for these areas may involve extensive re-
vegetation projects, complete trail realignment to minimize
environmental impact, and the construction of more advanced
erosion control structures to mitigate ongoing degradation.
Intensified education and enforcement are also vital to reduce
further impacts on these trails.
43Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
High
** Disclaimer: See Page 30 **
MT WIRE & RED BUTTE FOSZ
AREA: 1418 ACRES
TRAILHEAD/ACCESS: 5
MILES OF TRAIL: 6.3
Trail System Conditions: The popular Living Room trail is
a good example of conditions in this zone where numerous
individual pathways lead down from the iconic view at
this location. The BST and Skyline Trail would both benefit
from thorough tread repair and maintenance and spot
realignments. Multiple social ridge trails ascend the steep
grades up to Red Butte and Mt. Wire.
Public Access: The Emigration Trailhead, behind This Is The
Place, is the one major trailhead in this zone. Partnership and
planning with Utah State Parks could develop into future
facilities to support the Foothills Trail System and This is The
Place. Additional Foothills trail access points are in Research
Park on Colorow Road and Wakara Way.
2020 Foothills Plan Recommendations: The proposed
portion of the Living Room Trail connecting to Skyline Nature
Trail East will be very difficult to accept as the preferred route
back to the Colorow Road area. A more direct route from
the Living Room along the western-running ridgeline and
incorporating a number of the existing switchbacks will more
effectively channel use. Given the nature of this steep terrain
and the challenge of establishing a wider shared-use trail, it
is recommended that new trail segments be managed for
pedestrian use only.
The somewhat less valley-dissected terrain in the Mount Wire
area is well-suited for a more diverse, shared-use system than
the Living Room area. The number of switchbacks necessary
to control trail grades and access Red Butte, Mount Wire, and
Lithograph Point would lead to difficulty in controlling short
cutting, informal route development or closure. Instead, upper
elevations of existing routes could be improved and managed
as pedestrian-only experiences. In addition to the contouring
shared-use trail, a steeper pedestrian-only route from the
“jug handle” on the wagon route/Wagner Peak Loop Trail to
the proposed junction of the Lithograph Fork and Connector
trails would allow those users to more expeditiously access the
higher terrain.
A more dense than proposed mountain bike trail park focused
on the lower bench slopes would provide easily accessible
terrain and elevation. The proposed mountain bike trail
development, contour-oriented routes toward the higher
terrain, and accessibility on Emigration Canyon Road will likely
lead to a large increase in car traffic to these trails, outstripping
the proposed trailhead capacity.
The abandoned road benches and flatter terrain on the east
side of the state park would be ideal for a large modern
trailhead. This area is only between 75 and 150 vertical feet
above the existing trailhead on Emigration Canyon Road. The
lack of a steep climb into the trail system from this location
would instantly make this area more accessible to a broader
swath of recreationists.
Implementation Guidance: Significant trailhead
improvements should be considered here, but should be
approached in stages due to the complexity of the vision. State
park ownership, traffic analysis and design considerations must
all be considered to develop a large capacity trailhead. The first
priority would be permission and engineering of the trailhead
access road and parking. If successful, improvements to the
BST and lower elevation mountain bike trails would come next,
followed by new trail construction and significant restoration of
the myriad informal trails.
Careful FOSZ planning with partner agencies - including
significant restoration, wayfinding, and thoughtful community
engagement and education should help meet the goals of the
Foothills Plan.
44Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
Photos from Mt. Wire & Red Butte
** Disclaimer: See Page 30 **
Foothills Open Space Zone:
East Bench
Description: East Bench FOSZ was not included in the
2020 Foothills Plan as Emigration Canyon was defined as
the southern extent of the Foothills Plan. As such, it was not
physically reviewed as part of this Evaluation. However, it is
included in this report as it constitutes the southern extent of
the Foothills managed by Salt Lake City Public Lands.
Land Management: The majority of open space in the East
Bench is privately owned except for parcels within the H-Rock/
East Bench Preserve and the 270 acres acquired by the City in
2021 that includes the new BST Parleys Point segment.
Environmental / Cultural Sensitivities: Salt Lake City Public
Lands commissioned a baseline environmental evaluation
for the Foothills Natural Area. This work, completed by SWCA
Environmental Consultants, offers insights into the type of
cultural and environmental resources that may be found in the
East Bench FOSZ. No East Bench specific studies have been
completed at this time and will need to be further evaluated as
part of a FOSZ planning process. .
Restoration Needs:
The trails in this zone exhibit minimal environmental impact
and have relatively low restoration needs. These paths may
benefit from small-scale techniques such as periodic litter
cleanup, minor trail maintenance, and strategic placement of
erosion-control structures like gravel or mulch in high-traffic
areas to prevent further soil disturbance.
Adjacent Land Use: This zone is bordered by single family
residences to the west and high elevation US Forest Service
Lands to the east.
45Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
Low
EAST BENCH FOSZ
AREA: 2082 ACRES
TRAILHEAD/ACCESS: 7
MILES OF TRAIL: 6.3
46Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
Trail System Conditions: This zone was not formally assessed
through this project. The main trail resource is the Bonneville
Shoreline Trail (BST) and connection spurs to surrounding
neighborhoods. The BST connects to points southerly thanks to
the adjacent I80 overpass.
Public Access: Although there are numerous trail access
points along public roads in this zone, the only designated
trailhead is at the northern end of Lakeline Drive. The City is
currently looking to acquire space at this location to develop an
off-street trailhead.
Key Zone Recommendations: The planning of the East Bench
FOSZ should take place after other zones within the Foothills
have made significant progress towards the Foothills Plan
goals. This area is included in this report to recognize its need
to be included in the broad planning efforts moving forward,
but is not the top priority for implementation due to it not
being included in prior master planning efforts.
Photos from East
Bench
47Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
FOSZ PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS
The City should adopt a NEPA-like process to finalize all
changes to trail networks within the Foothills Open Space
system by creating area-specific Project Implementation Plans
(PIPs). The primary goal for each PIP is to establish a more
formal process through which Public Lands can thoughtfully
implement trail rehabilitation, development, and access
projects. It is expected that Public Lands, upon determining
the need for specific projects, will initiate the PIP in partnership
with other entities or land managers (such as the USFS) as
appropriate. Each PIP will document the materials gathered
and considered in establishing a specific project(s) within a
single Foothills Open Space Zone (FOSZ).
Project Implementation Planning is comprised of three
phases – Planning, Design and Implementation, each with
multiple steps. Each phase is described here.
STEP 1: PROJECT INITIATION
During this step, it is essential to clearly define the primary
objectives, requirements, purpose, and need for projects
within a specific FOSZ. Public Lands will consider the
recommendations from the 2020 Foothills Plan, including
desired system connections, access points, trail and user
characteristics, restoration goals, and land management
priorities. Additionally, Public Lands will consider the
recommendations for each FOSZ in this document and
may seek additional relevant information such as natural
resource data, wayfinding plans, surveys, and trail count
data. This information will inform core project objectives and
requirements. If necessary, Public Lands may seek outside
expertise on trail planning, land surveying, engineering,
costing, environmental resource identification, or other
relevant information. The information considered in this step
will be captured in a document that describes the project,
establishes its core objectives, and outlines any specific
requirements that must be met through the implementation
process.
STEP 2: BASELINE AREA REVIEW AND DOCUMENTATION
Public Lands will review the existing pre-NEPA level
environmental and cultural review document to identify
limitations or areas to avoid. Depending on the level of
effort required in Step 1 to define the core objectives and
requirements of the project, Public Lands might require
more information to establish and document the existing
conditions within the planned project area. This could involve
a more detailed assessment of crucial ecological, land use,
access, or cultural/archaeological concerns in the FOSZ. This
could also require additional field data collection, surveying, or
legal review. Public Lands may also engage external experts
to conduct these reviews. Public Lands will compile the
information gathered during this step.
PHASE 1: PLANNING
48Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
PHASE 2: DESIGN PHASE 3: IMPLEMENTATION
STEP 3: ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT
Public Lands will consider proposed alignments, restoration,
and closure alternatives based on the project objectives,
baseline assessment, and requirements for partner land
management agencies. If alternatives are prepared,
conceptual plans depicting alignments, access points, general
specifications, etc. will be developed. Public Lands will inform
Key Stakeholders to gain input on the potential alternatives
and inform Public Land’s selection of a preferred alternative.
STEP 4: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Based on its review of the project(s), input from the public and
Key Stakeholders, and other considerations, Public Lands will
select and document its preferred alternative.
STEP 5A: PRELIMINARY DESIGN
Public Lands will review the preferred alternative at a site visit
along with other relevant partners. Public Lands may elect to
retain the services of an outside trail expert, engineer, natural
resource specialist, or other party to participate in this site
review of the preferred concept before initiating preliminary
design
work. Public Lands may elect to issue a Request for Proposal
(RFP) associated with the development of preliminary design
plans. Public Lands will monitor and review the development
of preliminary engineering designs associated with the
project(s). Preliminary design plans will be suitable for project
costing.
STEP 5B: LANDOWNER AND LEGAL REVIEW
Public Lands will be responsible for overseeing necessary land
ownership or property legal review related to the project(s). If
required, Public Lands may choose to engage external legal
counsel or surveying services to support the development of
the preliminary design plans.
STEP 5C: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PERMITTING
When planning projects on lands managed by the USFS,
Public Lands will consult with the USFS and complete
any necessary environmental reviews under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
STEP 5D: NEPA PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
Public Lands will engage in and respond to USFS public
engagement requirements as part of NEPA environmental
reviews.
STEP 5E: FINAL DESIGN
Upon final approval of Public Lands and following the
issuance of any required permits, Public Lands will oversee
the development of a final engineering design package
encompassing all approved project(s). Public Lands may elect
to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) associated with the
development of final design plans.
STEP 6: FINALIZE AREA-SPECIFIC MAINTENANCE AND
OPERATIONS PLAN
Public Lands will establish a detailed approach to routine
inspections, repairs, enhancements, and the protection of
sensitive ecosystems in the FOSZ.
STEP 7: BIDDING AND CONTRACT
Public Lands will prepare and oversee the bidding and contract
process for the construction of all project components. The bid
process will conform to appropriate Salt Lake City procurement
requirements. Following the completion of the bid process,
Public Lands will provide its final approval and authorization to
proceed.
STEP 8: CONSTRUCTION PROCESS
Public Lands will inform the public about construction using
its existing communication channels and field signage. It
will monitor and oversee the construction process with the
chosen contractor. Following the completion of the project,
Public Lands will review the work and discuss any feedback or
guidance that might inform future decision-making.
49Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
IMPLEMENT A CONSISTENT PUBLIC COMMUNICATION STRATEGY
The Foothills Plan is informed by significant public input
showing the desire for a world class trails system in Salt Lake
City. One complaint with the Phase 1 implementation was that
the changes being made were not communicated clearly to
the public. Public Lands recognizes that maintaining a high-
level of communication with the public is important and has
implemented the following mechanisms by which the public
can be informed.
•Rangers: two Foothills-dedicated Rangers are patrolling to
assist and educate trail users, report areas of concern, and
support the health of the Foothills natural area. You can
meet them at trailheads.
•Improved trailhead, wayfinding and field signage: A
good wayfinding system not only guides people along
sustainable routes to their destinations but can enhance
a user’s understanding and experience of the Foothills.
Improved wayfinding can also help accommodate a
growing number of users and preserve delicate ecosystems
by routing visitors to designated trails and away from
unsanctioned routes. Public Lands has developed a unified
wayfinding system and will begin installing improved
signage in 2024. Public Lands will begin implementing
consistent field signage to identify areas undergoing
ecological restoration, closure, or other needs. Signage can
both educate trail users about the value of these projects
and restrict access.
•Foothill Communication Channels: Public Lands has
expanded its Communications staff and is providing regular
updates via the following communication channels
•SLCTrails.com website
•Foothills e-newsletter
•@SLCPublicLands social media
•PNUT Board and Community Council coordination:
Public Lands will continue to provide updates on Foothills
related projects, processes, or issues via regularly scheduled
Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry & Trails (PNUT)
Advisory Board and Community Council meetings.
Public Lands will also establish a Key Stakeholder Group to
help inform FOSZ PIP planning. This group would include key
stakeholders with knowledge of environmental, trails, and
other management issues and will also represent the variety of
distinct user groups and interests in the Foothills.
50Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
PRIORITIZE THE MAINTENANCE AND
ENHANCEMENT OF EXISTING FACILITIES
The Foothills Plan does not provide an evaluation of the
existing formal trails within the Salt Lake City Foothills. This
is an important consideration for the future capacity to
manage the overall system and provide high quality recreation
experiences.
Historically, the formal trails in the Foothills have received
minimal maintenance. Contrary to the rolling contour, hillside
construction that is the modern standard for sustainable, low-
impact trail development, many of the existing trails slated
for incorporation into the larger system (i.e. Dry Creek, Living
Room, Bobsled, Jones Canyon) are located almost solely at the
bottom of a stream valley/riparian corridors. While these are
not perennial streams, these valleys do experience water flow
at times and the trails have suffered erosion or braiding. These
impacts increase the footprint of the recreational trail corridor
and can exacerbate negative wildlife impacts as the trails are
located in some of the few riparian corridors of the foothills.
To evaluate existing trails, the following factors should be
weighed:
•the value of existing trails to the overall system outweighs
the potentially negative natural resource impacts,
•whether portions or all of these recreational corridors could
be relocated outside the riparian corridor, and/or
•if they are to remain in place, how to better manage the
impacts of intermittent stormwater/snowmelt on the trail
tread.
Other existing trails to be incorporated into the system are
located on relic roadbeds (i.e. portions of the Bonneville
Shoreline Trail, North City Creek Ridgeline, Morris Meadows,
Terrace Hills). These trails require a different level of
maintenance need, dependent upon sometimes significant
landscape manipulation to provide proper drainage. Widening
and braiding are also common on these routes and narrowing
of use corridors through fencing and/or vegetative restoration
may need to be considered.
As the spine of the trail system, the Bonneville Shoreline Trail
(BST) should receive considerable maintenance attention.
In addition to the aforementioned issues, the route that was
initially utilized through the area was one of convenience
rather than ideal recreational trail design. As such, the Foothills
BST lacks a consistent character and the quality of the user
experience is sometimes low. Ideally, the trail should retain a
common specification throughout the North Foothills that
would make this segment emblematic of the vision and goals
for this long-distance recreational and interpretive facility.
Recent maintenance of the BST in upper City Creek has been
successful for better managing water and trail users with little
impact outside the trail corridor, and can be a model for future
maintenance needed in Hell Canyon, as well as other existing
trails to be incorporated into the system that are more contour-
oriented (i.e. Skyline, Tomahawk, Lakeview, and Under The
Cliffs).
Popperton Seasonal Grass
Trimming
51Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
Color Blind Safe Color Palettes
DEVELOP A UNIFIED WAYFINDING SYSTEM
Improved wayfinding can help accommodate a growing
number of users and preserve delicate ecosystems by routing
visitors to designated trails and away from unsanctioned
routes.
A good wayfinding system not only guides people along
sustainable routes to their destinations but can enhance
a user’s understanding and experience of the Foothills.
Ultimately, wayfinding’s contribution to more feet and wheels
on sustainable trails and improved user appreciation for
these public lands can make significant contributions to the
preservation of the Salt Lake City Foothills ecosystem and trail
network.
Unified Wayfinding System:
The cornerstone of a good wayfinding system is uniformity.
All trail markers, signposts, maps, and trailhead kiosks should
be developed with a uniform design. This extends to shapes,
materials, fonts, colors, and layout of each. Creating a uniform
approach will also support integration of future trail networks,
reroutes, or closures into the official Foothills trails system. The
design should be as unique as Salt Lake City and its foothills,
communicating a sense of place that is instantly recognizable
to any visitor.
Educational Signage:
Incorporating interpretive and educational signage along
with wayfinding is important. Educational signs should be
strategically located to identify sensitive species, unique
habitat, historic and cultural landscape narratives and other
elements. For the Foothills specifically, educational signage
regarding the damage caused by social trails would be useful.
Promotion of Responsible Usage:
Trailhead and wayfinding signs should communicate in simple
terms and encourage responsible trail use. The incorporation
of Leave No Trace principles and local regulations is key,
underscoring the importance of adhering to designated trails.
Safety and Emergency Preparedness:
Ensuring the safety of trail users is paramount. Signage should
provide concise information about emergency contacts,
park hours, and safety guidelines, particularly in remote
or challenging terrain. Mile markers or other indicators
of placement along a trail can further help emergency
responders locate the site of an accident. This ensures user
security and preparedness during outdoor activities.
Restoration Zones Identification:
Official signage should identify areas undergoing ecological
restoration. Signage can both educate trail users about the
value of these projects and restrict access. This initiative
supports successful ecosystem rehabilitation and prevents
further degradation.
Community Engagement:
Installation of signage across the Foothills is a time-consuming
task. Consider engaging volunteers to support staff efforts
when installing wayfinding signage. Active involvement of the
local community in the placement of signage fosters a sense
of ownership and responsibility. Collaborative efforts bring
community insights and ensure a stronger connection to the
trail system.
Accessibility and Inclusivity:
Signage should highlight wheelchair-accessible routes and
accessible facilities, promoting equal access to all users. These
accessible routes are popular with many users, including the
young and old, cyclists of all types, and those with mobility
impairments. Inclusivity and universal access are paramount in
ensuring a broad spectrum of users can enjoy the trail system.
Another key consideration for accessibility is ensuring that final
colors are ‘colorblind safe.’ Many maps and signs utilize green
red pairing, which are commonly lost when viewed by the 8%
of men and .5% of women with limited color vision. Below are
three common color blind safe color sets. Click on the image
to review a comprehensive discussion (and digital color codes)
of these palettes.
52Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
INCREASE THE POWER OF TRAIL COUNTS
As discussed in the evaluating existing demand section of this
document, Salt Lake City has been maintaining trail count
data throughout its networks since 2016. This document
recommends continuing to use the systems in place, but
leveraging and utilizing that data through new partnerships,
big data resources, and community surveys.
Permanent vs. Mobile Counters:
With approximately 16 counters in place, the City should ensure
that several counters stay fixed to locations where counts have
proven to be reliable and use is known to be ‘typical’ for the
Foothills. Over time, these permanent counters will provide
important baseline information regarding system use patterns,
growth, and relative demands through the system. Historically,
the consistent counter locations have been the Mouth of Dry
Creek, Emigration Canyon TH, Ensign, and I Street TH.
Once permanent counter locations are determined, a series of
additional counters should be deployed on a rotating basis to
analyze use levels throughout the system. Temporary counters
can help understand the efficacy of various land closures,
impacts of a trail reroute, or gather data where none was
available prior.
Increase Depth with Manual Counts and
Community Surveys:
The data available from a perfect trail counter system will never
tell us why some people don’t feel comfortable or welcome
using the Foothills. It will be important for Public Lands
to conduct trailhead demographic surveys to understand
who uses the trail networks, and which demographics or
geographies in Salt Lake City are under-represented at the
trailhead. Similarly, targeted community surveys to groups who
are not well represented in current trail user demographics can
help the City understand barriers to access to the Foothills.
Increase Breadth with Big Data:
Additional insights can be gained by correlating physical
trail count data with the broad coverage offered by big data
sources. From the free (to municipalities) resource of Strava
Metro, to more expensive but broad reaching datasets like
Placer AI, Many platforms available can offer a chance to
see beyond the individual counts. It is worth noting that big
datasets will not capture ALL trail users, but they represent a
specific percentage across the entirety of the Foothills network.
Increase Power with Universities:
It is time consuming enough to procure trail counters, deploy
them, pull data from them, and aggregate the data - to say
nothing of the time needed to analyze one or more datasets
and assemble useful insights.
Partnerships with regional universities may offer a solution to
this workload challenge, as there are many degrees at local
institutions that could benefit from a partnership with the City.
Analyzing big datasets, developing trail count dashboards, or
delivering and analyzing community intercept surveys are just
a few of the ideas that could become a classroom or thesis
project.
Trail Count System Comparison
Technology Relative
Cost
Pros Cons Examples
Manual Counts $-$$
Can determine precise use
types, demographics, or
specific details like QR
code usage.
Cost-prohibitive if not using
volunteers. Labor-intensive to
coordinate and report out.
counterpointapp.org/
Infrared
Counters $$
Relatively inexpensive 24/7
costs. Proven technology
and relatively simple to
operate
Can not distinguish between use
types, often require monthly ‘data
pulls’, limited to one location per
unit.
www.TrafX.com
Video Detecting
Systems $$$$
Can offer 24/7 counts and
distinguish between bikes
and pedestrians
Can require additional expertise to
operate, often requires subscription
to service for processing.
https://miovision.com/
scout
Big Data $-$$$$Can offer a ‘global’ view of use Not representative of all users, can
be very costly.
https://metro.strava.com/
https://www.placer.ai/
Key: lower cost = $ higher cost = $$$$
53Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
DEVELOP A MANAGEMENT PLAN
The Foothills Natural area has never been actively managed,
and the Foothills Plan and this evaluation processes have
highlighted maintenance and management needs that must
be addressed to preserve the Salt Lake City Foothills as a place
for nature and recreation.
A management plan should be developed which addresses the
unique qualities and considerations identified for each FOSZ
and includes the following components.
•Public Land’s Role
•Conservation and Preservation Goals
•Trail Use Types
•Trail Use Areas
•Trail Design Practices
•Environmental Strategies
It is anticipated that management plans will be developed
alongside each FOSZ plan, and will reflect each zone’s
unique character, land-use context, recreation resources and
environmental sensitivities. An overarching management
plan for the Foothills Natural Areas should not be uniform in
approach, but instead represent the same zonal approach
recommended in this document. However, all management
plans should be developed in concert with and a goal of
consistency with relevant USFS Land Management plans and
policies.
Examples of management plans for case study communities
include Boulder, Colorado’s Open Space Master Plan, and Boise
Idaho’s Reserves Management Plan.
54Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
Operations and maintenance (O&M) upholds the functionality,
safety, and sustainability of a community trail system. O&M
extends beyond mere task lists; it symbolizes the unwavering
commitment to delivering an exceptional outdoor recreational
experience for users and foundation for future development.
This section outlines some methodical and conscientious O&M
approaches that can maintain Salt Lake City trails within the
Foothills region. It provides an approach to routine inspections,
repairs, enhancements, the protection of sensitive ecosystems,
and community engagement. All these actions are intended
to preserve the trails’ integrity and ensure they remain a source
of inspiration, adventure, and solace for residents and visitors.
Trail maintenance principles form the cornerstone of robust
O&M, ensuring that trail systems remain sustainable, safe, and
accessible for all users. Trail maintenance is guided by several
fundamental principles:
•Visitor Safety: Ensuring the safety of trail users is
paramount. Maintenance aims to prevent accidents and
injuries by addressing potential hazards and structural
issues promptly.
•Resource Protection: Protecting the natural and cultural
resources that the trail traverses is central to maintenance.
Preventing resource damage and ensuring minimal
environmental impact is a core objective.
•Public Investment Preservation: Trail maintenance
safeguards the public’s investment in the trail system,
ensuring that the trails remain a valuable asset and a source
of recreation and enjoyment for years to come.
•User Convenience: Maintenance should prioritize the
convenience of trail users by addressing issues that could
hinder their experience, such as fallen trees, debris, and
damaged structures.
Trails Maintenance Categories:
Many trail programs manage substandard trail systems
that require more than just maintenance to stay open
and safe. Inadequate funding, lack of management
prioritization, and poor initial designs contribute to a backlog
of rehabilitation, reconstruction, or rerouting projects,
often funded through deferred maintenance budgets. To
address these issues efficiently, a well-defined process for
identifying and prioritizing maintenance projects is necessary
(typically through a Management Plan). When it comes to
maintenance, there are two categories to consider.
Ongoing Maintenance:
This category pertains to routine activities that must be
conducted on a recurring basis, typically on a seasonal basis,
or within a two to five year cycle. Ongoing maintenance
preserves the intended functionality of a trail and continued
user experience. It encompasses routine upkeep, along with
regular inspections and evaluations of recurring maintenance
tasks. Additionally, it addresses ad-hoc incident-related repairs,
which are unpredictable issues that may arise, as well as the
phased replacement of trail structures that have reached the
conclusion of their useful lifespan. The specific frequency of
these maintenance tasks can be adjusted to accommodate
local factors, such as regional weather patterns and local soil
and vegetation types.
Deferred Maintenance:
Deferred maintenance comes into play when the trail’s
maintenance needs exceed the program’s capabilities,
often due to poor design, inadequate funding, or natural
disasters. These are typically large-scale projects involving the
replacement or reconstruction of multiple trail structures or
rerouting of the trail.
Fall line trail that has been
closed
55Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
Maintaining the Outdoors: The Blueprint for Trail Care
To build a successful Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
approach for a trail system, it’s valuable to understand the ‘why’
behind sections that would typically be included in such a plan.
These components are the strategic pillars that ensure the
sustainability, safety, and overall quality of a trail network. The
following paragraphs outline these critical sections, illustrate
how they work in concert, and how they are embedded
within the overarching implementation of operations and
maintenance.
Quarterly Routine Maintenance:
Quarterly routine maintenance serves as the backbone of any
successful trails system. This section should identify vital tasks
required to ensure the trail system’s ongoing functionality
and safety. Regular trail inspections should be conducted
to identify and address issues promptly, guaranteeing user
safety and preventing further degradation. Clearing vegetation
should maintain a safe and aesthetically pleasing path,
enhancing the overall user experience. Drainage maintenance
is essential to prevent erosion and protect the trail’s integrity
and nearby ecosystems. Finally, trash removal maintains
the trail’s cleanliness, benefiting both aesthetics and the
environment. These routine maintenance activities are the
proactive measures that help address challenges before they
become major problems, providing a solid foundation for a
well-maintained and user-friendly trail system.
Repairs and Rehabilitation:
Repairs and rehabilitation are crucial components of
operations and maintenance, ensuring the longevity and
continued usability of the trail network. Trail repairs are
necessary for addressing issues identified during inspections
and user feedback, preventing further deterioration and
ensuring safety. The maintenance of signage and wayfinding
elements plays a significant role in not only guiding users
safely but also preventing the development of social trails,
which can harm the environment. Infrastructure maintenance
ensures the safety and accessibility of the trail network,
protecting users while preserving its functionality.
Environmental Stewardship:
Operation and maintenance should focus on environmental
stewardship to highlight responsible and sustainable
management of our trail system. Protection of wildlife and
sensitive habitats during maintenance activities is vital, as it
safeguards the natural ecosystem and ensures that the trail
network coexists harmoniously with the environment. The
control of invasive species is essential to protect the local
ecosystem from harmful encroachment. Erosion control
measures are in place to prevent soil degradation and preserve
the integrity of the trail and its surroundings. Additionally,
seasonal closures are employed to protect ecosystems
and wildlife during critical periods. These environmental
stewardship efforts not only promote responsible trail
management but also contribute to the long-term health and
sustainability of the trail network.
Reporting and Communications:
Reporting and communication mechanisms within a
management plan should be included to engage the
community, enhance transparency, and maintain an efficient
operation and maintenance process. Incident reporting
provides a direct channel for users to report issues, damage,
and feedback. This user involvement ensures that problems
are promptly addressed, fostering a sense of ownership and
accountability within the community. The use of a dynamic
story map with interactive mapping components for trail
updates is a modern, user-friendly method to keep the
community informed about maintenance activities, closures,
and important updates. This approach not only enhances
user experience but also creates a collaborative relationship
between the city and its trail users. Effective reporting and
communication methods are the glue that binds together the
various elements of a trails plan, providing a mechanism for
community involvement and transparent trail management.
Living Room Lone
Tree
56Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
Methods to Accomplish Quarterly Inspections
On-Site Visual Inspection:
Assign trained personnel or volunteers to physically walk
or bike the trail, observing and documenting any issues or
concerns they encounter.
Checklists:
Develop and provide inspection checklists that cover all
relevant aspects to guide inspectors in their assessments. This
can help ensure thorough and consistent inspections.
Photographic Documentation:
Use cameras or smartphones to take photos of areas that need
attention. This visual documentation can be invaluable for
assessment and reporting.
GPS and Mapping Tools:
Utilize GPS devices or smartphone apps with mapping
capabilities to accurately mark the location of identified issues
for future reference and repair.
Communication and Reporting:
Establish a clear process for inspectors to report their findings,
including any safety hazards or required maintenance. Create a
central reporting system for easy access.
Swift Response:
Once issues are identified, ensure there is a well-defined
process for addressing and resolving them in a timely manner.
Prioritize and schedule necessary maintenance or repairs.
Additional support would be provided through developing a
detailed maintenance plan. A maintenance plan would inform
the City’s role as primary maintenance support and manager
for the Foothills, and provides the knowledge and skills sets to
aid the city to self-manage and maintain trail system assets.
In addition to extensive in-person training conducted during
this process, this plan includes written guidance on trail
development techniques, construction quality management,
opportunities for enhanced maintenance on existing trails,
monitoring, and management guidance, methods of
record keeping and planning/budgeting tools to achieve
departmental goals.
That stated, complete management of the existing or
redeveloped trail system will likely continue to pose a
significant challenge to the growing but still small Public
Lands Department. An effective and robust stewardship
program will also need to be developed to positively engage
Salt Lake City residents in the collaborative maintenance and
management of their public trail system, as well as continue
a partnership with stakeholders to share resources and
collaborate on future projects and initiatives.
Youth Riding Group in Salt Lake City
Foothills
57Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
NEXT STEPS
This evaluation identifies goals in the 2020 Foothills Plan
that should continue to guide Salt Lake City’s Public Lands
Department as they work to provide a more sustainable
approach to evaluating and managing the Foothills Natural
Areas. This evaluation outlines specific procedures to ensure
that the Public Lands team has the knowledge and skills to
effectively plan for and maintain the Foothills Trail System and
its surrounding natural areas.
A new approach to planning, as outlined in this report,
develops plans for interconnected Foothills Open Space Zones
(FOSZ), so that new trail development will be accompanied
by necessary restoration of eroding trails and that appropriate
visitor use signage and amenities will be included for a
diversity of user types and skill levels. These FOSZ plans will
include assessments of ecology and geography; proposed
trail alignments; recommended land restoration; on-trail
and trailhead signage and amenities; communications and
engagement planning; maintenance plans and budgets.
This planning approach will help Public Lands reduce
environmental degradation caused by existing trails and the
extent of human impacts from decades of unmanaged use
and will detail the ways in which deteriorating trails should be
sustainably restored or closed while also defining how new
trails should be constructed and monitored sustainably.
Each FOSZ plan will integrate the recommendations made
here to:
•Prioritize the Maintenance and Enhancement of Existing
Facilities
•Integrate Clear Wayfinding, Signage, and Information
System
•Use Data to inform Decision Making
If this evaluation and its recommendations are approved
by the Salt Lake City Council, FOSZ planning should begin
immediately. Once the FOSZ plans are in process, Public Lands
should begin work to develop a Management Plan for the
Foothills Natural Area. The Public Lands Department should
continue other ongoing management efforts which are critical
to support the recommendations made here.
•To prioritize maintenance and enhancement of existing
facilities, as well as improve public communication, the
City has committed to on-the-ground Foothills-specific
staff including two Park Rangers and a trails and ecological
maintenance team. The Public Lands “SLC Be WILD”
community education campaign will welcome and inform
new and returning Foothills users and help build a trail
culture together. And
•Critically important for a trail system along an urban
interface, the City has already begun the process to
implement extensive improvements at major and minor
trailheads across the SLC Foothills. Off-street parking,
trailhead amenities, restrooms (when possible), waste
receptacles, and wayfinding signage to support the user
experience and protect the natural areas are all anticipated
in 2024.
Living Room
View
58Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
This document suggests new trail development within the
Meridian Peak FOSZ as a starting point for future trail system
development. The development of specific projects within
Meridian Peak FOSZ should follow the multi-step Project
Implementation Process (PIP). There are numerous benefits to
beginning the Project Implementation Process with Meridian
Peak:
•The development of new trails and access improvements
in Meridian Peak FOSZ would provide new opportunities
for recreational access to City residents and would support
a diversity of trail types to appeal to a wide cross-section of
users.
•Project(s) in the Meridian Peak FOSZ will require permitting
with the USFS through the NEPA process. The rigorous
nature of this process will help establish the level of natural
and cultural resource review needed as a model for future
implementation projects in all FOSZs.
•Meridian Peak can act as a test of the PIP protocols and
provide valuable feedback to Public Lands to inform future
project development.
While Meridian Peak is proposed as a ‘next step’ for trail
development, Public Lands will continue on numerous parallel
efforts in the foothills.
Public Lands will maintain and conduct restoration projects
throughout the Foothills Open Space on an ongoing basis.
New wayfinding systems will be installed within 2 years,
providing tangible benefits to user access, education, and trail
sustainability. Trailhead improvements are being developed
to better integrate those access points with their surrounding
communities and improve user experience.
The future of trail system development in the Salt Lake
City Foothills is one of balance, patience, and holistic and
methodological processes. By planning and proceeding
through the recommended FOSZ planning process, and using
each project as an opportunity to improve environmental
review, public communication, land management,
and construction efforts, we can ensure the long-term
sustainability of the Foothills for generations to come.
Salt Lake City Foothills
Natural Area Trails Baseline
Environmental Evaluation
Report
FINAL
SEPTEMBER 2023
PREPARED FOR
Salt Lake City Department of Public Lands
PREPARED BY
SWCA Environmental Consultants
SALT LAKE CITY FOOTHILLS NATURAL AREA TRAILS
BASELINE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION REPORT
FINAL
Prepared for
Salt Lake City Department of Public Lands
1965 West 500 South
Salt Lake City, Utah 84104
Attn: Tyler Fonarow
Prepared by
SWCA Environmental Consultants
257 East 200 South
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
(801) 322-4307
www.swca.com
September 2023
Salt Lake City Foothills Natural Area Trails Baseline Environmental Evaluation Report - FINAL
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Salt Lake City Foothills Natural Area Trails Baseline Environmental Evaluation Report - FINAL
ii
CONTENTS
1 Introduction............................................................................................................................................1
2 Evaluation Methodology........................................................................................................................1
2.1 Desktop Data Collection and Analysis...........................................................................................2
3 Existing Environment............................................................................................................................4
3.1 Biological Resources......................................................................................................................5
3.1.1 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................5
3.1.2 Wildlife.................................................................................................................................8
3.1.3 Aquatic Resources..............................................................................................................13
3.2 Soil and Geology..........................................................................................................................14
3.2.1 Soils....................................................................................................................................14
3.2.2 Geology..............................................................................................................................16
3.3 Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................................16
4 Impacts of Trail Use and Development..............................................................................................19
4.1 Biological Resources....................................................................................................................19
4.1.1 Vegetation ..........................................................................................................................19
4.1.2 Wildlife...............................................................................................................................20
4.1.3 Aquatic Resources..............................................................................................................21
4.2 Soils and Geology........................................................................................................................21
4.3 Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................................21
5 Regulatory Considerations..................................................................................................................21
5.1 Vegetation....................................................................................................................................21
5.1.1 Nonnative species...............................................................................................................21
5.1.2 Threatened and Endangered Species..................................................................................22
5.1.3 U.S. Forest Service Sensitive Species................................................................................22
5.2 Wildlife ........................................................................................................................................22
5.2.1 General Wildlife and Migratory Birds................................................................................22
5.2.2 Threatened and Endangered Species..................................................................................22
5.2.3 Species of Greatest Conservation Need..............................................................................22
5.3 Aquatic Resources........................................................................................................................23
5.4 Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................................23
6 Literature Cited....................................................................................................................................24
Salt Lake City Foothills Natural Area Trails Baseline Environmental Evaluation Report - FINAL
iii
Appendices
Appendix A. Maps
Appendix B. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Information for Planning and Consultation Resource List
Appendix C. Utah Natural Heritage Program Online Species Search Report
Appendix D. Information Provided by Stakeholders
Tables
Table 1. LANDFIRE Vegetation Classifications in the Study Area ..............................................................5
Table 2. Threatened, Endangered, and Protected Plant Species with the Potential to Occur in the
Study Area...................................................................................................................................6
Table 3. U.S. Forest Service Species with Potential to Occur in the Study Area...........................................7
Table 44. Acres of Wildlife Habitat in the Study Area ..................................................................................8
Table 55. Federally Listed and Candidate Wildlife Species with the Potential to Occur in the Study
Area.............................................................................................................................................9
Table 6. Species of Greatest Conservation Need with Potential to Occur in the Study Area.......................10
Table 7. Wasatch Wildlife Watch Camera Inventory Detections.................................................................13
Table 87. Summary of Aquatic Resources from Desktop Review Results in the Study Area .....................14
Table 9. Soil Map Units in the Study Area...................................................................................................14
Table 10. Inherent Risk of Site Degradation for Restrictive Soil Features in the Study Area......................15
Table 11. Geological Units in the Study Area..............................................................................................16
Table 12. Previous Cultural Resources Investigations in the Study Area ....................................................17
Table 13. Archaeological Resources Sites in the Study Area.......................................................................17
Table 14. Architectural Resources in the Study Area...................................................................................18
Table 15. Historic Features on General Land Office and Topographic Maps in the Study Area.................19
Salt Lake City Foothills Natural Area Trails Baseline Environmental Evaluation Report - FINAL
1
1 INTRODUCTION
The Salt Lake City Foothills Natural Area (study area) consists of approximately 6,898 acres of canyons
and foothills bordering the northern and eastern limits of Salt Lake City, Utah. It is bordered by Davis
County and protected Salt Lake City watershed lands to the north and east and established neighborhoods
to the west and south. The study area contains approximately 100 miles of formal and informal (user-
created) trails that provide a space for people to bike, hike, run, and recreate. In 2020, the Salt Lake City
Council adopted the 2020 Salt Lake City Foothills Trail System Plan (Salt Lake City Public Lands
Department 2020) to provide strategic development and management and a balanced plan for land
conservation and sustainable recreation in the Foothills Natural Area. Pre-existing trails in the area
include the original 14 miles of Bonneville Shoreline Trail—a formally constructed trail built in the
1990s—and dozens of informal trails that tend to follow ridgelines, drainage bottoms, utility access roads,
or old off-road vehicle routes. Many of these informal trails have substantial erosion issues due to
establishment at steep grades and water runoff. Additionally, informal trails can exacerbate other
disturbances and contribute to changes at the landscape level (Kuss 1986; Wimpey and Marion 2011).
Informal trails also can result in loss of native vegetation, habitat fragmentation, displacement of wildlife,
soil compaction and erosion, altered hydrology, and spread of invasive species (Van Winkle 2014;
Wimpey and Marion 2011).
Construction of the trails identified under Phase I of the 2020 Salt Lake City Foothills Trail System Plan
has largely been completed. Certain members of the public expressed concern that potential
environmental impacts resulting from the trail construction carried out under Phase I were not sufficiently
analyzed prior to construction. In response, Salt Lake City has contracted SWCA Environmental
Consultants (SWCA) to complete this environmental evaluation report to address the potential impacts of
trail corridors within the study area.
This report is a pre-National Environmental Policy Act document that lays out the existing conditions of
the study area and the potential for ecologically sensitive species and habitats to occur in the study area
and, at a high level, defines impacts that may be associated with the project. This report includes
summaries of the existing condition of the resources in the study area and discusses regulatory
considerations for resources in the study area. The purpose of this report is to help Salt Lake City identify
appropriate areas to build trails and inappropriate areas where trail building should be avoided due to
potential resource impacts. As part of the environmental evaluation process, Salt Lake City has engaged
stakeholders with expertise in various resources in the study area. The stakeholder outreach process is
described in Section 2 of this report. Summaries of the existing conditions for natural, cultural, and scenic
resources are described in Section 3 of this report followed by a discussion of the potential impacts to
these resources from the development and use of trails in Section 4. Section 5 includes a list of regulatory
considerations for biological and cultural resources. Visual resource impacts will be analyzed once the
National Environmental Policy Act process for the project begins.
Four appendices accompany this report: Appendix A: Maps; Appendix B: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Information for Planning and Consultation Resource List; Appendix C: Utah Natural Heritage Program
Online Species Search Report; and Appendix D: Information Provided by Stakeholders.
2 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
The study area for the environmental evaluation of the existing environment consists of approximately
6,898 acres bordering the northern and eastern limits of Salt Lake City. This area was chosen because it
contains all the proposed trail corridors and areas that Salt Lake City identified and analyzed in its 2020
plan as habitat study areas.
Salt Lake City Foothills Natural Area Trails Baseline Environmental Evaluation Report - FINAL
2
To analyze the potential impacts of the development of trails, available resources data, existing scientific
literature, and input from stakeholders has been considered. Available data resources include existing
wildlife habitat spatial data, existing vegetation and land cover spatial data, existing soils and geology
data, and existing cultural resources survey data. Existing scientific literature addressing the impacts of
trail use on wildlife and habitat has also been considered in this environmental evaluation report. Finally,
input from stakeholders with expertise on resources within the study area has also been considered and
incorporated into this environmental evaluation report.
The trail system goals that were identified in the 2020 Salt Lake City Foothills Trail System Plan provide
an important backdrop to the evaluation of the study area and are listed below (Salt Lake City Public
Lands Department 2020):
•Environmentally Sustainable: Trails avoid sensitive habitat, minimize erosion/sedimentation
and vegetation disturbance, and make efficient use of available natural lands. The wild and scenic
nature of the Foothills landscape is protected. Fragile natural or cultural features are avoided and
trails direct users away from closed or protected watershed areas.
•Enjoyable: Trails cater to a variety of recreation types, and also to a variety of desired
experiences, including solitude; escape and connection to the natural world; challenge and
exercise; and fun and excitement. Trail layout and construction is optimized to the intended user
group(s) of any individual trail segment, and trails are routed to take users to desirable areas and
points of interest.
•Accessible: Trails are accessible to a broad audience of beginner-to-intermediate trail users,
including families, seniors, and people with disabilities. Trailheads are sited and designed to
make it easy for people to get on the trails and are connected to transportation routes. Wayfinding
signage and supplemental trail information makes it easy for people to understand and navigate
the trail system.
•Safe: Trail user collisions and conflicts are mitigated and minimized through trail design and use
regulations. Signage and natural barriers minimize incidences of lost or disoriented persons and
make it easier for emergency personnel to respond when needed. Trails are routed to discourage
trespassing on private property. Crime prevention through environmental design principles are
incorporated in trailhead design to mitigate theft and vandalism to parked cars.
•Low Maintenance: Trails drain water naturally, follow contours instead of fall-lines, and
effectively encourage users to remain on-trail, minimizing maintenance and reconstruction needs
and costs. Thoughtful trail layout reduces the creation and use of informal trails and routes. Trails
are sited to bring regular trail users through “problem areas” to reduce incidences of vandalism,
graffiti, and illicit activity.
2.1 Desktop Data Collection and Analysis
Data were collected from multiple sources that provided relevant information about the study area,
including federal, state, and local issues. These data were then compiled, reviewed, and used to establish
baseline site conditions within the study area. Sources for biological data collection included the
following:
•U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Landscape Fire and Resource Management Planning Tools
(LANDFIRE) (USGS and U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] 2016)
•U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) (USFWS 2022a)
•USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) (USGS 2022)
Salt Lake City Foothills Natural Area Trails Baseline Environmental Evaluation Report - FINAL
3
•USGS Geology Web Map Viewer (USGS 2023a)
•USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) online database (see Appendix B)
(USFWS 2022b)
•Utah Natural Heritage Program online species search (see Appendix C) (Utah Division of
Wildlife Resources [UDWR] 2022a)
•Utah Division of Wildlife Resources online wildlife geographic information system (GIS)
database (UDWR 2022b)
•Sageland Collaborative
•U.S. Forest Service (USFS)
•Save Our Canyons
•Save Our Foothills
•Wasatch Wildlife Watch
•Salt Lake City Corporation
•Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey (2019)
•Stakeholder outreach
Salt Lake City sought to engage stakeholders with expertise on the issues to be analyzed in a pre-NEPA
evaluation report addressing potential impacts of trail development in the study area. Salt Lake City
invited the following stakeholders to contribute information and participate in the trail evaluation process:
•U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Salt Lake Ranger District
•USFWS, Salt Lake City Regional Office
•UDWR
•Salt Lake City Public Utilities Watershed Division
•Sageland Collaborative
•University of Utah (as a landowner)
•University of Utah Biology Department
•University of Utah History Department
•University of Utah Geology Department
•Utah State Historic Preservation Office
•Ute Tribe Cultural Resource Preservation Office
•Goshute Tribe Cultural Resource Preservation Office
•Northwestern Band of the Shoshone Nation Cultural Resource Protection Office
•Utah Native Plant Society
•Preservation Utah
•Utah Open Lands
•Save Our Canyons
Salt Lake City Foothills Natural Area Trails Baseline Environmental Evaluation Report - FINAL
4
•Save Our Foothills
•Great Salt Lake Audubon
•Tracy Aviary
•Natural History Museum of Utah
•Utah State Parks (This Is the Place Heritage Park)
•Utah Geological Survey
Salt Lake City held four stakeholder meetings to provide stakeholders with an overview of the evaluation
process, to get input from stakeholders regarding concerns specific to the study area, to gather
information about potential conflict areas and impacts associated with the proposed trail corridors, and to
gather site-specific anecdotal data. Meetings were held on May 5, May 25, July 5, and October 6, 2022.
Input received during these meetings included concerns about increased use of new trails, disturbances to
wildlife species and their habitats, the spread of invasive weeds, and off-leash dogs. Stakeholders
provided information about wildlife species observed in the study area and wildlife habitat areas (see
Appendix D).
3 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
The study area consists of approximately 6,900 acres of canyons and foothills and stretches from the
Tunnel Springs Wild Rose trailheads on the Salt Lake County/Davis County border on the north end of
the study area to the Emigration Trailhead at the mouth of Emigration Canyon on the south end of the
study area. The study area is bordered by established neighborhoods to the west and south, and protected
Salt Lake City watershed lands to the east.
Nearly 100 miles of formal and informal (i.e., user-created) trails currently exist within the study area. Of
these trails, the Bonneville Shoreline Trail is the most well-known. Trails in the study area are managed
by the city’s Trails and Natural Lands Division, including the Ensign Peak Trail and Bonneville Shoreline
Trail, through maintenance crews and volunteer stewards. Because of the study area’s proximity to Salt
Lake City, 91% of the area is experiencing human pressures largely from urban activities (Half-Earth
Project 2022).
The Nature Conservancy has a Resilient Land Mapping Tool that evaluates an area’s resiliency, landscape
diversity, and local connectedness (The Nature Conservancy 2022). A site’s Resilience Score estimates its
capacity to maintain species diversity and ecological function as the climate changes. Local
connectedness refers to the degree of fragmentation and strength of barriers that create resistance to
movement within a landscape. A highly connected landscape promotes resilience by allowing species to
move through the landscape and find suitable microclimates where they can persist. Landscape Diversity
refers to the microhabitats and climatic gradients available in the immediate neighborhood surrounding
any 30-meter cell of land. The persistence of species in an area increases in landscapes with a variety of
microclimates created by the topography, elevation, and hydrology. These scores are calculated within
ecoregions based on all cells of the same geophysical setting and are described on a relative basis as
above or below the average. These scores range from -2 to 2 with 0 being the average score. Based on the
Nature Conservancy Resilient Land Mapping Tool, the study area has an average resiliency rating (0.37),
a slightly below-average rating of local connectedness (-0.92), and an above-average landscape diversity
(1.29) (see Appendix D).
The existing conditions of biological, cultural, and scenic resources in the study area are discussed in the
sections below.
Salt Lake City Foothills Natural Area Trails Baseline Environmental Evaluation Report - FINAL
5
3.1 Biological Resources
3.1.1 Vegetation
An analysis was conducted using the USGS LANDFIRE database to identify the vegetation communities
that overlap with the study area. The analysis revealed 55 vegetation classifications within the study area,
although the landcover is predominately composed of two vegetation classifications: Rocky Mountain
gambel oak (Quercus gambelii)-mixed montane shrubland and Rocky Mountain bigtooth maple (Acer
grandidentatum) ravine woodland (see Appendix A, Figure A-2) (USGS and USDA 2016). Table 1
provides acreage of vegetation classifications within the study area that comprise more than 1% of the
study area.
Table 1. LANDFIRE Vegetation Classifications in the Study Area
Land Cover Type Acres Percentage of Total
Rocky Mountain Gambel Oak-Mixed Montane Shrubland 1,484.88 21.52%
Rocky Mountain Bigtooth Maple Ravine Woodland 1,354.82 19.64%
Interior Western North American Temperate Ruderal Grassland 709.65 10.29%
Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland 686.09 9.95%
Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Shrub-Steppe 490.84 7.12%
Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 366.39 5.31%
Great Basin and Inter-Mountain Introduced Annual Grassland 296.49 4.30%
Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Mesic Meadow 272.72 3.95%
Western Cool Temperate Pasture and Hayland 137.52 1.99%
Great Basin and Inter-Mountain Introduced Perennial Grassland and Forbland 120.77 1.75%
Developed-Roads 114.34 1.66%
Rocky Mountain Foothill Limber Pine-Juniper Woodland 100.13 1.45%
Western Cool Temperate Urban Shrubland 94.48 1.37%
Great Basin and Inter-Mountain Ruderal Shrubland 90.08 1.31%
Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe 73.27 1.06%
Total 6,392.46 92.66%
Source: USGS and USDA (2016)
3.1.1.1 NONNATIVE SPECIES
Nonnative species can present a profound threat to natural areas. They can displace native species that
provide suitable habitat and forage for wildlife species, affect shelter resources for wildlife, and affect the
hydrology and soils of an area. Trails and roads are well documented as a vector in the spread of
nonnative and ruderal species (Hansen and Clevenger 2005; Mount and Pickering 2009; Potito and Beatty
2005). Dispersal by humans and pets along formal and informal trails increases opportunities for invasive
and noxious weed species to be introduced and transported widely within natural areas. The study area
contains several invasive and state-designated noxious weed species. Species identified in this area
include cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria dalmatica), dyer’s woad (Isatis
tinctoria), myrtle spurge (Euphorbia myrsinites), hoary cress (Lepidium draba), Russian olive (Elaeagnus
angustifolia), yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), puncturevine (Tribulus terrestris), Russian thistle
(Salsola tragus), salt cedar (Tamarix ramosissima), scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium), and field
Salt Lake City Foothills Natural Area Trails Baseline Environmental Evaluation Report - FINAL
6
bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) (Figure A-3) (iNaturalist 2022; SWCA 2016; Salt Lake City Public
Lands Department 2023).
3.1.1.2 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT
The study area was assessed for special-status plant species. Threatened and endangered species are those
species managed by the USFWS under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). The purpose of the
ESA is to conserve and protect endangered and threatened species and their habitats. SWCA used the
USFWS IpaC database (see Appendix B) to determine if threatened or endangered plant species have the
potential to occur in the study area. The IpaC report did not identify any designated critical habitat for
threatened and endangered plant species within the study area (USFWS 2022b).
Based on the IpaC results, one federally listed plant species has the potential to occur within the study
area. Federally threatened species include any species that are likely to become an endangered species
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. These species, habitat
descriptions, and the likelihood of occurrence in the study area were evaluated during a desktop analysis
and are listed in Table 2 (USFWS 2022b).
Table 2. Threatened, Endangered, and Protected Plant Species with the Potential to Occur in the
Study Area
Species Federal
Status
Habitat Description Potential for
Occurrence in the
Study Area
Ute ladies’-tresses
(Spiranthes
diluvialis)
Threatened This species occurs in moist meadows associated with perennial
stream terraces, floodplains, and oxbows at elevations between
4,300 and 6,850 feet. This species occurs where soils are
generally well drained and vegetation cover is not overly dense.
Low. The study area has
little to no suitable
riparian habitat.
Source: USFWS (2022b).
3.1.1.3 U.S. FOREST SERVICE SENSITIVE SPECIES
In addition to federally listed plant species, SWCA coordinated with USFS botanists to assess USFS
sensitive plants and their habitats that have the potential to occur within the study area. There are no
documented occurrences of USFS sensitive plant species within the study area. Based on the elevation
range and general location of the study area, several plant species were identified with the potential to
occur in the study area (Table 3).
7
Salt Lake City Foothills Natural Area Trails Baseline Environmental Evaluation Report - FINAL
Table 3. U.S. Forest Service Species with Potential to Occur in the Study Area
Species USFS Status Habitat Description Potential for Occurrence in the Study Area
Wheeler’s angelica
(Angelica wheeleri)
Sensitive Bogs, very wet areas, riparian communities, and seeps/springs at elevations
between 5,380 and 10,000 feet.
Moderate. The study area has little suitable
riparian habitat but there is a known occurrence
of this species above Red Butte Reservoir.
Slender moonwort
(Botrychium lineare)
Sensitive Marsh or spring areas, spruce forests, stabilized margins of streams. Sites
tend to be partly to heavily shaded with a dense, diverse cover of forbs and
graminoids. Dominant plant species may include spruce, alders, and
dogwood at elevations between 4,900 and 6,600 feet.
Unlikely to occur. The study area has little to
no suitable riparian habitat.
Wasatch fitweed
(Corydalis caseana subsp.
Brachycarpa)
Sensitive Midmontane habitat growing in or along streams and nearby drainages at
elevations between 6,200 and 10,100 feet.
Moderate. There is potentially suitable habitat
within the study area, but this species is found in
a very limited range.
Clustered lady’s slipper
(Cypripedium fasciculatum)
Sensitive Found on gravel bars growing in or along streams or nearby drainages at
elevations between 8,000 and 9,000 feet.
Low. There is potentially suitable habitat within
the study area, but this species is uncommon.
Lesser yellow lady’s slipper
(Cypripedium parviflorum var.
pubescens)
Sensitive Usually in duff of spruce-fir or lodgepole forests and along shaded streams at
elevations between 7,800 and 9,000 feet.
Unlikely to occur. The study area has little to
no suitable habitat.
Wasatch draba
(Draba brachystylis)
Sensitive Moist places on rocky slopes in aspen and white fir/Douglas-fir communities
at elevations between 4,400 and 9,850 feet.
Unlikely to occur. The study area has little to
no suitable habitat.
Burke’s draba
(Draba burkei)
Sensitive Talus slopes and rocky outcrops of quartzite, limestone, or calcareous shale
and in Douglas-fir, mixed conifer, and maple/oak communities at elevations
between 5,300 and 9,800 feet.
Unlikely to occur. The study area has little to
no suitable habitat.
Wasatch Jamesia
(Jamesia americana var.
macrocalyx)
Sensitive Mountain brush and spruce-fir, mostly on cliffs and rocky places at elevations
between 5,700 and 12,000 feet.
Moderate. The study area has suitable habitat
and is within species’ range.
Wasatch pepper-wort
(Lepidium montanum var.
alpinum)
Sensitive Typically in damp rocky crevices at high elevations in mountain brush and
spruce-fir communities at elevations between 6,600 and 9,000 feet.
Unlikely to occur. The study area has little to
no suitable habitat.
Cottam cinquefoil
(Potentilla cottamii)
Sensitive Rock crevices and ledges in quartzite at elevations between 7,500 and
10,400 feet. Often found in areas shaded from direct midday sun within Box
Elder, Juab, and Tooele Counties.
Unlikely to occur. The study area is outside the
range of this species.
Utah shooting star
(Dodecatheon utahense)
Sensitive Shady, moist, mossy cracks and crevices of limestone and quartz outcrop,
often in the spray of waterfalls at elevations between 6,600 and 9,500 feet.
Unlikely to occur. The study area has little to
no suitable habitat.
Hopkin’s tower-mustard
(Arabis glabra var. furcatipilis)
Watch Sagebrush, Pinyon-Juniper woodlands. Brush, aspen, and spruce-fir
communities at elevations between 5,000 and 9,600 feet.
Moderate. The study area has suitable habitat
and is within species’ range.
Wasatch daisy
(Erigeron arenarioides)
Watch Crevices in limestone and quartzite outcrops, in maple, oak, limber pine,
ivesia, and buckwheat communities at elevations between 4,265 and 10,000
feet.
Low. There is potentially suitable habitat within
the study area, but this species is uncommon.
Source: USDA 2023.
Salt Lake City Foothills Natural Area Trails Baseline Environmental Evaluation Report - FINAL
8
3.1.2 Wildlife
3.1.2.1 GENERAL WILDLIFE AND MIGRATORY BIRDS
Wildlife within the study area largely consists of generally common invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles,
birds, and mammals (including game and non-game species) that are found in Salt Lake County, and a
variety of habitat types that support high biodiversity. Raptors and many other bird species nest in a wide
range of habitats and are likely to be found nesting within the study area (eBird 2022).
Discussions with stakeholders identified several areas of habitat in the study area that provide habitat for a
variety of mammal, bird, and wildlife species. A table of the species observed in the study area is found in
Appendix D (Table D-1) (Save Our Foothills 2022a). Areas of particular interest include the Black
Mountain to Red Butte protected area, Dry Creek Canyon, and forested areas dominated by gambel oak
and Rocky Mountain maple (Acer glabrum) (see Appendix A, Figure A-3) (Save Our Foothills 2022a;
Save Our Foothills 2022b). Riparian areas along streams, including City Creek and Red Butte Creek,
provide nesting and foraging habitat for avian species within the study area (Save Our Foothills 2023).
Little Black Mountain and Upper City Creek Canyon are areas within the study area that provide patches
of habitat used by large mammals, including black bear (Ursus americanus) and moose (Alces alces)
(Save Our Foothills 2023). Stakeholders from Save Our Foothills have also identified areas of suitable
habitat for wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), coyote (Canis latrans), elk (Cervus canadensis), cougar
(Puma concolor), and horned lizards (Phrynosoma hernandesi) (see Appendix A, Figure A-4).
Additionally, the study area was assessed for big game and game bird species habitat, including mule deer
(Odocoileus hemionus), elk, pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), black bear, moose, band-tailed pigeon
(Patagioenas fasciata), California quail (Callipepla californica), chukar (Alectoris chukar), dusky grouse
(Dendragapus obscurus), ring necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus), ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus),
and wild turkey habitat (Appendix A, Figures A-5 and A-6) (Table 4) (UDWR 2022b). Mule deer and elk,
in particular, use the study area for overwintering when they move to lower elevations to avoid deep snow
and to forage. However, there is no critical elk habitat in the study area.
Table 44. Acres of Wildlife Habitat in the Study Area
Species Habitat Type Acres Percentage of
Study Area
Band-tailed pigeon (Patagioenas fasciata)Substantial spring-fall 3,465.34 50.24%
Black bear (Ursus americanus)Crucial year-long 1,701.19 24.66%
California quail (Callipepla californica)Crucial year-long 5,481.28 79.46%
Chukar (Alectoris chukar)Substantial year-long 4,444.15 64.43%
Dusky grouse (Dendragapus obscurus)Crucial year-long 3,182.77 46.14%
Moose (Alces alces)Crucial year-long 890.10 12.90%
Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus)Crucial winter 5,190.84 75.25%
Crucial spring/fall 62.51 0.91%
Crucial year-long 104.63 1.52%
Ring necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus)Substantial year-long <0.01 < 0.01%
Ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus)Substantial year-long 1,087.64 15.77%
Wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo)Year-long 2,983.16 43.25%
Source: UDWR (2022b).
Salt Lake City Foothills Natural Area Trails Baseline Environmental Evaluation Report - FINAL
9
Within Utah, game species crucial habitat is defined as habitat essential to the life history requirements of
a species. Continued degradation and loss of crucial habitat will lead to significant declines in carrying
capacity and/or numbers of the wildlife species (UDWR 2019a). Substantial habitat is used by wildlife
species but is not crucial for population survival (UDWR 2019a). Degradation of substantial habitat has
the potential to lead to declines in carrying capacity and/or numbers of wildlife species. Urbanization,
drought, catastrophic wildfire, and expansion of invasive plant species have all resulted in loss or
degradation of wildlife habitat (UDWR 2019a). Additionally, in a human-dominated landscape such as
the study area, effects of human disturbance on big game exceeds those of habitat and natural predators
(Ciuti et al. 2012). An increase in people and pets can trigger increased vigilance and decreased foraging
by big game species (Ciuti et al. 2012), as well as affecting patterns of wildlife distribution, animal
community dynamics, and habitat use in non-game mammals and avian species and negatively impacting
wildlife behavior and/or distribution (Larson et al. 2016; Moll et a. 2018).
3.1.2.2 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT
SWCA used the USFWS IpaC database (see Appendix B) to determine if threatened or endangered
wildlife species have the potential to occur in the study area. The IpaC report did not identify any
designated critical habitat for threatened and endangered species within the study area (USFWS 2022b).
Based on the IpaC results, one federally listed and one candidate wildlife species have the potential to
occur within the study area. These species, their habitat descriptions, and their likelihood of occurrence in
the study area were evaluated using a desktop analysis and are listed in Table 5 (USFWS 2022b).
Table 55. Federally Listed and Candidate Wildlife Species with the Potential to Occur in the Study
Area
Species Federal
Status
Habitat Description Potential for
Occurrence in the
Study Area
Canada lynx
(Lynx canadensis)
Threatened This is species is generally found in moist, boreal forests that have
cold, snowy winters and a high density of snowshoe hare (Lepus
americanus).
Unlikely to occur. There
is potentially suitable
habitat, but the study
area is outside this
species’ range.
Monarch butterfly
(Danaus plexippus)
Candidate This species is known to occur within Utah during migration.
Overwintering monarchs are found to roost on a variety of tree
species. Breeding habitat consists of agricultural fields,
pastureland, and other grassland habitat but is highly dependent
on the presence of milkweed species (Asclepias spp.).
May occur. Suitable
habitat and required
vegetation may occur in
the study area. However,
as this is a candidate
species, there are no
ESA protections.
Source: USFWS (2022b)
3.1.2.3 SPECIES OF GREATEST CONSERVATION NEED
The State of Utah maintains a list of Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) in Utah. An inquiry
report from the Utah Natural Heritage Program determining which species are likely to occur or have
been documented near the study area is provided in Appendix C. Eighteen species were identified by the
UDWR as having the potential to occur within a half-mile radius of the study area (Table 6) (UDWR
2022a).
Salt Lake City Foothills Natural Area Trails Baseline Environmental Evaluation Report - FINAL
10
Table 6. Species of Greatest Conservation Need with Potential to Occur in the Study Area
Species Habitat Description Potential for Occurrence in the Study Area
Birds
Bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Habitats include forested wetlands, riparian areas, and mixed forest.High. There are several recent observations of this species and
there is suitable habitat within the study area.
Black swift
(Cypseloides niger)
This species nests on cliff ledges behind or near waterfalls and sea
caves. Forages widely over a variety of habitat types but is local in
its occurrence, probably limited to regions with suitable nesting
sites.
Unlikely to occur. Populations have declined in recent years and
this species is extremely uncommon. There is also a lack of suitable
nesting habitat within the study area.
Lewis’s woodpecker
(Melanerpes lewis)
The preferred breeding habitat is open ponderosa pine forests,
burned-over Douglas-fir, and mixed conifer, riparian, or pinyon-
juniper woodlands. Dead trees and stumps are required for nesting.
Moderate. There is some suitable habitat and there are some
recent occurrences within the study area. However, the study area
lacks large swaths of suitable habitat.
Peregrine falcon
(Falco peregrinus)
This species prefers areas near marshlands and nests on cliffs,
hollows of tree snags, hilltops, or old stick nests of other large birds
often near water.
High. There are several recent occurrences of this species, and
there is suitable habitat within the study area.
Snowy plover
(Charadrius nivosus)
This species prefers sand, dry mud, or salt flats on the edges of
ocean beaches, rivers, lakes, or ponds in widespread areas around
the world. It nests in shallow nooks in the sand.
Unlikely to occur. The study area lacks suitable habitat.
Fish
Bonneville cutthroat trout
(Oncorhynchus clarki Utah)
This species prefers cold streams with gravelly, cobbly substrates.
Streams with a functional riparian area providing structure, cover,
bank stability, and shade are ideal.
Low. The study area lacks are streams with functional riparian
areas to support this species.
June sucker
(Chasmistes liorus)
This species occurs only in Utah Lake and its major tributary, the
Provo River.
Unlikely. June suckers occur in Red Butte Reservoir near the study
area where they were first introduced in 1992; however, Red Butte
Creek below the reservoir does not provide suitable habitat for the
species.
Least chub
(Iotichthys phlegethontis)
These fish are found in freshwater springs, ponds, marshes, and
streams only in Snake Valley, Clear Lake, Mills Valley, and Mona
Springs. They prefer somewhat shallow pools with moderate to
dense vegetation and minimal current.
Unlikely. The study area is outside this species’ range.
Mollusks
Coarse rams-horn
(Planorbella binneyi)
This species prefers lakes with stagnant water, but has been found
in creeks, canals, and ponds within Utah.
Low. There are historical occurrences of this species in Salt Lake
County, but there is a lack of suitable habitat within the study area.
Deseret mountainsnail
(Oreohelix peripherica)
This species is found in limestone outcrops with mountain maple,
scrub oak, and balsam root. There are 13 colonies within Box Elder,
Cache, and Weber Counties.
Unlikely to occur. The study area is outside the range of this
species, and it lacks limestone outcrops.
Salt Lake City Foothills Natural Area Trails Baseline Environmental Evaluation Report - FINAL
11
Species Habitat Description Potential for Occurrence in the Study Area
Desert tryonia
(Tryonia porrecta)
This species is generally found living in springs and spring outflows
at nine known localities within Tooele, Utah, and Juab Counties and
likely in the Great Basin.
Unlikely to occur. The study area is outside the range of this
species, and there are no springs within the study area.
Lyrate mountainsnail
(Oreohelix haydeni)
This species has approximately 21 localities within Utah, and the
species is found throughout Tooele County. It is found at springs
with limestone talus or calcareous soils.
Unlikely to occur. The study area is outside the range of this
species.
Utah physa
(Physa gyrina utahensis)
This species is known to inhabit three pools within Box Elder
County.
Unlikely to occur. The study area is outside the range of this
species.
Western pearlshell
(Margaritifera falcata)
This species is found in small streams within Utah.Unlikely to occur. Current opinion is that all populations in Utah
have been extirpated.
Winged floater
(Anodonta nuttalliana)
Historically, this species inhabited shallow lakes and freshwater
streams near Salt Lake City.
Unlikely to occur. This species has not been reported in Utah since
1940.
Amphibians
Columbia spotted frog
(Rana luteiventris)
This species lives in aquatic habitat with perennial sources of water.
Breeding occurs in small pools or ponds. This species is restricted in
to three disjunct areas in the West Desert (Deep Creek Range,
Snake Valley, Tule Valley) and to discontinuous portions of the
Wasatch Front (Weber County to Sanpete County).
Low. The study area is within this species range, but there is little
suitable habitat within the study area.
Northern leopard frog
(Lithobates pipiens)
This species lives in the vicinity of springs, slow streams, marshes,
bogs, ponds, canals, floodplains, reservoirs, and lakes; usually they
are in or near permanent water with rooted aquatic vegetation. Eggs
are generally laid in shallow, permanent water that is usually well
exposed to sunlight.
Low. The study area is within this species range but there is little
suitable habitat within the study area.
Western toad
(Anaxyrus boreas)
This species is associated with permanent water bodies in a variety
of habitats, including riparian, mountain shrub, mixed conifer, and
aspen-conifer assemblages.
Low. The study area is within this species range but there is little
suitable habitat within the study area.
Source: eBird (2022); Oliver and Bosworth (1999); UDWR (2019b).
Salt Lake City Foothills Natural Area Trails Baseline Environmental Evaluation Report - FINAL
12
3.1.2.4 WASATCH WILDLIFE WATCH CAMERA DATA
Within the study area, Sageland Collaborative has created and incorporated the Wasatch Wildlife Watch
Project to understand the current condition of wildlife populations, their habitats, and their responses to
human presence (Sageland Collaborative 2023). Wasatch Wildlife Watch deploys and monitors trail
cameras throughout the study area and analyzes the images to help map wildlife movement and habitat, as
well as predict species’ responses to human influence (Sageland Collaborative 2023). Sageland
Collaborative provided SWCA information from the trail cameras within the study area from data
gathered between 2018 and 2020 to assess areas of higher use within the study area (Sageland
Collaborative 2023) (Table 7; Appendix A, Figures A-7–23).
Within the study area, canyons and ravines had higher rates of detection than other cameras across all
species, although it is important to note that cameras were preferentially placed alongside these features
for ease of access and adherence to specific study design. There were no special-status or unique species
detected within the study area (Table 7). Three big game species were detected: mule deer, elk, and
moose. Mule deer were detected the most times (507 detections) throughout the study area with the
highest rates of detection toward the center of the study area (Figure A-16). Elk were detected 8 times and
moose were detected 6 times. Both were detected at higher elevations toward the center of the study area
(Figure A-18 and A-19).
Mountain lions (Puma concolor) were also detected throughout the study area with the highest number of
detections in the southern area (Figure A-10). Importantly, although cameras did not detect mountain lion
use in the northern section of the study area as frequently, given this species large home range and area
requirements, it is likely that they occur throughout the study area. As mountain lion-human conflicts are
an important issue, specifically within the Wasatch Front, avoiding areas of known mountain lion use
may reduce interactions.
Salt Lake City Foothills Natural Area Trails Baseline Environmental Evaluation Report - FINAL
Table 7. Wasatch Wildlife Watch Camera Inventory Detections
Species Detections
Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus)507
Northern raccoon (Procyon lotor)90
Rock squirrel (Otospermophilus variegatus)68
Coyote (Canis latrans)50
Striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis)46
Mountain lion (Puma concolor)21
Bobcat (Lynx rufus)11
Mountain cottontail (Sylvilagus nuttallii)12
Eastern fox squirrel (Sciurus niger)11
Elk (Cervus canadensis)8
Moose (Alces alces)6
American badger (Taxidea taxus)6
Uinta ground squirrel (Urocitellus armatus)8
Red fox (Vulpes vulpes)1
North American porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum)3
American red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus)1
Source: Sageland Collaborative (2023).
Note: Detections = number of total detections across all cameras throughout the study
area. These occurrence data are based on detection rates during a 28-day survey period
with approximately 40 trail cameras across the study area. Absence of detections by the
trail cameras during this survey window does not indicate absence of the species in
surrounding areas.
3.1.3 Aquatic Resources
Aquatic resources such as wetlands and streams provide vital habitat resources especially within arid
regions. The study area contains several gulches and canyons including City Creek Canyon, Jones
Canyon, and Dry Creek. Wildlife thrives where native vegetation and perennial surface water are present
(Brand et al. 2011). Nonnative vegetation near surface water also supports wildlife, but there tends to be a
lower species diversity and reduced reproduction for vulnerable species. Avian communities are highly
dependent on available water sources (Wilsey et al. 2017). Riparian systems of the Arid West are not only
threatened by human impacts, but also by continued impacts of climate change. Declines in water supply,
increases in temperature and aridity, and disruptions in phenology are projected across the Southwest
(Perry et al. 2012; U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 2012). These climate-driven changes are likely to reduce
flows and increase vulnerability more than projected development (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 2012). As
water use increases with population growth and water supplies decrease with climate change, riparian
ecosystems and the wildlife that depend on them will be under increasing pressure (Merritt and Poff
2010).
SWCA conducted an aquatic resources desktop review within the study area using publicly available data.
During this review, SWCA identified 65.33 acres of NWI-mapped palustrine and riverine features. A total
of 27.06 linear miles of NHD-mapped flowlines were also identified. Table 8 summarizes the aquatic
resources identified within the study area during the desktop review. Figure A-24 in Appendix A depicts
the distribution of those aquatic resources within the study area.
Salt Lake City Foothills Natural Area Trails Baseline Environmental Evaluation Report - FINAL
Table 87. Summary of Aquatic Resources from Desktop Review Results in the Study Area
Feature Type Classification Total Length
(miles)
Total Acres
National Hydrography Dataset
Artificial Path Not applicable 0.08 –
Stream/River Ephemeral 17.47 –
Stream/River Intermittent 6.37 –
Stream/River Perennial 3.15 –
Total 27.06 –
National Wetlands Inventory
Palustrine, emergent, persistent, seasonally flooded PEM1C –0.11
Palustrine, aquatic bed, semipermanently flooded, excavated PABFx –0.36
Palustrine, forested, temporary flooded PFOA –2.47
Palustrine, scrub-shrub, temporary flooded PSSA –3.29
Riverine, intermittent, streambed, seasonally flooded R4SBC –56.90
Riverine, unknown perennial, unconsolidated bottom,
permanently flooded
R5UBH –2.21
Total 65.33
Source: USFWS (2022a); USGS (2022).
3.2 Soil and Geology
3.2.1 Soils
According to the NRCS (2022), the study area contains 23 soil map units (Figure A-25). Table 9 includes
soil map units that comprise more than 1% of the study area. There are no hydric soils within the study
area.
Table 9. Soil Map Units in the Study Area
Soil Map Unit Name Acres Percentage of Study Area
Dry Creek-Copperton association, moderately steep 1,516.55 21.98%
Emigration very cobbly loam, 40 to 70 percent slopes 1,297.90 18.81%
Stony terrace escarpments 1,062.24 15.40%
Deer Creek loam, 30 to 60 percent slopes 488.15 7.08%
Deer Creek-Picayune association, steep 442.12 6.41%
Harkers-Dry Creek association, moderately steep 410.06 5.94%
Bradshaw-Agassiz association, steep 373.05 5.41%
Harkers-Wallsburg association, steep 301.11 4.36%
Rock land 264.96 3.84%
Brad very rocky loamy sand, 40 to 80 percent slopes 231.05 3.35%
Salt Lake City Foothills Natural Area Trails Baseline Environmental Evaluation Report - FINAL
Soil Map Unit Name Acres Percentage of Study Area
Picayune association, steep 218.06 3.16%
Harkers soils, 6 to 40 percent slopes 136.33 1.98%
Total 6,741.59 97.72%
3.2.1.1 SOIL-LIMITING FACTORS
The study area is located on the foothills of the Wasatch Mountain range. The slopes vary between 6 and
70 percent. Soils of the area are dominated by rocky, shallow sandy loam and are generally nutrient poor.
Soil properties in the study area were evaluated to determine the inherent risk of site degradation for
restrictive soil features (Table 10). These features consist of the following:
•Water erosion
•Wind erosion
•Droughty soils
•Excess salts (sulfates and chlorides)
•Excess sodium
•Rooting depth
Restrictive soil features are properties that make soils more susceptible to degradation which include water
erosion hazard, wind erosion hazard, soil drought susceptibility, excess salt, excess sodium, and rooting
depth. Water erodibility indicates soil detachment by runoff and raindrop impact. Wind erodibility
indicates the susceptibility of soil to blowing or wind erosion. Soil drought susceptibility is based on the
available water capacity of soils. Soils with excess salts limit plant rooting, water, and nutrient uptake, and
soils with excess sodium exhibit a general degradation of soil structure. Rooting depth, or depth to
bedrock, is the soil depth to fixed rock; shallow soils are often not conducive to vegetation establishment
and are prone to erosion (NRCS 2019). See Appendix A for maps of each soil property and the risk of site
degradation (Figures A-25 through A-31).
Table 10. Inherent Risk of Site Degradation for Restrictive Soil Features in the Study Area
Restrictive Feature Inherent Risk of Site Degradation (acres)No Data
High Medium Low
Water erosion 930.27 2,846.38 1,710.02 1,411.91
Wind erosion 0.00 241.85 5,243.60 1,413.13
Droughty soils 1,958.13 3,528.54 0.00 1,411.91
Excess salt 0.00 0.00 5,486.67 1,411.91
Excess sodium 0.00 0.00 5,486.67 1,411.91
Rooting depth 0.00 0.00 6,898.59 0.00
Source: NRCS (2022).
Water erosion and droughty soils have the highest risk of site degradation within the study area. The
water erosion high risk is largely due to the steep slopes within the study area and the soil erodibility
Salt Lake City Foothills Natural Area Trails Baseline Environmental Evaluation Report - FINAL
factors which quantify soil detachment by runoff and raindrop impact. The droughty soil high risk refers
to the low capacity for the soils within the study area to store water for use by plants. Trails that are
created on soils that have a higher risk of site degradation can increase the loss suitable habitat for native
wildlife and vegetation species and can be difficult to reclaim or revegetate. Additionally, trails created in
high-risk areas are likely to erode faster which will likely cause users to widen the trail to avoid ruts
within the trails or create more informal trails.
3.2.2 Geology
According to the USGS (2023a), there are 30 underlying geological units in the study area. Table 11
includes geological units that comprise more than 5% of the study area (Figure A-32).
Table 11. Geological Units in the Study Area
Geological Unit Name (Symbol)Acres Percentage of Study Area
Conglomerate (Tc)1,677.77 24.32%
Twin Creek Limestone (Jt)894.64 12.97%
Conglomerate dominant of Wasatch Formation (Twc)571.71 8.29%
Thanyes Limestone (TRt)532.05 7.71%
Park City Formation and related rocks (Ppc)479.99 6.96%
Weber Sandstone (Ipw)426.96 6.19%
Total 4,583.13 66.44%
3.3 Cultural Resources
On January 19, 2023, using the Utah Division of State History’s (UDSH) Sego GIS-based cultural
resources viewer, the UDSH Hub GIS-based viewer, and digital records management databases, SWCA
conducted a file search and literature review to identify previously undertaken cultural resource
investigations, documented archaeological sites, and historic architecture within a 0.5-mile radius of the
study area. The file search indicated that 64 cultural resources investigations have been conducted within
a 0.5-mile radius of the study area. Of these 64 investigations, 10 have been conducted within the study
area (Table 12). These investigations have resulted in the identification of 32 archaeological sites, 13 of
which are within the study area (Table 13).
Because the study area is adjacent to a large urban area, the UDSH HUB search for historic architecture
resources was limited to the study area itself and a 200-foot buffer, rather than a 0.5-mile buffer. A total
of 116 historic architecture resources are present within a 200-foot buffer of the study area, 15 are present
within the study area (Table 14).
Additionally, SWCA reviewed historical maps for features that may be present within the study area (see
Table 13). Sources reviewed include the following: Government Land Office (GLO) records through the
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) website (BLM 2023); and historical
topographic quadrangles using the USGS historical topographic map explorer website (USGS 2023).
As noted above, archaeological survey data maintained by the UDSH indicates that 64 prior cultural
resources projects have been completed within 0.5 mile of the study area. Much of the study area has not
been previously surveyed. Of the 64 previous investigations conducted within 0.5-mile radius of the study
area, only 10 are located within the study area (see Table 12). Previous investigations conducted within
Salt Lake City Foothills Natural Area Trails Baseline Environmental Evaluation Report - FINAL
the study area were conducted for the development associated with Red Butte Canyon, the University of
Utah, and other small projects and were conducted between 1986 and 2019.
Table 12. Previous Cultural Resources Investigations in the Study Area
Project Number Project Title*Organization
U85FS0110 Red Butte Water Tank USFS
U87CN0615 AT&T Class III Survey-Utah Centennial Archaeology, Inc.
U88FS0303 Cultural Resources Survey of the University of Utah Parking Lot Expansion USFS
U01SJ0621 A Cultural Resources Survey of Red Butte Canyon and Reservoir at Fort
Douglas, Salt Lake County, Utah
Sagebrush
U03MV0571 Utah Museum of Natural History Mountain States University
U04ST1104 Historical discovery at This is the Place State Park SWCA
U09A10245 Apex Expansion Project – Wasatch Loop Alpine Archaeological
Consultants
U17HY0242 Red Butte Gardens Developable Areas Certus Environmental
Solutions, LLC
U19HY0146 An Archaeological Resource Assessment 18 Proposed Bicycle Counter
Locations in Salt Lake County, Utah
Certus Environmental
Solutions, LLC
U20ST0263 Cultural Resources Inventory for the Salt Lake City Parks Trail
Improvement Project, Salt Lake County, Utah
SWCA
* Project titles and organizations are pulled directly from the Sego database, and some have been slightly altered to correct spelling errors.
Thirteen previously recorded archaeological sites are present within the study area (see Table 13). Twelve
sites are all historic in age and no information is available for one site. Five sites have unknown,
undetermined, or unevaluated National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) recommendations, one was
recommended eligible under Criterion D, two have been determined eligible for the NRHP under
Criterion A with Utah State Historic Preservation Office concurrence, two have been recommended
eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A, one has been recommended eligible but the criterion is
unknown, and two sites are not eligible for the NRHP.
Table 13. Archaeological Resources Sites in the Study Area
Site Number Period Site Type/Name NRHP Evaluation
Redacted Historic Quarry House stone structure Unevaluated
Redacted Historic Salt Lake & Fort Douglas Railroad Eligible, Criterion A
Redacted Historic This is the Place artifact scatter Eligible, Criterion D
Redacted Historic Civilian Conservation Corps. Stone terraces (Davis County)Eligible, Criterion A
Redacted Historic Civilian Conservation Corps. Stone terraces (Salt Lake County)Eligible, Criterion A
Redacted Historic Red Butte House Unknown
Redacted Historic Quarry Road Eligible, Criterion A
Redacted Historic Artifact scatter Not eligible
Redacted Historic Stone quarry Not eligible
Redacted Historic Limestone kilns Undetermined
Redacted Historic Salt Lake City Cemetery Eligible
Salt Lake City Foothills Natural Area Trails Baseline Environmental Evaluation Report - FINAL
Site Number Period Site Type/Name NRHP Evaluation
Redacted Historic Berms and depressions Unknown/in progress
Redacted Unknown Unknown Unknown
Note: Site data are pulled directly from the Sego database and have not been altered.
Table 14. Architectural Resources in the Study Area
Property Address Use Type NRHP Evaluation
672 N. Columbus Street Single Dwelling Out of Period
674 N. Columbus Street Multiple Dwelling Out of Period
690 N. Columbus Street Multiple Dwelling Out of Period
700 N. Columbus Street Single Dwelling Ineligible/Non-contributing
272 N. Canyon Road Single Dwelling Eligible/Contributing
266 N. Canyon Road Single Dwelling Eligible/Contributing
278 N. Canyon Road Single Dwelling Eligible/Contributing
282 N. Canyon Road Single Dwelling Eligible/Contributing
288 N. Canyon Road Single Dwelling Eligible/Contributing
391 N. Virginia Street Single Dwelling Out of Period
395 N. Virginia Street Single Dwelling Out of Period
403 N. Virginia Street Single Dwelling Out of Period
Ensign Peak N/A Undetermined
137 E. 10th Avenue Residential Out of Period
900 N. B Street Multiple Dwelling Out of Period
UDSH records indicate that 16 historic architectural resources are present within the study area; 11 are
single dwellings, three are multiple dwellings, one is a general residential property, and one is Ensign
Peak. Of these 16 properties, five are eligible/contributing, eight are out of period, one is undetermined,
and one is non-contributing/ineligible for the NRHP.
Mapping of public domain lands by the GLO produced 16 plat maps of the study area. The 1874 plat map
for Township (T) 1 North (N), Range € 1 East € (BLM 1874) indicates the Camp Douglas Military
Reservation and the “Road to Red Butte Canon” in Section 34. The 1869 plat map for T1N, R1E also
indicates the “Road to Red Butte Canon” and the Camp Douglas Military Reservation in Section 34, a
road traveling up City Creek Canyon and another unnamed road in Sections 30 and 31, and the “Brigham
Young Grist Mill” in Section 34 (BLM 1869). The 1884 plat map for T1N, R1E indicates the Fort
Douglas Military Reservation in Sections 33 and 34 (BLM 1884).
The study area is also depicted on 11 historical topographic maps. The 1:250,000 scale historical map for
Salt Lake from 1885 indicates “Fort Douglass” and unnamed roads leading up City Creek Canyon and
Emigration Canyon (USGS 1885). The 1:250,000 scale historical maps of Salt Lake City depict the “Fort
Douglas Mil. Res.” And the road leading up Emigration Canyon (USGS 1954, 1958, 1960). A 1:24,000
scale map from 1951 for Salt Lake City North depicts a road leading toward Ensign Peak and roads
leading to the “State Capitol” in Section 25 of T1N, R1E (USGS 1951a). Finally, the 1:24,000 scale maps
for Fort Douglas from 1950, 1951, and 1963 depict an unnamed road within Section 11 of T1N, R1E
(USGS 1950, 1951b, 1963). These documents show the mapped locations of historic features that, if
located on the ground, would need to be evaluated as potential historic archaeological sites (Table 15). If
Salt Lake City Foothills Natural Area Trails Baseline Environmental Evaluation Report - FINAL
field observations find characteristics that meet current definitions of what constitutes an archaeological
site, then those features would need to be documented as such.
Table 15. Historic Features on General Land Office and Topographic Maps in the Study Area
Map Type Year Author or Map Name Historic Features in or Adjacent
to the Study Area
GLO 1874 Browne “Road to Red Butte Canon”, Camp Douglas Military
Reservation
GLO 1869 Bausman “Road to Red Butte Canon”, Camp Douglas Military
Reservation, two unnamed roads, “Brigham Young
Grist Mill”
GLO 1884 Koeber “Fort Douglas U.S.M. Reservation”
250k historic topographic 1885 Salt Lake, Utah “Fort Douglass” two unnamed roads
24k historic topographic 1951 Salt Lake City North,
Utah
Unnamed roads
250k historic topographic 1954 Salt Lake City, Utah “Fort Douglas Mil. Res”, unnamed road*
250k historic topographic 1954 Salt Lake City, Utah “Fort Douglas Mil. Res”, unnamed road*
250k historic topographic 1954 Salt Lake City, Utah “Fort Douglas Mil. Res”, unnamed road*
24k historic topographic 1950 Fort Douglas, Utah Unnamed road
24k historic topographic 1951 Fort Douglas, Utah Unnamed road
24k historic topographic 1963 Fort Douglas, Utah Unnamed road
Note: Information in this table is pulled directly from the individual map references and has not been altered.
* Plotted adjacent to the study area.
4 IMPACTS OF TRAIL USE AND DEVELOPMENT
The formal and informal trails in the study area are predominantly used by hikers, dog-walkers, and
mountain bikers. Hiking is the most common recreational activity in the area and is likely concentrated
along trail corridors. In areas where hiking use is extremely high and where users are likely to create
informal trails, such as in the Salt Lake City Foothills, hiking use may potentially exceed the impacts
caused by trail construction (Cole 2004).
4.1 Biological Resources
4.1.1 Vegetation
The impacts of trails have been studied, but it is hard to distinguish the impacts of hiking, mountain
biking, and trail use from the impacts associated with trail construction and trail maintenance. Impacts of
construction include opening vegetation canopies; building a barren, compacted trail that may alter
drainage patterns; and the creation of new habitats such as cut slopes and edge habitat (Cole 1981). The
most significant physical impacts on vegetation occur during trail construction (Hennings 2017). Once a
trail is built, visitor use, trail density, slope, soil type, precipitation, and vegetation type influence the
degree of trail disturbance (Hennings 2017).
Land use impacts on vegetation within the study area are largely caused by trailside vegetation trampling
and removal when trail users (hikers and bikers) step or move aside to let others pass, move off the formal
trail to avoid poor trail conditions, cut corners, or when trails are poorly marked (Hennings 2017).
Salt Lake City Foothills Natural Area Trails Baseline Environmental Evaluation Report - FINAL
Trampling causes physical damage to plants resulting in impaired regeneration and altered soil habitats
that impair root processes. Additionally, trail users can increase soil erosion from trails by loosening and
moving soils, making them more susceptible to erosion by water and wind.
4.1.2 Wildlife
The trails were evaluated for wildlife habitat based on land cover types and known big game habitat. A
major concern of trail construction is habitat loss, fragmentation, and edge effects. Habitat fragmentation
is the process of dividing large areas of habitat into smaller, disconnected patches. It can cause changes in
ecological processes by diminishing the study area’s capacity to sustain wildlife populations. Drivers of
habitat fragmentation include habitat loss, reduced habitat patch size, increased edge habitat, and loss of
connectivity between habitat patches (Hennings 2017). Trails do not cause typical habitat fragmentation
because they are limited to a fairly narrow corridor that does not physically separate habitats. However,
trails do cause habitat fragmentation in that wildlife are less likely to pass through trails that are
frequently used. Trails also alter habitat and create edge effects. The edges of habitat, such as those along
trails, are susceptible to changes in light, wind, moisture, invasive seed sources (especially in areas of
frequent hiking use), and human disturbance that may reduce habitat quality for some plant and animal
species (Hennings 2017).
Wildlife may be directly and indirectly impacted by land use. Although a few wildlife species are
attracted to trails, many species avoid trails or change their behavior. This creates an area around trails
that alters the distribution and abundance of wildlife, similar to larger changes in plant communities.
Heavily used trails and recreational areas may cause wildlife to avoid a much larger area than just the
trails themselves. Species richness, the number of species inhabiting an area, and species abundance, the
number of individuals per species, have been found to be lower in areas of higher human recreation
particularly for avian and mammal species (Larson et al. 2019). Small-bodied birds and ground nesting
bird species richness and abundance are more affected than larger birds and tree- and shrub nesting birds
(Larson et al. 2019). Larger mammals, especially ungulates such as elk, mule deer, and moose, and
carnivores including bears and mountain lions, are more negatively affected by recreational activity than
their small mammal counterparts largely due to the need to navigate large swaths of land to access enough
resources for survival (Larson et al. 2019; Moll et al. 2018; Salvatori et al. 2023). The lack of larger
carnivores in an area may allow smaller species, such as foxes, to move into an area and affect species
richness and abundance of smaller herbivores. Additionally, birds and large mammals, particularly
ungulates, tend to be particularly sensitive to human recreational activity and have behavioral responses
to human activities when relatively far away from the disturbance (Dertien and Reed 2021). Smaller
mammals, such as ground squirrels and cottontails, may prefer this altered landscape due to the decreased
presence of carnivores and the increase in disturbed habitat (Elbroch et al. 2021).
Wildlife responds to human behavior in ways other than avoidance of the area. Small mammals, in
addition to larger mammals, have been shown to adjust their normal behavior in the presence of human
activity. One adjustment is the increase in nocturnal behavior. Salvatori et al. (2023) found that a shift in
daily activity is one of the most common ways wildlife species adapt to human activity. Nocturnal
detections increased over 20% within mammalian communities when human activity increased (Salvatori
et al. 2023) regardless of mammal size while spatial avoidance was observed for larger sized species.
Wildlife species typically avoid humans on trails at fine scales; however, mountain biking and motorized
vehicles elicit stronger avoidance behaviors by wildlife species (Naidoo and Burton 2020). Human
presence has been shown to alter other species’ behavior which may affect the community ecology. For
instance, mountain lions have been found to increase predation of mule deer because they reduced their
feeding time by more than half in the presence of humans (Smith et al. 2017). Increased kill rates in
carnivores in human disturbed areas are driven by the presence of humans instead of the availability of
prey, which may alter the ecological dynamics of the study area.
Salt Lake City Foothills Natural Area Trails Baseline Environmental Evaluation Report - FINAL
In addition to human impacts, dogs (especially off-leash dogs) can cause considerable impacts to wildlife.
Off-leash dogs are more likely to chase wildlife, forcing them to use important energy reserves. Dog
walking is associated with larger disturbance factors than hiking or mountain biking (Miller et al. 2020).
Dogs are a domesticated subspecies of wolf and their presence and scent repels many wildlife species,
which can incite antipredator response (Miller et al. 2020). This response can occur long after dogs are no
longer physically in the area as their scent remains after they are gone. Also, some dogs may kill wildlife,
especially in open areas where they cannot escape to a tree or other safe area. Research also shows that
wildlife are less likely to habituate to dogs and that people with dogs cause a stronger wildlife response
than people without them (Hennings 2017).
4.1.3 Aquatic Resources
Aquatic resources in the study area include streams and wetlands. Aquatic resources are especially
important areas in the Arid West. Impacts from trail development and use can be exacerbated in riparian
habitat as the soil and vegetation is susceptible to trampling and overuse.
4.2 Soils and Geology
The development and use of trails disturbs environmental systems, especially through vegetation removal.
Trails may also be formed by slope cuts, which modify landscape morphology, expose bare soil along
trails, and become pathways for runoff, which intensifies erosion processes. Additionally, the number of
people using trails influences erosion processes because trail use increases soil compaction, which
increases runoff and erosion.
4.3 Cultural Resources
The potential for as-yet undiscovered archaeological resources is moderate to high, as most of the study
area has not been inventoried. Furthermore, the presence of known historic-era sites in previously
inventoried areas indicates that additional sites dating to this period are likely. Although no sites dating to
the prehistoric period have been recorded within or adjacent to the study area, the presence of such sites
in areas not previously inventoried cannot be ruled out.
5 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
5.1 Vegetation
SWCA anticipates that impacts to vegetation communities will be low because these communities are
common throughout the general region of the site; no permitting and minimal agency coordination is
anticipated.
5.1.1 Nonnative species
The State of Utah designates noxious weeds into different classes according to the threat that the specific
noxious weeds pose and how they should be dealt with (Utah Administrative Code R68-9). A noxious
weed risk assessment and completion of a project-specific weed management plan may be required.
Salt Lake City Foothills Natural Area Trails Baseline Environmental Evaluation Report - FINAL
5.1.2 Threatened and Endangered Species
Based on the desktop assessment, Ute ladies’-tresses have a low potential to occur with the study area.
However, a habitat assessment of potentially suitable areas may be conducted to confirm the presence of
suitable habitat. If suitable habitat is identified, formal presence/absence surveys during the blooming
window will need to be conducted to determine occupancy of the study area.
5.1.3 U.S. Forest Service Sensitive Species
There are several USFS species with the potential to occur in the study area. A formal habitat assessment
of the study area for these species should be conducted to determine whether suitable habitat is present
within USFS land. If there is suitable habitat, presence/absence surveys should be conducted within
suitable habitat to determine occupancy. Trails within occupied habitat should be avoided to reduce the
impact on USFS sensitive plants.
5.2 Wildlife
5.2.1 General Wildlife and Migratory Birds
Big game habitat is largely protected through seasonal stipulations. These could be carried out via trail
closures or leash-on stipulations within crucial habitat during specific times of the year. Mule deer crucial
winter habitat has the largest acreage within the study area. However, there are black bear and moose
year-long crucial habitats within the higher elevations in the eastern portion of the study area. As human
and domestic animal presence affects wildlife use of habitats, avoidance of trail construction within these
habitats may limit human disturbance on these species.
Additionally, the regulatory framework for protecting birds includes the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(MBTA), Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and Executive Order 13186 (directing federal agencies
to protect migratory birds). All sensitive birds, as well as most other bird species, that are likely to occur
in the study area are protected by the MBTA. The MBTA prohibits the take of migratory birds (including
any part, nest, or egg) and does not include provisions for allowing unauthorized take. Based on the
timing and duration of construction, good-faith preconstruction surveys should be completed to avoid
violations of the MBTA, particularly during nesting season, which occurs from approximately April 15
through August 15 in Utah.
5.2.2 Threatened and Endangered Species
The monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) is the only species with a moderate potential to occur within
the study area. The monarch butterfly is not a listed species; it is a candidate species with no ESA
protections. However, the study area can be assessed for suitable habitat, including the presence of
milkweed, which is essential for monarch butterflies. If milkweed species are identified in the study area,
trails can be constructed away from these areas to limit human disturbance.
5.2.3 Species of Greatest Conservation Need
SGCNs have no regulatory protections and species-specific surveys are not required. However, there are
certain habitat types, such as cliffs and riparian areas, that may potentially provide nesting habitat that is
not common throughout the study area. These areas could be avoided to help limit human disturbance to
these species. Additionally, the regulatory framework for protecting birds, including the MBTA, Bald and
Salt Lake City Foothills Natural Area Trails Baseline Environmental Evaluation Report - FINAL
Golden Eagle Protection Act, and Executive Order 13186, protect SGCN avian species that are likely to
occur in the study area.
5.3 Aquatic Resources
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates waters of the U.S. (WOTUS). These waters
include wetland and non-wetland water bodies that meet defined criteria. The USACE determines
jurisdiction over WOTUS. Common WOTUS can include wetland and stream habitat types, but WOTUS
may also consist of mudflats, playas, and natural ponds. In the Arid West, ephemeral streams may be
present, and differentiating between them and erosional features, which are usually not regulated, is an
important component of Clean Water Act Section 404 compliance. The USACE typically asserts
jurisdiction over perennial and intermittent streams and wetlands abutting or adjacent to these features.
Ephemeral streams or washes in the Arid West may also be regulated if they possess indicators of
ordinary high-water marks and if they significantly affect the integrity of a downstream jurisdictional
water. Erosional features characterized by low volume, infrequent flow, or short duration are not
regulated. Many streams in Utah are also considered waters of the state, for which there are separate
jurisdictional criteria. If potential WOTUS are identified and cannot be avoided, the USACE will require
a field-based delineation and subsequent report from which they can make a jurisdictional determination.
If the wetlands or streams are determined to be jurisdictional, the USACE will require additional
permitting and possibly mitigation of project impacts.
5.4 Cultural Resources
Federal laws, procedures, and policies affecting the treatment of cultural resources include the Antiquities
Act of 1906, Public Law 59-209, Executive Order 11593, Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 91-190), the Federal Land Policy Management Act (Public Law
94-579), 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 60, and 36 CFR 800. The American Indian Religious
Freedom Act (42 United States Code 1996) has also been established to protect religious practices, ethnic
heritage sites, and land uses of federally recognized Native Americans. The Native American Graves
Protection and Repatriation Act applies to human remains found on federal lands.
The National Historic Preservation Act is the basis for cultural and historic preservation and defines the
responsibility of federal agencies for protection and preservation of cultural and heritage resources. The
standards and guidelines established by the USFS take this into consideration and are used to assist with
identifying and evaluating cultural and historical resources.
State laws affecting the treatment of cultural resources include Utah Code 9-8-404, R 652-40-500; Utah
Code 9-8-306; Utah Code 9-8-305, R 694-1; and Utah Code R 456-1-1-17. The standards and guidelines
established by the State of Utah take these regulations into consideration, and they are used to assist with
permitting survey and/or excavation, procedures for the discovery of Native American graves on state or
non-federal land, and providing procedures for mitigation, if necessary.
All of these regulations require review of potential effects to historic properties (cultural resources sites
determined eligible for the NRHP) and require the development of appropriate measures for avoidance or
strategies for minimizing or mitigating effects from project development.
Salt Lake City Foothills Natural Area Trails Baseline Environmental Evaluation Report - FINAL
6 LITERATURE CITED
Brand, L.A., J.C. Stromberg, D.C. Goodrich, M.D. Dixon, K. Lansey, D. Kang, D.S. Brookshire, and D.J.
Cerasale. 2011. Projecting avian response to linked changes in groundwater and riparian
floodplain vegetation along a dryland river: a scenario analysis. Ecohydrology 4(1):130–142.
Available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eco.143. Accessed February 4, 2023.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1869. General Land Office
Survey map for Township 1 North, Range 1 East. Available at
https://glorecords.blm.gov/results/default.aspx?searchCriteria=type=survey|st=UT|cty=|twp_nr=1
|twp_dir=N|rng_nr=1|rng_dir=E. Accessed January 17, 2023.
———. 1884. General Land Office Survey map for Township 1 North, Range 1 East. Available at
https://glorecords.blm.gov/results/default.aspx?searchCriteria=type=survey|st=UT|cty=|twp_nr=1
|twp_dir=N|rng_nr=1|rng_dir=E. Accessed January 17, 2023.
———. 2023. General Land Office Records. Available at: https://glorecords.blm.gov/search/default.aspx.
Accessed February 3, 2023.
Ciuti, S., J.M. Northrup, T.B. Muhly, S. Simi, M. Musiani, J.A. Pitt, and M.S. Boyce. 2012. Effects of
Humans on Behaviour of Wildlife Exceed Those of Natural Predators in a Landscape of Fear.
PLoS ONE 7(11):e50611. Available at:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0050611. Accessed December
16, 2022.
Cole, D.N. 1981. Vegetational changes associated with recreational use and fire suppression in the Eagle
Cap Wilderness, Oregon: some management implications. Biological Conservation 20:247–270.
———. 2004. Impacts of Hiking and Camping on Soils and Vegetation: a Review. Available at:
https://winapps.umt.edu/winapps/media2/leopold/pubs/516.pdf. Accessed February 4, 2023.
Dertien, J.S. and S.E. Reed. 2021. Recreation effects on wildlife: a review of potential quantitative
thresholds. Nature Conservation 44:51–68. Accessed March 10, 2023.
eBird. 2022. eBird Species Map. Available at: https://ebird.org/map. Accessed December 16, 2022.
Elbroch, L.M., T. Forrester, A.M. Green, J. Haight, N.C. Harris, M. Hebblewhite, F. Isbell, B. Johnston,
R. Kays, P.E. Lendrum, J.S. Lewis, A. McInturff, W. McShea, T.W. Murphy, M.S. Palmer, A.
Parsons, M.A. Parsons, L. Whipple, J. Whittington, G. Wittemyer, and C.C. Wilmers. 2021.
Disturbance type and species life history predict mammal response to humans. Global Change
Biology 27:3718–3731. Accessed March 10, 2023.
Half-Earth Project. 2022. Half-earth Project Map. Available at: https://map.half-
earthproject.org/dataGlobe?globe=%7B%22center%22%3A%5B16.951553599999997%2C0.11
69589999999909%5D%2C%22zoom%22%3A3.608957830589897%7D. Accessed December
16, 2022.
Hansen, M.J., and A.P. Clevenger. 2005. The influence of disturbance and habitat on the presence of
nonnative plant species along transport corridors. Biological Conservation 125(2005):249–259.
Available at: https://westerntransportationinstitute.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/02/BiolConserv-125-Hansen-Clevenger.pdf. Accessed January 3, 2023.
Salt Lake City Foothills Natural Area Trails Baseline Environmental Evaluation Report - FINAL
Hennings, L. 2017. Hiking, mountain biking, and equestrian use in natural areas: A recreation ecology
literature review. Portland, Oregon. Portland Metroparks. Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320084633_Hiking_mountain_biking_and_equestrian_
use_in_natural_areas_A_recreation_ecology_literature_review. Accessed January 3, 2023.
iNaturalist. 2022. Noxious Weeds in Salt Lake County, Utah. Available at:
https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/noxious-weeds-in-salt-lake-county-utah. Accessed
December 16, 2022.
Kuss, F.R. 1986. A review of major factors influencing plant responses to recreation impacts.
Environmental Management 10:637–650. Available at:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01866768. Accessed January 7, 2023.
Larson, C.L., S.E. Reed, A.M. Merenlender, and K.R. Crooks. 2016. Effects of recreation on animals
revealed as widespread through global systematic review. PLoS ONE 11(12). Available at:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0167259. Accessed May 19,
2023.
———. 2019. A meta-analysis of recreation effects on vertebrate species richness and abundance.
Conservation Science and Practice 1(10): e93. Available at:
https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/csp2.93. Accessed March 10, 2023.
Merritt, D.M., and N.L.R. Poff. 2010. Shifting dominance of riparian Populus and Tamarix along
gradients of flow alteration in western North American rivers. Ecological Applications
20(1):135–152. Available at: https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1890/08-
2251.1. Accessed January 3, 2023.
Miller, A.B., D. King, M. Rowland, J. Chapman, M. Tomosy, C. Liang, E. Abelson, and R. L. Truex.
2020. Sustaining Wildlife with Recreation on Public Lands: A Synthesis of Research Findings,
Management Practices, and Research Needs. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-993. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Available at:
https://www.fs.usda.gov/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr993.pdf. Accessed February 5, 2023.
Moll, R.J., J.D. Cepek, P.D. Lorch, P.M. Dennis, T. Robison, J.J. Millspaugh, and R.A. Montcomery.
2018. Human and urban development mediate the sympatry of competing carnivores. Urban
Ecosystems 21:765–778. Accessed March 10, 2023.
Mount, A., and C.M. Pickering. 2009. Testing the capacity of clothing to act as a vector for non-native
seed in protected areas. Journal of Environmental Management 91(1):168–179. Available at:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479709002631. Accessed January 7,
2023.
Naidoo, R., and A.C. Burton. 2020. Relative effects of recreational activities on a temperate terrestrial
wildlife assemblage. Conservation Science and Practice 2:e271. Available at:
https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/csp2.271. Accessed August 23, 2023.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2019. National Soil Survey Handbook, Title 430-VI.
Available at: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/resources/guides-and-instructions/national-soil-survey-
handbook. Accessed March 10, 2023.
———. 2022. Web Soil Survey. Available at:
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed December 12, 2022.
Salt Lake City Foothills Natural Area Trails Baseline Environmental Evaluation Report - FINAL
The Nature Conservancy. 2022. Resilient Land Mapping Tool. Available at:
https://maps.tnc.org/resilientland/. Accessed December 22, 2022.
Oliver, G.V., and W.R. Bosworth III. 1999. Rare, imperiled, and recently extinct or extirpated mollusks
of Utah: a literature review. Paper 531. All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional
Depository). Available at:
https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1530&context=govdocs. Accessed
January 6, 2023.
Perry, L.G., D.C. Andersen, L.V. Reynolds, S.M. Nelson, and P.B. Shafroth. 2012. Vulnerability of
riparian ecosystems to elevated CO2 and climate change in arid and semiarid western North
America. Global Change Biology 18:821–842.
Potito, A.P., and S.W. Beatty. 2005. Impacts of recreation trails on exotic and ruderal species distribution
in grassland areas along the Colorado Front Range. Environmental Management 36(2):230–236.
Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16025202/. Accessed January 7, 2023.
Sageland Collaborative. 2023. Email from Mary Pendergast, Sageland Collaborative, to Audrey
McCulley and Alyson Eddie, SWCA Environmental Consultants, on March 1, 2023.
Salt Lake City Public Lands Department. 2020. Salt Lake City Foothills Trail System Plan. Available at:
https://www.slc.gov/parks/trails-natural-lands/ftsmp/. Accessed December 14, 2022.
———. 2023. Email from Blake Wellard, Salt Lake City Public Lands Department, to Audrey McCulley,
SWCA Environmental Consultants, on January 29, 2023.
Salvatori, M., V. Oberosler, M. Rinaldi, A. Franceschini, S. Trushi, P. Pedrini, and F. Rovero. 2023.
Crowded mountains: long-term effects of human outdoor recreation on a community of wild
mammals monitored with systemic camera trapping. AMBIO (2023): The Royal Swedish
Academy of Sciences.
Save Our Foothills. 2022a. Email from Maria Coller, Save Our Foothills, to Audrey McCulley, SWCA
Environmental Consultants, on October 20, 2022.
———. 2022b. Email from Eric Edelmen, Save Our Foothills, to Audrey McCulley, SWCA
Environmental Consultants, on October 6, 2022.
———. 2023. Email from Maria Coller, Save Out Foothills, to Audrey McCulley, SWCA Environmental
Consultants, on March 22, 2023.
Smith J.A., J.P. Suraci, M. Clinchy, A. Crawford, D. Roberts, L.Y. Zanette, and C.C. Wilmers. 2017. Fear
of the human ‘super predator’ reduces feeding time in large carnivores. Proclamations of the
Royal Society Biology 284:20170433.
SWCA Environmental Consultants. 2016. Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Plan for Salt Lake
City Parks and Public Lands. Available at:
http://www.slcdocs.com/openspace/SLCOS_IPMP_2016_updates_10Aug2016.pdf. Accessed
December 20, 2022.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 2012. Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study. Available at:
https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/crbstudy/finalreport/index.html. Accessed January 15,
2023.
Salt Lake City Foothills Natural Area Trails Baseline Environmental Evaluation Report - FINAL
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2023. Email from Paul Cowley, USDA, to Audrey McCulley,
SWCA Environmental Consultants, on February 24, 2023.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2022a. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Available at:
https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html. Accessed December 16, 2022.
———. 2022b. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC), Location: Salt Lake County, Utah.
Available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/index. Accessed December 16, 2022.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1885. Topographic Map, 1:250,000 Series for Salt Lake City, Utah.
Available at: https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/. Accessed January 17, 2023.
———.1950. Topographic Map, 1:24,000 Series for Fort Douglas, Utah. Available at:
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/. Accessed January 17, 2023.
———.1951a. Topographic Map, 1:24,000 Series for Salt Lake City North, Utah. Available at:
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/. Accessed January 17, 2023.
———.1951b. Topographic Map, 1:24,000 Series for Fort Douglas, Utah. Available at:
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/. Accessed January 17, 2023.
———.1954. Topographic Map, 1:250,000 Series for Salt Lake City, Utah. Available at:
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/. Accessed January 17, 2023.
———.1958. Topographic Map, 1:250,000 Series for Salt Lake City, Utah. Available at:
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/. Accessed January 17, 2023.
———.1960. Topographic Map, 1:250,000 Series for Salt Lake City, Utah. Available at:
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/. Accessed January 17, 2023.
———.1963. Topographic Map, 1:24,000 Series for Fort Douglas, Utah. Available at:
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/. Accessed January 17, 2023.
———. 2022. National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). Available at:
https://hydro.nationalmap.gov/arcgis/rest/services/nhd/MapServer. Accessed December 16,
2022.
———. 2023a. U.S. Geological Survey Geology Web Map Viewer. Bureau of Economic Geology.
Available at: https://mrdata.usgs.gov/geology/state/map-us.html#home. Accessed February
2023.
———. 2023b. USGS historical topographic map explorer. Available at:
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#4/40.01/-100.06. Accessed January 17, 2023.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2016. LANDFIRE 2.0.0
Existing Vegetation Type Layer. Available at: http://landfire.cr.usgs.gov/viewer/. Accessed
December 15, 2022.
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). 2019a. Utah Mule Deer Statewide Management Plan.
Available at: https://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/bg/mule_deer_plan_2019.pdf. Accessed January 4,
2023.
Salt Lake City Foothills Natural Area Trails Baseline Environmental Evaluation Report - FINAL
———. 2019b. Utah species field guide. Available at: https://fieldguide.wildlife.utah.gov/. Accessed
January 4, 2023.
———. 2022a. Utah Natural Heritage Program Data Request. Available at:
https://dwrapps.utah.gov/HeritageDataRequest/. Accessed December 16, 2022.
———. 2022b. Wildlife GIS Data. Available at: https://utahdnr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/FilterGallery/
index.html?appid=f602a8ae57fd4661a8e42bd40d99dc3c. Accessed December 16, 2022.
Van Winkle, J.E. 2014. Informal trails and the spread of invasive species in urban natural areas: spatial
analysis of informal trails and their effects on understory plant communities in Forest Park,
Portland, Oregon. Paper 1841.Portland State University. Dissertations and Theses. Available at:
https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2841&context=open_access_etds.
Accessed December 12, 2022.
Wilsey, C.B., N.M. Lotem Taylor, and K. Stockdale. 2017. Water and Birds in the Arid West: Habitats in
Decline. New York, New York: National Audubon Society. Available at: https://nas-national-
prod.s3.amazonaws.com/wbaw_report_5july17_updated.pdf. Accessed February 3, 2023.
Wimpey, J., and J.L. Marion. 2011. A spatial exploration of informal trail networks within Great Falls
Park, VA. Journal of Environmental Management 92(3):1012–1022. Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/49656625_Wimpey_J_Marion_JL_A_spatial_explorati
on_of_informal_trail_networks_within_Great_Falls_Park_VA_Journal_of_Environmental_Man
agement. Accessed December 12, 2022.
APPENDIX A
Maps
A-1
N [i]
SWCA
c:J SLC Foothills Study Area
Surface Management
Private
State
State Parks and
Salt Lake County, UT 0
NAD 1983 UTM Zone 12N
4O.7978°N 111.8468°W
A
0.5
0.45
,
Miles
Miles
09
Recreation
USFS
Figure A-1. Location of study area.
Base Map E$ll ArcGIS Online
acoosSf:Jd March 2023
Updated; 31712023
Projed No. 42930
Layout: Phase II Location
Aprx_42930_SaltlakeFoolhllls_Phasetl
1:70,000
ENYIRQNM[NTAL C0!'1SULTANTS
A-2
Figure A-2. LANDFIRE vegetation cover types in the study area.
1
MIies
Miles
Annual Graminoid/Forb
-
Evergreen open tree
canopy
Evergreen shrubland
Mixed evergreen-
deciduous open tree
canopy
Non-vegetated
Perennial graminoid
Perennial graminoid
grassland
Sparsely vegetated
0 0.45
N
-
Developed
Evergreen closed tree
canopy
--A
accessed March 2023
U!X1aled; 317/2023
Pro;ect No. 42930
Layout Phase II Lal'ld1lre
Apn._42930_$.ahlakeFoothllls_Ph::iselI
Base Map ES/1 ArcGIS Online 1:70,000
[i]09
Deciduous open tree
canopy
-
SWCA
ENVIRQNM[NTAL (0!'1SULrANTS
A-3
[i]0 Black Henbane
••
Myrtle Spurge
NAD 1983 UTM Zone 12N
40.7978°N 111.8468°W
Miles
Miles
0 45 0.9
c:J SLC Foothills Study Area • Musk Thistle Salt Lake County, UT 0 0.5 1
•Canada Thistle 0 Quackgrass N0Dalmatian Toadflax
Dyers Woad
0 Russian Olive
Scotch Thistle•Field Bindweed 0 Tamarisk(Saltcedar)Base Map·Esli ArcGIS Online, 1:70,000•Hoary Cress • Weeds/lnvasives Point accessed March 2023
Updated· 3111/2023Project No. 42930 SWCA
0 Houndstongue D Weed Polygon Layout Phase ll Weeds
Aprx: 42930- SaltlakeFoolh11ls-Phasell ENYll:0HMENTAL CONSULTANTS
Figure A-3. Weed and invasive vegetation data provided by Salt Lake City.
A
A-4
Figure A-4. Wildlife habitat and areas of interest within the study area, provided by Save Our
Foothills.
A-5
N
SWCA
c:J SLC Foothills Study Area Dusky Grouse Salt Lake County, UT o
NAD 1983 UTM Zone 12N
0.5 1
MIies
MilesBand-tailed Pigeon
Habitat
California Qual Habitat
Chukar Habitat
Ring-necked Pheasant
Habitat
Ruffed Grouse Habitat
Wild Turkey Habitat
40.7978°N Jll.8468'W
A
0.45 [0i9 ]
Base Map Esrl ArcGIS Online
accessed March 20,3
Ul)(1aled; 318/2023
Project No. 42930
layout Phase II Birds
Apn._ 42930_53ltlakeFoothllls_Phasetl
1:70,000
ENVIRQNM[NTAL (01"SULTANTS
Figure A-5. Game bird habitat mapped by Utah Division of Wildlife Resources.
A-6
[il
SWCA
c:J SLC Foothills Study Area CJ Summer, CrucialBlack Bear Habitat LJ Winter, Crucial Salt Lake County, UT o
NAD 1983 UTM Zone 12N40.7978°N 111.8468°W
0.5
0.45
,
MIies
09
Year-long, Crucial Winter, Substantial
Moose Habitat LJ Winter/Spring, Substantial
E:J Year-long, Crucial CJ Year-long, Crucial
Mule Deer HabitatLJ Spring/Fall, Crucial
Bass Map £$fl ArcGIS Online
accessed March 2023
UP(laled; 31712023
A
1:70,000
Miles
Project No. 42930
Layout: Phase II Wildlife
Aprx 42930_SaltLakeFOOlhllls_Ph.'.lsell ENYltQNM[NTAL C0!'1SULTANTS
Figure A-6. Big game habitat mapped by Utah Division of Wildlife Resources.
N
A-7
Figure A-7. Wasatch Wildlife Watch detection rates of all species. Note: Occurrence data are based on
detection rates during a 28-day survey period with approximately 40 trail cameras across the study area. Absence of
detection by the trail cameras in the survey window does not indicate absence of the species in the surrounding areas.
A-8
Figure A-8. Wasatch Wildlife Watch detection rates of American red squirrel. Note: Occurrence data are
based on detection rates during a 28-day survey period with approximately 40 trail cameras across the study area.
Absence of detection by the trail cameras in the survey window does not indicate absence of the species in the
surrounding areas.
A-9
Figure A-9. Wasatch Wildlife Watch detection rates of rock squirrel. Note: Occurrence data are based on
detection rates during a 28-day survey period with approximately 40 trail cameras across the study area. Absence of
detection by the trail cameras in the survey window does not indicate absence of the species in the surrounding areas.
A-10
Figure A-10. Wasatch Wildlife Watch detection rates of mountain lion. Note: Occurrence data are based
on detection rates during a 28-day survey period with approximately 40 trail cameras across the study area. Absence of
detection by the trail cameras in the survey window does not indicate absence of the species in the surrounding areas.
A-11
Figure A-11. Wasatch Wildlife Watch detection rates of Unite ground squirrel. Note: Occurrence data
are based on detection rates during a 28-day survey period with approximately 40 trail cameras across the study area.
Absence of detection by the trail cameras in the survey window does not indicate absence of the species in the
surrounding areas.
A-12
Figure A-12. Wasatch Wildlife Watch detection rates of striped skunk. Note: Occurrence data are based
on detection rates during a 28-day survey period with approximately 40 trail cameras across the study area. Absence of
detection by the trail cameras in the survey window does not indicate absence of the species in the surrounding areas.
A-13
Figure A-13. Wasatch Wildlife Watch detection rates of red fox. Note: Occurrence data are based on
detection rates during a 28-day survey period with approximately 40 trail cameras across the study area. Absence of
detection by the trail cameras in the survey window does not indicate absence of the species in the surrounding areas.
A-14
Figure A-14. Wasatch Wildlife Watch detection rates of northern raccon. Note: Occurrence data are
based on detection rates during a 28-day survey period with approximately 40 trail cameras across the study area.
Absence of detection by the trail cameras in the survey window does not indicate absence of the species in the
surrounding areas.
A-15
Figure A-15. Wasatch Wildlife Watch detection rates of North American porcupine. Note: Occurrence
data are based on detection rates during a 28-day survey period with approximately 40 trail cameras across the study area.
Absence of detection by the trail cameras in the survey window does not indicate absence of the species in the
surrounding areas.
A-16
Figure A-16. Wasatch Wildlife Watch detection rates of mule deer. Note: Occurrence data are based on
detection rates during a 28-day survey period with approximately 40 trail cameras across the study area. Absence of
detection by the trail cameras in the survey window does not indicate absence of the species in the surrounding areas.
A-17
Figure A-17. Wasatch Wildlife Watch detection rates of mountain cottontail. Note: Occurrence data are
based on detection rates during a 28-day survey period with approximately 40 trail cameras across the study area.
Absence of detection by the trail cameras in the survey window does not indicate absence of the species in the
surrounding areas.
A-18
Figure A-18. Wasatch Wildlife Watch detection rates of moose. Note: Occurrence data are based on
detection rates during a 28-day survey period with approximately 40 trail cameras across the study area. Absence of
detection by the trail cameras in the survey window does not indicate absence of the species in the surrounding areas.
A-19
Figure A-19. Wasatch Wildlife Watch detection rates of elk. Note: Occurrence data are based on detection
rates during a 28-day survey period with approximately 40 trail cameras across the study area. Absence of detection by
the trail cameras in the survey window does not indicate absence of the species in the surrounding areas.
A-20
Figure A-20. Wasatch Wildlife Watch detection rates of eastern fox squirrel. Note: Occurrence data are
based on detection rates during a 28-day survey period with approximately 40 trail cameras across the study area.
Absence of detection by the trail cameras in the survey window does not indicate absence of the species in the
surrounding areas.
A-21
Figure A-21. Wasatch Wildlife Watch detection rates of coyote. Note: Occurrence data are based on
detection rates during a 28-day survey period with approximately 40 trail cameras across the study area. Absence of
detection by the trail cameras in the survey window does not indicate absence of the species in the surrounding areas.
A-22
Figure A-22. Wasatch Wildlife Watch detection rates of bobcat. Note: Occurrence data are based on
detection rates during a 28-day survey period with approximately 40 trail cameras across the study area. Absence of
detection by the trail cameras in the survey window does not indicate absence of the species in the surrounding areas.
A-23
Figure A-23. Wasatch Wildlife Watch detection rates of American badger. Note: Occurrence data are
based on detection rates during a 28-day survey period with approximately 40 trail cameras across the study area.
Absence of detection by the trail cameras in the survey window does not indicate absence of the species in the
surrounding areas.
A-24
Figure A-24. National Hydrography Dataset and National Wetlands Inventory mapped features.
A-25
Figure A-25. Soil map units within the study area.
c::::J SLC Foothills Study
Area
Map Unit Name
Agassiz
association, very
steep
Bingham extremely
stony loam, 3 to 10
percent slopes
Bingham gravelly
-
association. steep
Deer Creek loam,
30 to 60 percent
slopes
Deer Creek-
Picayune
association, steep
Dry Creek-
Bradshaw-Agassiz -Gravelpits
..Harkers soils. 6 to
40 percent slopes
Harkers-Ory Creek
association.
moderately steep
..
-
Ha1kers-Wellsburg
association, steep
Modelond
-loam.6 to 10pefcenl slopes
1111;;:6c =t:n,
moderately sleep
Emigration very
1111 : ;t on, steep -
Brad very rocky
loamy sand. 40 to
80 percent slopes
Ridd rocky sandy
cobbly loam, 40 to loam, 30 to 70
70 percent slopes percent slopes.
eroded
Rock land
Sandy alluvial lands
Sandy borrow pits
Stony terrace
escarpments
nmpanogos loam,
3 to 6 percent
slopes
Tirnpanogos sandy
loam, 610 10 percent slopes
Urban land
-Weter
Salt Lake County, UT
NAD 1983 UTM Zone 12N
40.7978°N 111.8468°W
0.5 1
MIies
0 0.45
-
AN
Base Map Esrl ArcGIS Online
accessed April 2023
Update<!; 4/1012023
Pro;ect No. 42930
Layout Phase II Solis
Apn.. 42930_SaltlakeFOOlhllls_Phasell
1:70,000 [0i9
Miles]
SWCA
ENVIRQNM[NTAL (0!'1SULTANTS
A-26
[i]
SWCA
1
MIies
Miles
0.45 09
Low
No Data Base Map ES/1 ArcGIS Online
accessed March 2023
U!Xlaled; 31712023
Proiect No. 42930
Layout Phase II Soils
Apn._42930_53hlakeFomhlHs_Phasell
A
1:70,000
ENVIIQNM[NTAL (0!'1SULTANTS
Figure A-26. Inherent risk of site degradation for water erosion in the study area.
N
A-27
N [i]
SWCA
Moderate
Low
No Data
0.45
A
Miles
09
Base Map ES/1 ArcGIS Online
accessed March 2023
U!Xlaled; 31712023
Project No. 42930
Layout Phase II Soils
Apn._ 42930_SahlakeFomhlHs_Phasell
1:70,000
ENVIIQNM[NTAL (0!'1SULTANTS
Figure A-27. Inherent risk of site degradation for wind erosion in the study area.
A-28
[i]
SWCA
1
MIies
Miles
0.45 09
No Data
Base Map ES/1 ArcGIS Online
accessed March 2023
U!Xlaled; 31712023
Proiect No. 42930
Layout Phase II Soils
Apn._42930_53hlakeFomhlHs_Phasell
A
1:70,000
ENVIIQNM[NTAL (0!'1SULTANTS
Figure A-28. Inherent risk of site degradation for droughty soils in the study area.
N
A-29
N [i]
SWCA
c:J SLC Foothills Study Area
Excess Salt
Low
No Data
0.45
A
Miles
09
Base Map ES/1 ArcGIS Online
accessed March 2023
U!Xlaled; 31712023
Project No. 42930
Layout Phase II Soils
Apn._ 42930_SahlakeFomhlHs_Phasell
1:70,000
ENVIIQNM[NTAL (0!'1SULTANTS
Figure A-29. Inherent risk of site degradation for excess salt in the study area.
A-30
N [i]
SWCA
c:J SLC Foothills Study Area
Excess Sodium
Low
No Data
0.45
A
Miles
09
Base Map ES/1 ArcGIS Online
accessed March 2023
U!Xlaled; 31712023
Project No. 42930
Layout Phase II Soils
Apn._ 42930_SahlakeFomhlHs_Phasell
1:70,000
ENVIIQNM[NTAL (0!'1SULTANTS
Figure A-30. Inherent risk of site degradation for excess sodium in the study area.
A-31
N [i]
SWCA
c:J SLC Foothills Study Area
Rooting Depth
Low
0.45
A
Miles
09
Base Map ES/1 ArcGIS Oollne
accessed March 2023
U!Xlaled; 31712023
Project No. 42930
Layout Phase II Sol.ls
Apn._ 42930_SahlakeFomhlHs_Phasell
1:70,000
ENVIIQNM[NTAL (0!'1SULTANTS
Figure A-31. Inherent risk of site degradation for rooting depth in the study area.
A-32
[i]
SWCA
Geological Units
Tc 0.45
1
MIies
Miles
09
Qc Tkb IPw
Qal Tn IPr
Qf Twc -Mdo
Qoa JI Mgb
Qpc JTRn Mh
Qpg -TRau Md
Qbc -TRag Mg
Qbg -TRam
Figure A-32. Geological units in the study area.
Base Map Esrl ArcGIS Online
accessed April 2023
Upoaled; 4/1012023
Project No. 42930
Layout: Phase II Geotogy
Aprx_42930_53hlakeFoothllts_Phasell
A
1:70,000
ENVIIONM[NTAL (01"SULTANTS
N
APPENDIX B
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Information for Planning and Consultation Resource List
1/5/23, 11:33 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/XE22WUO2MNBETO42KUZPYK6KHA/resources 1/15
area. However, determining the likelihood and extent of effects a project may have on trust
resources typically requires gathering additional site-specific (e.g., vegetation/species surveys) and
project-specific (e.g., magnitude and timing of proposed activities) information.
Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the USFWS
oice(s) with jurisdiction in the defined project area. Please read the introduction to each section that
follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI Wetlands) for additional
information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that section.
Location
Davis and Salt Lake counties, Utah
IPaC U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
IPaC resource list
This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat
(collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS)
jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below. The list
may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be
directly or indirectly affected by activities in the project
Local oice
Utah Ecological Services Field Oice
(801) 975-3330
(801) 975-3331
2369 West Orton Circle, Suite 50
1/5/23, 11:33 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/XE22WUO2MNBETO42KUZPYK6KHA/resources 2/15
West Valley City, UT 84119-7603
https://fws.gov/oice/utah-ecological-services
1/5/23, 11:33 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/XE22WUO2MNBETO42KUZPYK6KHA/resources 3/15
Endangered species
This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of
project level impacts.
The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species.
Additional areas of influence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of
the species range if the species could be indirectly affected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a
dam upstream of a fish population even if that fish does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly
impact the species by reducing or eliminating water flow downstream). Because species can move,
and site conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the
project area. To fully determine any potential effects to species, additional site-specific and project-
specific information is often required.
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary
information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area
of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any
Federal agency. A letter from the local oice and a species list which fulfills this requirement can
only be obtained by requesting an oicial species list from either the Regulatory Review section in
IPaC (see directions below) or from the local field oice directly.
For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC
website and request an oicial species list by doing the following:
1.Draw the project location and click CONTINUE.
2.Click DEFINE PROJECT.
3.Log in (if directed to do so).
4.Provide a name and description for your project.
5.Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST.
Listed species1 and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the fisheries division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA Fisheries2).
Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this
list. Please contact NOAA Fisheries for species under their jurisdiction.
1.Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also
shows species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for
more information. IPaC only shows species that are regulated by USFWS (see FAQ).
1/5/23, 11:33 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/XE22WUO2MNBETO42KUZPYK6KHA/resources 4/15
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3652
Insects
NAME STATUS
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
Wherever found
Candidate
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Flowering Plants
NAME STATUS
Ute Ladies'-tresses Spiranthes diluvialis
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2159
Threatened
Critical habitats
2.NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an oice of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.
The following species are potentially affected by activities in this location:
Mammals
NAME STATUS
Canada Lynx Lynx canadensis
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does
not overlap the critical habitat.
Threatened
Potential effects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the endangered
species themselves.
There are no critical habitats at this location.
Migratory birds
1/5/23, 11:33 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/XE22WUO2MNBETO42KUZPYK6KHA/resources 5/15
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act1 and the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act2.
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory
birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing
appropriate conservation measures, as described below.
1.The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
2.The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
Additional information can be found using the following links:
Birds of Conservation Concern https://www.fws.gov/program/migratory-birds/species Measures
for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-
and-minimizing-incidental-take- migratory-birds
Nationwide conservation measures for birds
https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-
measures.pdf
The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS
Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location. To
learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see the
FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this location, nor a guarantee that every bird
on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders and the general
public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip:
enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For projects that occur off the
Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird
species on your list are available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other
important information about your migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your
migratory bird report, can be found below.
For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures
to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE
SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and
breeding in your project area.
NAME
American White Pelican pelecanus erythrorhynchos
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular
Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6886
BREEDING SEASON
Breeds Apr 1 to Aug 31
1/5/23, 11:33 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/XE22WUO2MNBETO42KUZPYK6KHA/resources 6/15
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area,
but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential
susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of
development or activities.
Breeds Dec 1 to Aug 31
Black Rosy-finch Leucosticte atrata
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its
range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9460
Breeds Jun 15 to Aug 31
California Gull Larus californicus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its
range in the continental USA and Alaska.
Breeds Mar 1 to Jul 31
Cassin's Finch Carpodacus cassinii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its
range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9462
Breeds May 15 to Jul 15
Clark's Grebe Aechmophorus clarkii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its
range in the continental USA and Alaska.
Breeds Jun 1 to Aug 31
Clark's Nutcracker Nucifraga columbiana
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular
Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
Breeds Jan 15 to Jul 15
Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its
range in the continental USA and Alaska.
Breeds May 15 to Aug 10
Franklin's Gull Leucophaeus pipixcan
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its
range in the continental USA and Alaska.
Breeds May 1 to Jul 31
Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its
range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9679
Breeds elsewhere
1/5/23, 11:33 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/XE22WUO2MNBETO42KUZPYK6KHA/resources 7/15
Lewis's Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its
range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9408
Breeds Apr 20 to Sep 30
Long-eared Owl asio otus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its
range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3631
Breeds Mar 1 to Jul 15
Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its
range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9481
Breeds elsewhere
Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its
range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3914
Breeds May 20 to Aug 31
Pinyon Jay Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its
range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9420
Breeds Feb 15 to Jul 15
Rufous Hummingbird selasphorus rufus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its
range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8002
Breeds Apr 15 to Jul 15
Sage Thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular
Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9433
Breeds Apr 15 to Aug 10
Virginia's Warbler Vermivora virginiae
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its
range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9441
Breeds May 1 to Jul 31
1/5/23, 11:33 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/XE22WUO2MNBETO42KUZPYK6KHA/resources 8/15
Western Grebe aechmophorus occidentalis
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its
range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6743
Breeds Jun 1 to Aug 31
Willet Tringa semipalmata
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its
range in the continental USA and Alaska.
Probability of Presence Summary
Breeds Apr 20 to Aug 5
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be
present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project
activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand the FAQ
"Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret
this report.
Probability of Presence ()
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your
project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4- week months.)
A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see below) can be
used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher confidence in the
presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high.
How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:
1.The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the
week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week.
For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5
of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25.
2.To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence
is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence
across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted
Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any
week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is
0.05/0.25 = 0.2.
3.The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical
conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of
presence score.
To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar. Breeding
Season ()
1/5/23, 11:33 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/XE22WUO2MNBETO42KUZPYK6KHA/resources 9/15
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its
entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area.
Survey Effort ( )
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys
performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of
surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.
To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar. No
Data ()
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.
Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant
information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all
years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.
probability of presence breeding season survey effort no data
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
American
White Pelican
BCC - BCR
Bald Eagle
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
Black Rosy-
finch
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
California Gull
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
Cassin's Finch
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
Clark's Grebe
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
Clark's
Nutcracker
BCC - BCR
1/5/23, 11:33 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/XE22WUO2MNBETO42KUZPYK6KHA/resources 10/15
Evening
Grosbeak
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
Franklin's Gull
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
Lesser
Yellowlegs
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
Lewis's
Woodpecker
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
Long-eared
Owl
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Marbled
Godwit
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
Olive-sided
Flycatcher
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
Pinyon Jay
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
Rufous
Hummingbird
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
Sage Thrasher
BCC - BCR
1/5/23, 11:33 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/XE22WUO2MNBETO42KUZPYK6KHA/resources 11/15
Virginia's
Warbler
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
Western
Grebe
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
Willet
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds.
Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all
birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds
are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the
locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure.
To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding in your project area, view the Probability of
Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity
you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site.
What does IPaC use to generate the list of migratory birds that potentially occur in my specified location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other
species that may warrant special attention in your project location.
The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge
Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey , banding, and citizen science
datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid
cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because
they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a
particular vulnerability to offshore activities or development.
Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area.
It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially
present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool.
What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in my
specified location?
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by
the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding,
and citizen science datasets.
1/5/23, 11:33 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/XE22WUO2MNBETO42KUZPYK6KHA/resources 12/15
Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes
available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret
them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link.
How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering or migrating in my area?
To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering,
migrating or year-round), you may query your location using the RAIL Tool and look at the range maps
provided for birds in your area at the bottom of the profiles provided for each bird in your results. If a bird
on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your
project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds
elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area.
What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:
1."BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their
range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin
Islands);
2."BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in
the continental USA; and
3."Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either
because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles) potential susceptibilities in
offshore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. offshore energy development or
longline fishing).
Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made, in
particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of
rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid
and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics.
Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects
For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and
groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean
Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be
helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results files
underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive
Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project
webpage.
Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the
year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional
information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies or contact
Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring.
What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating
the Eagle Act should such impacts occur.
1/5/23, 11:33 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/XE22WUO2MNBETO42KUZPYK6KHA/resources 13/15
Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report
The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of
priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what
other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the
migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location". Please be aware this report provides the
"probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact
project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the
black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey
effort is the key component. If the survey effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be
viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and,
therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting
point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might
be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know
what to look for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation
measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be
confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about conservation
measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds" at the bottom of your
migratory bird trust resources page.
Facilities
National Wildlife Refuge lands
Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must
undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the
individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns.
There are no refuge lands at this location.
Fish hatcheries
There are no fish hatcheries at this location.
Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory
1/5/23, 11:33 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/XE22WUO2MNBETO42KUZPYK6KHA/resources 14/15
(NWI)
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.
For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
District.
This location did not intersect any wetlands mapped by NWI.
NOTE: This initial screening does not replace an on-site delineation to determine whether
wetlands occur. Additional information on the NWI data is provided below.
Data limitations
The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level
information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of
high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A
margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular
site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classification established through image analysis.
The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image
analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verification work
conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any
mapping problems.
Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work. There
may be occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the information depicted
on the map and the actual conditions on site.
Data exclusions
Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of
aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or
submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and
nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also
been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial
imagery.
Data precautions
Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe
wetlands in a different manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design
or products of this inventory, to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local
government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies.
Persons intending to engage in activities involving modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas
1/5/23, 11:33 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/XE22WUO2MNBETO42KUZPYK6KHA/resources 15/15
should seek the advice of appropriate Federal, state, or local agencies concerning specified agency
regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may affect such activities.
APPENDIX C
Utah Natural Heritage Program Online Species Search Report
1/3/23, 6:53 PM Utah Natural Heritage Search Report
https://dwrapps.utah.gov/HeritageDataRequest/Reports?id=14019 1/4
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
Utah Natural Heritage Program
1594 W. North Temple
PO Box 146301
Salt Lake City, UT 84116
Report Number: 14019
January 3, 2023
Utah Natural Heritage Program Online Species Search Report
Project Information
Project Name
Salt Lake Foothills Phase II
Project Description
foothills trails project
Location Description
Foothills
1/3/23, 6:53 PM Utah Natural Heritage Search Report
https://dwrapps.utah.gov/HeritageDataRequest/Reports?id=14019 2/4
Animals within a ½ mile radius
Common Name Scientific Name State Status U.S. ESA Status Last Observation Year
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus SGCN 1918
Black Swift Cypseloides niger SGCN 1963
Bonneville Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarkii utah SGCN 2007
Coarse Rams-horn Planorbella binneyi SGCN 1939
Columbia Spotted Frog Rana luteiventris SGCN 1931
Deseret Mountainsnail Oreohelix peripherica SGCN 1939
Desert Tryonia Tryonia porrecta SGCN 1927
June Sucker Chasmistes liorus SGCN LT 1997
Least Chub Iotichthys phlegethontis SGCN 1987
Lewis's Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis SGCN 1999
Lyrate Mountainsnail Oreohelix haydeni SGCN 1898
Northern Leopard Frog Lithobates pipiens SGCN 1979
Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus SGCN 2017
Snowy Plover Charadrius nivosus SGCN
Utah Physa Physa gyrina utahensis SGCN 1939
Western Pearlshell Margaritifera falcata SGCN 1884
Western Toad Anaxyrus boreas SGCN 1932
Winged Floater Anodonta nuttalliana SGCN 1905
Plants within a ½ mile radius
Common Name Scientific Name State Status U.S. ESA Status Last Observation Year
No Species Found
1/3/23, 6:53 PM Utah Natural Heritage Search Report
https://dwrapps.utah.gov/HeritageDataRequest/Reports?id=14019 3/4
Species of greatest conservation need listed in the Utah Wildlife Action PlanSGCN
Animals within a 2 mile radius
Common Name Scientific Name State Status U.S. ESA Status Last Observation Year
American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus SGCN 1902
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus SGCN 1918
Band-tailed Pigeon Patagioenas fasciata SGCN 1897
Black Swift Cypseloides niger SGCN 1963
Bonneville Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarkii utah SGCN 2007
Coarse Rams-horn Planorbella binneyi SGCN 1939
Columbia Spotted Frog Rana luteiventris SGCN 1931
Deseret Mountainsnail Oreohelix peripherica SGCN 1939
Desert Tryonia Tryonia porrecta SGCN 1927
June Sucker Chasmistes liorus SGCN LT 1997
Least Chub Iotichthys phlegethontis SGCN 2018
Lewis's Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis SGCN 1999
Little Brown Myotis Myotis lucifugus SGCN 1964
Long-legged Myotis Myotis volans SGCN 1962
Lyrate Mountainsnail Oreohelix haydeni SGCN 1898
Mountain Marshsnail Stagnicola montanensis SGCN 1994
Northern Leopard Frog Lithobates pipiens SGCN 1979
Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus SGCN 2017
Rustic Ambersnail Succinea rusticana SGCN 1942
Snowy Plover Charadrius nivosus SGCN
Utah Physa Physa gyrina utahensis SGCN 1939
Western Pearlshell Margaritifera falcata SGCN 1884
Western Toad Anaxyrus boreas SGCN 1934
Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus occidentalis SGCN LT 1992
Winged Floater Anodonta nuttalliana SGCN 1905
Plants within a 2 mile radius
Common Name Scientific Name State Status U.S. ESA Status Last Observation Year
No Species Found
Definitions
State Status
U.S. Endangered Species Act
LE A taxon that is listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as "endangered" with the probability of worldwide extinction
LT A taxon that is listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as "threatened" with becoming endangered
LE;XN An "endangered" taxon that is considered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to be "experimental and nonessential" in its designated use areas in Utah
C A taxon for which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to justify it being a "candidate" for
listing as endangered or threatened
PT/PE A taxon "proposed" to be listed as "endangered" or "threatened" by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1/3/23, 6:53 PM Utah Natural Heritage Search Report
https://dwrapps.utah.gov/HeritageDataRequest/Reports?id=14019 4/4
Disclaimer
The information provided in this report is based on data existing in the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources' central database at the time
of the request. It should not be regarded as a final statement on the occurrence of any species on or near the designated site, nor
should it be considered a substitute for on-the-ground biological surveys. Moreover, because the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources'
central database is continually updated, any given response is only appropriate for its respective request.
The UDWR provides no warranty, nor accepts any liability, occurring from any incorrect, incomplete, or misleading data, or from any
incorrect, incomplete, or misleading use of these data.
The results are a query of species tracked by the Utah Natural Heritage Program, which includes all species listed under the U.S.
Endangered Species Act and species on the Utah Wildlife Action Plan. Other significant wildlife values might also be present on the
designated site. Please contact UDWR's regional habitat manager if you have any questions.
For additional information about species listed under the Endangered Species Act and their Critical Habitats that may be affected by
activities in this area or for information about Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act, please visit
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ or contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Utah Ecological Services Field Office at (801) 975-3330 or
utahfieldoffice_esa@fws.gov.
Please contact our office at (801) 538-4759 or habitat@utah.gov if you require further assistance.
Your project is located in the following UDWR region(s): Central region , Northern region
Report generated for:
Samantha Mello
SWCA
257 E 200 S #200
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
(508) 245-3223
samanthamello19@gmail.com
APPENDIX D
Information Provided by Stakeholders
Information provided by Save Our Canyons
and Save Our Foothills to SWCA Environmental Consultants
D-1
Table D-1. List of Fauna Observed in the Study Area
Common Name Scientific Name
Birds
Northern flicker Colaptes auratus
Hairy woodpecker (year-round)Leuconotopicus villosus
Downy woodpecker (year-round)Picoides pubescens
Red-naped sapsucker (migrant)Sphyrapicus nuchalis
Woodhouse’s scrub jay (year-round)Aphelocoma woodhouseii
Steller’s jay (year-round)Cyanocitta stelleri
Black-billed magpie (year-round)Pica hudsonia
Common raven (year-round)Corvus corax
Clark’s nutcracker (Black Mountain only)Nucifraga columbiana
Black-capped chickadee (year-round)Poecile atricapillus
Mountain chickadee (year-round)Poecile gambeli
Juniper titmouse (summer)Baeolophus inornatus
Brown creeper (year-round)Certhia americana
Red-breasted nuthatch (year-round)Sitta canadensis
Ruby-crowned kinglet (year-round)Regulus calendula
Golden-crowned kinglet (winter)Regulus satrapa
Yellow-rumped warbler (year-round)Setophaga coronata
Yellow warbler (summer)Setophaga petechia
Orange-crowned warbler (summer)Vermivora celata
Nashville warbler (migrant)Leiothlypis ruficapilla
MacGillivray’s warbler (summer)Geothlypis tolmiei
Townsend’s warbler (migrant)Setophaga townsendi
Wilson’s warbler (migrant)Cardellina pusilla
Green-tailed towhee (summer)Pipilo chlorurus
Spotted towhee (year-round)Pipilo maculatus
Chipping sparrow (summer)Spizella passerina
Clay-colored sparrow (migrant)Spizella pallida
Brewer’s sparrow (migrant)Spizella breweri
Vesper sparrow (summer)Pooecetes gramineus
Lark sparrow (summer)Chondestes grammacus
Fox sparrow (summer)Passerella iliaca
Song sparrow (year-round)Melospiza melodia
Lincoln’s sparrow (summer)Melospiza lincolnii
White-crowned sparrow (winter)Zonotrichia leucophrys
Dark-eyed junco (year-round)Junco hyemalis
Lazuli bunting (summer)Passerina amoena
House finch (year-round)Haemorhous mexicanus
D-2
Common Name Scientific Name
Cassin’s finch (migrant)Haemorhous cassinii
Gray-crowned rosy-finch (winter)Leucosticte tephrocotis
Pine siskin (year-round)Spinus pinus
American goldfinch (year-round)Spinus tristis
Lesser goldfinch (summer)Spinus psaltria
Western wood-pewee (summer)Contopus sordidulus
Dusky flycatcher (summer)Empidonax oberholseri
Cordilleran flycatcher (summer)Empidonax difficilis
Say’s phoebe (summer)Sayornis saya
Western kingbird (summer)Tyrannus verticalis
Loggerhead shrike (winter)Lanius ludovicianus
Northern shrike (winter)Lanius excubitor
Plumbeous vireo (summer)Vireo plumbeus
Warbling vireo (summer)Vireo gilvus
Bullock’s oriole (summer)Icterus bullockii
Brown-headed cowbird (summer)Molothrus ater
Western tanager (summer)Piranga ludoviciana
Black-headed grosbeak (summer)Pheucticus melanocephalus
Western meadowlark (summer)Sturnella neglecta
Violet-green swallow (summer)Tachycineta thalassina
Barn swallow (summer)Hirundo rustica
Tree swallow (summer)Tachycineta bicolor
Rock wren (summer)Salpinctes obsoletus
Canyon wren (year-round)Catherpes mexicanus
Pacific wren (winter)Troglodytes pacificus
Blue-gray gnatcatcher (summer)Polioptila caerulea
Townsend’s solitaire (summer)Myadestes townsendi
Swainson’s thrush (summer)Catharus ustulatus
Hermit thrush (summer)Catharus guttatus
American robin (year-round)Turdus migratorius
American dipper (year-round, creeks only)Cinclus mexicanus
Dusky grouse (year-round)Dendragapus obscurus
Ruffed grouse (year-round)Bonasa umbellus
California quail (year-round)Callipepla californica
Chukar (year-round)Alectoris chukar
Wild turkey (year-round)Meleagris gallopavo
Mourning dove (year-round)Zenaida macroura
Rock pigeon (year-round)Columba livia
Belted kingfisher (year-round, creeks only)Megaceryle alcyon
D-3
Common Name Scientific Name
Mallard (year-round, creeks only)Anas platyrhynchos
Common nighthawk (summer)Chordeiles minor
Common poorwill (summer)Phalaenoptilus nuttallii
White-throated swift (summer)Aeronautes saxatalis
Black-chinned hummingbird (summer)Archilochus alexandri
Broad-tailed hummingbird (summer)Selasphorus platycercus
Turkey vulture (summer)Cathartes aura
Bald eagle (winter)Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Golden eagle (year-round)Aquila chrysaetos
Sharp-shinned hawk (year-round)Accipiter striatus
Cooper’s hawk (year-round)Accipiter cooperii
Red-tailed hawk (year-round)Buteo jamaicensis
American kestrel (year-round)Falco sparverius
Peregrine falcon (year-round)Falco peregrinus
Prairie falcon (year-round)Falco mexicanus
Merlin (winter)Falco columbarius
Western screech-owl (year-round)Megascops kennicottii
Great horned owl (year-round)Bubo virginianus
Northern pygmy-owl (year-round)Glaucidium californicum
Mammals
Rock squirrel Otospermophilus variegatus
Red squirrel Sciurus vulgaris
Fox squirrel Sciurus niger
Northern pocket gopher Thomomys talpoides
Deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus
American mink Neovison vison
American badger Taxidea taxus
Bobcat Lynx rufus
Mountain lion Puma concolor
Coyote Canis latrans
Red fox Vulpes vulpes
Desert cottontail Sylvilagus audubonii
Elk Cervus canadensis
Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus
Moose Alces alces
Long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata
Short-tailed weasel Mustela erminea
Raccoon Procyon lotor
North American porcupine Erethizon dorsatum
D-4
Common Name Scientific Name
Northern flying squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus
Meadow vole Microtus pennsylvanicus
Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis
Western harvest mouse Reithrodontomys megalotis
Reptiles
Common garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis
Wandering garter snake Thamnophis elegans vagrans
Western terrestrial garter snake Thamnophis elegans
Valley garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis fitchi
Great Basin gopher snake Pituophis catenifer deserticola
Great basin rattlesnake Crotalus oreganus lutosus
Western yellow-bellied racer Coluber constrictor mormon
Northern rubber boa Charina bottae
Greater short-horned lizard Phrynosoma hernandesi
Western fence lizard Sceloporus occidentalis
Common sagebrush lizard Sceloporus graciosus
Common side-blotched lizard Uta stansburiana
Western whiptail lizard Cnemidophorus tigris
Plateau striped whiptail lizard Cnemidophorus septemvittatus
1n eco \ c6 a...,,,._ d CU-.:wvt CL,\..e.ha.,., c:., r.
'11.e- sec 4:-:;on s \ l"V\CU-K,-e cl O\'\. +h-e (Vla._p a..;i.-,e cure.a_s o.f- (}r .:::... 4::e_s-\:-
0 bvi:01..A,sl:)1 h(:l)-.J---4·\ a,y-je. U.-if\+c-\.A...che..d ax-e.."''b,:;;; l-uo'--'--ld b-e
6es+r c0,\. p\a..n+s a..,,.d <:.Lni:vV1.o.....ls l"-\-1.,...-e t-oc.:t-ht'LL-:;
\Je.-rj \ea..s+Cl:voi: d ·,
g \a.cA'<- tvl-01..A.n.-+-c:::...-'--h -\--c,Reel Bt:L p-0:>kcle..d co--e..o...
Gu.\ es a:nd z:su..,lhes I espec_i'a:.U 1)0.-e.e..\<.
ro'<"'eskd c ,re=..s (sc'<l.,Lb oa...K, VY1.a...ple.}
The lea.s+'i \l'Vtpor-t--CI..Y'l.-t-CU.-€.-G'LS -\oi rd...s CL'ce t-h-e bc:tX'e c1-.ra..ssla.nd
<. )
&\_\("eas.H-o -, k-eef in l'Yl 1r'ld 4-\.-io...-t- +he tr,...,ass--es
vei,J l-YlpDc+a...n.\- -\o '1nS-ec..+s Cl.....na 'a 1r-ds,ea...+ h,se.d·s.
t=:xpos-ed rocl<.'z:) CU"e£.L...'S (li++le.. t"'c-tSS, ·y-oc.ks t:..,""'n::,LutdJ
ctx-e. i \'Vl.pot+a:n.t- \-.ac...b 'i+a....+ -¼:,,o,VlerJ l i 'ic-a_rds,
""-- c _j ii,l.,es+.·on'SI' \¼.)ill -e "Vla..:i.l ljOVL 4-h-e Sa.>.v,,.e..,
V1iok d :::5.;;,u_ C..CU"I. \['ef\j -\-o ,+h-e.. ,€..YVLa.'. \.Or c.a..,Lt 11v-te..c: i-
2-o\to g :.:, 49.
SLC Foothills Landscape Diversity - Landscape Diversity
May 25, 2022
SLC_Foothills_StudyArea Conserved Lands (by Gap Status)3 More landscape diversity
0 0.5
1:105,808
1 2 mi
1Ecoregion Boundaries Landscape Diversity Slightly more landscape diversity 0 1 2 4 km
2 Most landscape diversity
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS,
FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri
(c) The Nature Conservancy
Notes from Maria Goller (Save our Foothills):
MAMMALS OBSERVED personally:
Rock squirrel
Red squirrel
Fox squirrel
Northern pocket gopher
Deer mouse
American mink
American badger
Bobcat
Mountain lion
Coyote
Red fox
Desert cottontail
Elk
Mule deer
Moose
Long-tailed weasel
Short-tailed weasel
Raccoon
North American porcupine
MAMMALS EXPECTED or observed by others:
Northern flying squirrel
Meadow vole
Striped skunk
Western harvest mouse
Western jumping mouse?
Northern grasshopper mouse?
Long-tailed vole?
Sagebrush vole?
Meadow vole?
Vagrant shrew?
Masked shrew?
Definitely several other species I’m missing!
COMMON REPTILES:
Common garter snake
Wandering garter snake
Western terrestrial garter snake
Valley garter snake
Great Basin gopher snake
Great basin rattlesnake
Western yellow-bellied racer
Northern rubber boa
Greater short-horned lizard
Western fence lizard
Common sagebrush lizard
Common side-blotched lizard
Western whiptail lizard
Plateau striped whiptail lizard
PASSERINE SPECIES
Northern flicker (year-round)
Hairy woodpecker (year-round)
Downy woodpecker (year-round)
Red-naped sapsucker (migrant)
Woodhouse’s scrub jay (year-round)
Steller’s jay (year-round)
Black-billed magpie (year-round)
Common raven (year-round)
Clark’s nutcracker (Black Mountain only)
Black-capped chickadee (year-round)
Mountain chickadee (year-round)
Juniper titmouse (summer)
Brown creeper (year-round)
Red-breasted nuthatch (year-round)
Ruby-crowned kinglet (year-round)
Golden-crowned kinglet (winter)
Yellow-rumped warbler (year-round)
Yellow warbler (summer)
Orange-crowned warbler (summer)
Nashville warbler (migrant)
MacGillivray’s warbler (summer)
Townsend’s warbler (migrant)
Wilson’s warbler (migrant)
Green-tailed towhee (summer)
Spotted towhee (year-round)
Chipping sparrow (summer)
Clay-colored sparrow (migrant)
Brewer’s sparrow (migrant)
Vesper sparrow (summer)
Lark sparrow (summer)
Fox sparrow (summer)
Song sparrow (year-round)
Lincoln’s sparrow (summer)
White-crowned sparrow (winter)
Dark-eyed junco (year-round)
Lazuli bunting (summer)
Painted bunting (unusual, summer)
House finch (year-round)
Cassin’s finch (migrant)
Gray-crowned rosy-finch (winter)
Common redpoll (unusual, winter)
Pine siskin (year-round)
American goldfinch (year-round)
Lesser goldfinch (summer)
Western wood-pewee (summer)
Dusky flycatcher (summer)
Cordilleran flycatcher (summer)
Hammond’s flycatcher (migrant)
Say’s phoebe (summer)
Western kingbird (summer)
Eastern kingbird (migrant)
Loggerhead shrike (winter)
Northern shrike (winter)
Plumbeous vireo (summer)
Warbling vireo (summer)
Bullock’s oriole (summer)
Brown-headed cowbird (summer)
Western tanager (summer)
Black-headed grosbeak (summer)
Horned lark (migrant)
Western meadowlark (summer)
Violet-green swallow (summer)
Barn swallow (summer)
Tree swallow (summer)
Northern rough-winged swallow (migrant)
Cliff swallow (migrant)
Rock wren (summer)
Canyon wren (year-round)
Pacific wren (winter)
Blue-gray gnatcatcher (summer)
Western bluebird (migrant)
Mountain bluebird (migrant)
Townsend’s solitaire (summer)
Swainson’s thrush (summer)
Hermit thrush (summer)
American robin (year-round)
Cedar waxwing (migrant)
American pipit (migrant)
American dipper (year-round, creeks only)
NON-PASSERINE SPECIES
Dusky grouse (year-round)
Ruffed grouse (year-round)
California quail (year-round)
Chukar (year-round)
Wild turkey (year-round)
Mourning dove (year-round)
Rock pigeon (year-round)
Belted kingfisher (year-round, creeks only)
Mallard (year-round, creeks only)
Common nighthawk (summer)
Common poorwill (summer)
White-throated swift (summer)
Black-chinned hummingbird (summer)
Anna’s hummingbird (migrant)
Broad-tailed hummingbird (summer)
Rufous hummingbird (migrant)
Turkey vulture (summer)
Bald eagle (winter)
Golden eagle (year-round)
Northern harrier (migrant)
Sharp-shinned hawk (year-round)
Cooper’s hawk (year-round)
Broad-winged hawk (migrant)
Red-tailed hawk (year-round)
Swainson’s hawk (migrant)
American kestrel (year-round)
Peregrine falcon (year-round)
Prairie falcon (year-round)
Merlin (winter)
Western screech-owl (year-round)
Great horned owl (year-round)
Northern pygmy-owl (year-round)
Northern saw-whet owl (migrant)
Attachment D – Foothills Plan Evaluation and Recommendations Report
Staff Questions and Responses from the Administration
The following document contains questions from Council staff (blue) to Public Lands staff (black).
Trail Management
A recommendation in the report is to develop a management plan for the foothills
area. How may this be different from current trail management practice? No Does
SLC currently have a management plan for its trails, or is any maintenance and
management of trails handled on a case-to-case basis?
The 2020 Foothills Trail System Plan was a trail development and trail management focused
plan. The recommendation report suggests the expansion of our 2020 plan by including
additional management guidance to support the overall health of the trail system, ecological
management, and overall user experience more collectively.
Public Lands does have several other existing management plans that are used to guide the
maintenance work in our natural areas including an updated 2022 Invasive Species Management
Plan and the 2016 Natural Lands Management Plan. While these plans are not specific to the
Foothills, Public Lands intends to use these existing plans to help guide the Management
Planning process for each area in the Foothills.
The Foothill Open Space Zone (FOSZ) Plans will incorporate trail maintenance, vegetation
management, wayfinding signage and trail amenities, trailhead infrastructure, and
communications and community engagement. The report confirms that each FOSZ Plan along
with the aforementioned natural lands management plans will cover the key areas recommended
in the evaluation report.
The transmittal notes that the management plan will likely be developed alongside
each FOSZ plan. Does Public Lands anticipate this to be one (combined) or two
(separate) plans?
The evaluation report recommends that multiple FOSZ Plans be completed, one for each Foothills
area identified. The FOSZ Plans, in combination with the existing 2020 Foothills Trail System
Plan and other natural lands management plans, will guide the work in each area of the Foothills.
Trail Funding
As noted in the transmittal, approximately $380,000 remains in existing foothills
capital funding. How much of this funding is anticipated for planning and the future
Foothills Open Space Zone Planning & management plan?
Public Lands has solicited a proposal and preliminary cost estimate for the first FOSZ Plan,
estimated between $50K-$75K, depending on the scope. Public Lands is also coordinating with
key land management partners to develop a formal agreement between SLC Public Lands, SLC
Public Utilities, University of Utah, Utah State Parks and the US Forest Service, which is
estimated to cost $25K-$30K for a total of approximately $100K in immediate planning needs.
The remaining funding would be used for new trail construction, landscape restoration, and
trailhead and on-trail signage identified in the first FOSZ, which is anticipated for 2025.
Does Public Lands anticipate requesting additional funding to continue
constructing additional trails, as recommended by 2020? How much of the
remaining $380,000 will be for trail construction? A Council Member has asked if
enough funding exists to get the plan moving forward.
Yes, we anticipate each FOSZ will include a request for more funding for both planning work and
construction. As done previously, we will look to use Park Impact Fee funding requested through
the CIP process and matching grants from State of Utah’s grant programs and will additionally
explore private and federal funding sources. Because each FOSZ planning process will identify
specific trail system improvements, we do not have an accurate estimate for cost of all future trail
construction.
Communications & Public Engagement
Some earlier public feedback we heard suggested or alleged concerns that bikers'
needs and opinions may have had an outsized influence on the drafting of the
Foothills Trail System Plan and subsequent implementation compared to hikers'.
What steps has and/or will the administration take in future planning processes to
ensure balanced representation and consideration of all user groups, including
hikers?
The evaluation team confirmed that the Public Lands team conducted extensive community
engagement in both the planning and evaluation processes to ensure that not only the biking
community voices were heard, but also that hikers, dog owners, and a variety of diverse
communities were consulted resulting in a balanced planning process. Phase I trail development
resulted in a very balanced trail network with more linear mileage of hiking-only trails (5.2 miles
for Lower City Creek Loop, Avenues Ridge Trail, Popperton) than biking-only trails (4.6 miles for
19th Ave, East Pop, South Popperton Loop). Phase I also ensured balanced representation for
users with less experience and skill by creating more entry-level trail experiences at Lower City
Creek and Popperton.
For the future, the evaluation includes the recommendation of a Foothills Stakeholder Group
(FSG) that will help guide future implementation of the Foothills Plan: The Foothills Stakeholder
Group would help inform FOSZ planning and include key stakeholders with knowledge of
environmental, trails, and other management issues and will also represent the variety of distinct
user groups and interests in the Foothills.
The report recommends establishing a "Key Stakeholder Group" to help inform
future foothills planning efforts. Can the administration clarify how the roles and
responsibilities of this proposed group will differ from the existing Parks, Natural
Lands, Urban Forestry & Trails Advisory Board (PNUT)?
Public Lands has solicited support from public engagement services to establish two specific
groups to support the management of the Salt Lake City Foothills. The first will be a Land
Management Group that will consist of the five public entities with land ownership: SLC Public
Lands, SLC Public Utilities, US Forest Service, the University of Utah, and Utah State Parks (This
is the Place). We are in the process of developing a formal agreement with this group to delineate
roles and responsibilities and this group will be the “decision-making group” for the Foothills.
There is currently no formal requirement for any other landowner to adhere to the Foothills Plan
or any other evaluation recommendations on land not owned by Salt Lake City. The desired
outcome of this formalized agreement would be to increase the consistency in the management of
the entirety of the Foothills Natural Area beyond SLC Public Lands jurisdiction.
A second Foothills Stakeholder Group (FSG) will make recommendations to the land
management group. The roles and responsibilities and representation of this group have yet to be
determined but will likely include a PNUT board member, advocates of various Foothills-specific
conservation organizations, and inclusive representation from other SLC-related groups and
communities. This group would likely weigh-in on planning decisions (e.g. trailheads and trail
alignments) as well as use policies (e.g. e-bikes, dogs, etc)
While the PNUT board has been involved in Foothills conversations, and will still have
representation, this community group would focus on specific users and community members
and provide more in-depth expertise to specific area of interest and ensure balanced
representation for many interests.
The report mentions that Indigenous community members were among the
stakeholders consulted during the review process. Does the administration remain
in active contact with Indigenous community members regarding the Foothills Trail
System and this evaluation report? Can the administration expand on how it plans
to involve Indigenous communities in future phases?
City staff have been engaged deeply with Indigenous community members throughout the review
process. Staff have met with formal tribal groups such as Utah Division of Indian Affairs, Native
American Remains Review Committee, and the Ute Business Committee, as well as with local
Indigenous community members and the Urban Indian Center. Much of the Mayor’s Office and
Public Lands partnership efforts with Utah Tribes have focused on respectful land use including
trails. A thorough evaluation of Indigenous cultural resources in the Foothills was conducted
during the review process and City staff have been and will continue to be in consultation with
various Utah tribes’ cultural resource managers for their collaboration. The City will also consult
with tribal leadership to determine in what capacity they would like to be involved in the future.
Public Lands is currently establishing a formal agreement with interested tribal leaders for Warm
Springs Park regarding the development and on-going management that could be used as a model
for City/Tribal relationships.
Foothills Plan Evaluation
Phase I Review & Future Recommendations
Salt Lake City Council - August 2024
Presentation Objectives
Share key findings from
•the 2020 Foothills Trail System Plan Evaluation
•Phase I implementation Evaluation
Share future recommendations and next steps
Share concurrent Public Lands efforts and next steps
2
City Council Request, May 2021
Conditional appropriation about future dollars spent on foothill trails – Existing and new funds for the construction, modification and decommissioning of trails built under the Foothills Trail System Master Plan, Phase 1, will be placed on hold contingent on the Administration’s review in collaboration with a broad spectrum of community stakeholders of:
a. the implementation to date of the master plan;
b. identification of adjustments or additional engagement as warranted; and
c. the Council’s authorization to move forward after the Council evaluates the results of the process.
3
City Council Request, May 2021
The City Council is willing to provide funding to the Administration for one or more outside experts who can objectively evaluate the technical and public policy aspects of the trail changes and additions completed to date and anticipated in the master plan.
That written evaluation should focus on, but not be limited to, the extent to which trail planning and development have been consistent with the vision, goals and principles in the Master Plan, including: best practices; strategies for the preservation and stewardship of the land; and respect for Tribal concerns. In addition, the written evaluation should include an analysis of how the process could be adapted to better meet the needs and desires of all users.
Existing and new funds for environmental studies will not be on hold, so long as such funds are not used for construction or decommissioning of trails. Existing and new funds for maintenance or repair of existing trails will be on hold, but may be released incrementally by the Council as information about adherence to best practices and progress on community feedback is received.
4
I I
Evaluation Process to Date
►►►►►►►►►►►►►►►►►►►►►►►►►
Environmental 11 Plan Review Public Lands
Department
Review &
Recommendations
5
►►►►►►►
SLC Mayor&
City Council
Engagement Process Review
Technical Committee
Who: City Staff from Public Lands, Public
Utilities, Engineering
Role: Education on Trail System Management
and Maintenance Best Practices; Development
of enhanced review process
Internal Stakeholders
Who: City Department Leadership, the
Mayor's Office
Role: Defined Expectations; Department
Needs, Experience with the Foothills System
Community Stakeholders & Leadership
Who: Nonprofits, Community Planning Groups,
Land Owners, Adjacent Land Managers,
Underrepresented Community Members
Role: Share experience and observations within the
Foothills, provide data and information, participate in
review of existing conditions and best practices
6
Engagement
KEY TRENDS
➢Enhanced signage, wayfinding and interpretation
➢Minimize environmental and geotechnical impacts
➢Enhancement of existing trails as a priority
➢Clear communication and information
➢Public stewardship
➢Opportunities for separation of use
➢Trail types and levels for all users
➢Clear and organized coordination between management agencies
➢Create safe spaces
➢Well-managed open space
7
ENGAGEMENT GROUPS
•The University of Utah
•Community Organizations and
Nonprofits
•Inclusive Recreation Providers and
Organizations
•State and Federal Agencies
•Community Councils and Planning
Groups
•Underrepresented Communities
•Representatives from Indigenous
Communities in the Region
Findings
9
Evaluation of the PLAN
Strengths Areas for Improvement
•Includes a significant amount of input from stakeholders and the public
•Identifies the desire and need for an expanded, managed trail system to increase accessibility, safety, and enjoyment for users and protection of the environment
•Identified the diversity of potential users in the Foothills and their needs
•Clarify and elaborate on the environmental damage caused by the many existing unplanned trails
•More specific implementation
procedures
•More extensive trail alignment planning to match desired user experiences
•More specific implementation strategies for managing natural and cultural resources
10
Evaluation of IMPLEMENTATION
Strengths:
•New trail corridors enhanced access of new and existing
users to access desired Foothills destinations.
•Trail design and construction created user-specific trails
(separate alignments for downhill bikes and hiking)
meeting the Foothill Plan’s goals for increased safety and
enjoyment.
•Closed eroding trail segments and replaced them with sustainably constructed alignments.
11
Evaluation of IMPLEMENTATION
Areas for Improvement:
•Trail development occurred in some areas constrained by
both overly steep terrain and challenging soils.
•Construction quality of some segments was poor due to
inefficient planning and insufficient oversight.
•Some trail segments were developed without a well-
defined purpose.
12
Recommendations
13
Recommendations
PLANNING:
•Conduct restoration and recreation planning
by zone
•Adopt a zone by zone planning and
implementation process
•Prioritize the maintenance and enhancement of
existing facilities
COMMUNICATION:
•Develop and implement a consistent public
communication strategy
•Integrate clear wayfinding, signage,
and information sharing
14
MANAGEMENT:
•Increase data use to inform decision
making
•Develop management plans for the
Foothills Natural Area
Conduct Recreation and Restoration
Planning by Zone - Foothills Open Space Zones (FOSZ)
Differentiated by natural features to better reflect
landscape character, this approach allows for context-
sensitive decision-making.
Each Zone’s plan should include:
•an assessment of ecology and geography
•proposed trail alignments – existing and new
•recommended land restoration and unsustainable
trail closures
•wayfinding and informational signage plan
•proposed amenities (seating, shelters, tables, etc.)
•communications and public engagement process
•maintenance plan and budget
15
l
FOSZ Planning and Implementatio
Initiating the Project
Define purpose, need & scope
Review existing trails plan
Review the pre-NEPA level environmental and
cultural review document
Initiate dialogue with key stakeholders
BaseIine Area Review
Begin dialogue with the land manager and/or
owner regarding purpose, need and potential
changes
Team site visit to define trail use and type,
restoration and/or closure needs, new alignments
if necessary, and improvements to parking,
trailhead access, signage or other amenities
Site Design
Design of alternative concepts alignments,
restoration or closure areas
NEPA level, site-specific environmental and
cultural review of the area identified in the design
Coordination with the land manager and/or
owner for approval of design
Information sharing with Key Stakeholders and
the Public
Finalize Design and FOSZ-specific Maintenance
and Operations Plan
Implementation
Finalize construction budget and specifications
Advertise to contractors
Inform site users and adjacent residents
Permitting, construction and inspection
16
Prioritize the Maintenance and
Enhancement of Existing Facilities
Existing trail evaluation should
consider:
•whether the value of existing trails
outweigh natural resource impacts,
•whether partial or full corridor relocation
can occur outside the riparian corridor,
•if existing trails are to remain in place,
how might intermittent stormwater/
snowmelt impacts be mitigated.
17
Develop and Implement a Consistent Public
Communication Strategy
•Rangers + trails maintenance team
•Improved trailhead, wayfinding, & field signage
•Foothills communication channels
o SLCTrails.com website
o Foothills e-newsletter
o@SLCPublicLands social media
•PNUT & Community Council coordination
•Communication with key stakeholders
18
Develop a Unified Wayfinding System
Considerations
•Education
•Restoration
•Responsible Use
•Safety & Emergency
Preparedness
•Accessibility & Inclusivity
19
Increase Data Use to Inform
Decision-Making
•Trail counters show who is
already using the system
•Manual counts and
community surveys increase
depth
•Leverage big data to improve
breadth of understanding
•University partnerships
increase reach
20
Develop Management Plans for the
Foothills Natural Area
Formalize a multi-agency management
agreement to develop management
plans that may include:
•Defining each entity's role
•Establishing conservation, preservation,
and recreation goals
•Refining environmental strategies
•Connecting the 2020 Foothills Trail System
Plan, FOSZ plans, & other agencies plans
to the overall Foothills management
strategy
•Creating processes to involve key
stakeholders
21
Concurrent Efforts & Next Steps
22
Concurrent Efforts
PLANNING:
•Beginning in 2022, have commenced maintenance and enhancement of existing
facilities with dedicated part-time staff members and contractual services.
•In spring 2024, hired full-time PL staff with soil and ecological expertise to commence review
of FOSZ areas and expand Foothills maintenance program.
COMMUNICATION:
•In spring 2024, hired a part-time communications specialist to implement a consistent public
communication strategy for Foothills via newsletters, online media, informational flyers, and
on-trail signage.
•Has developed a clear wayfinding, signage, and information sharing plan that will begin
implementation in fall 2024 at trailheads, along trails, and at trail junctions across the full trail
system.23
Concurrent Efforts
MANAGEMENT:
•Increasing data use to inform decision making
•Initiating the facilitation of an inter-agency agreement with SLC
Pubic Lands, SLC Public Utilities, US Forest Service, University of
Utah, and Utah State Parks (This is the Place) - fall 2024
24
Next Steps
PLANNING:
•Revisit Phase I trail development areas and review using updated FOSZ processes
to complete necessary recreation and restoration improvements. This includes Lower City Creek, ECC &
Upper Avenues, Popperton, Twin Peaks & Dry Creek.
•Concurrently, initiate the FOSZ process in an area for new trail and restoration development in
the Meridian Peak and Shoreline Preserve FOSZ north of Hell Canyon and west of City Creek Canyon.
COMMUNICATION:
•Continue to implement the consistent public communications strategy with quarterly newsletters;
updated posted information signs at trailheads; hosting community forums; and engaging the
community with volunteer stewardship events and promoting the Foothills Be W.I.L.D. campaign.
•Implementing the wayfinding and signage plan with an additional 150 carsonite wayfinding signs along
the BST and designated FTS trails by spring 2025; install 20+ minor trailhead 'Welcome Stations" that
will include QR codes for trail information and digital "check-ins", dog waste bag receptacles, and trash
cans.25
Next Steps
MANAGEMENT:
•Increase data collection with addition of trail counters, and increased user surveys.
•August – October 2024: Formalize a multi-agency management agreement for
management of the area as whole and will include:
•Defining each entity's role
•Establishing conservation, preservation, and recreation goals
•Refining environmental strategies
•Connecting the 2020 Foothills Trail System Plan, FOSZ plans, & other agency
plans to the overall Foothills management strategy
26
Discussion
27
_____________
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC LANDS
MAYOR KRISTIN RIKER
DIRECTOR
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
Date Received: 04/04/2024
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: 04/04/2024
TO:Salt Lake City Council DATE: March 15, 2024
Victoria Petro, Chair
FROM:Kristin Riker, Director, Department of Public Lands _
SUBJECT:2020 Foothills Plan Evaluation and Recommendations Report
STAFF CONTACTS:
Tyler Fonarow
Recreational Trails Manager
Tyler.fonarow@slcgov.com
Tyler Murdock
Public Lands Deputy Director – Planning, Trails and Natural Lands
Tyler.murdock@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE:Information Item
RECOMMENDATION:
Public Lands recommends that Salt Lake City Council approve the evaluation findings and
recommendations; and remove the hold on trail construction funding so that so that future
trail planning and construction may occur when accompanied by the procedures outlined in
the Foothills Open Space Zone (FOSZ) planning and implementation process including
maintenance and land restoration.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impact. Please see the proposed budget section below.
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION WWW.SLCGOV.COM
1965 WEST 500 SOUTH TEL: 801-972-7800
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84104 PAGE 1 OF 2
rachel otto (Apr 4, 2024 13:38 MDT)
Page 2 of 6
BACKGROUND:
The Salt Lake City Department of Public Lands launched the 2020 Foothills Trail System
Plan (the Plan) after extensive planning and public engagement. The Plan was necessary
given the limited history of coordinated recreation or conservation efforts in the Foothills
which had led to environmental degradation and user safety concerns. The Plan’s five goals
prioritized the City's growing, diverse population and the high desert climate and
ecosystems of the Foothills. The goals are to create a trail system that is Environmentally
Sustainable, Enjoyable, Safe, Accessible, and Low-Maintenance.
Construction of Phase I trails in 2020-2021 raised concerns about the planning process
defined in the Plan and the construction methods used, although the 15+ miles of newly
built and signed trails saw significant use when complete. The City paused trail construction
in the summer of 2021 to thoroughly evaluate the Plan to ensure the promised “world-class
trail system” would be researched, designed, constructed, and maintained following best
practices.
At that time Council tasked Public Lands to secure outside experts who could objectively
evaluate the technical and public policy aspects of the trail changes implied across the Plan
and those that occurred during Phase I implementation. This included:
•assessing the extent to which trail planning and development have been consistent
with the vision, goals, and principles established in the Plan including best practices,
strategies for preservation and stewardship, and respect for tribal concerns.
•analysis of how the process could be adapted to better meet the needs and desires of
all users.
Further, Public Lands was tasked with including a broad spectrum of community
stakeholders throughout this process.
EVALUATION PROCESS
Between 2021-2023, the City hired three consultants to independently evaluate the Plan
from their various areas of expertise:
•a baseline pre-NEPA ecological and cultural report to inform future areas for trail
development, restoration, and conservation was completed by SWCA Environmental
Consultants in 2022-2023;
•a thorough evaluation of the Plan and Phase I construction was conducted by the
outdoor recreation and natural resource consulting firm SE Group in 2022-2024;
•DEA Inc. has been hired to assist with effective communication efforts to keep the
community informed from 2023–2024.
This report documents the findings and recommendations of the recreation, restoration,
and maintenance planning and implementation evaluation performed by SE Group,
including:
Page 3 of 6
Evaluation of:
•The 2020 Foothills Trail System Plan
•Phase I implementation of the Plan
Recommendations for:
•Future trail and restoration planning, implementation and maintenance
•Developing a wayfinding and signage system
•Evaluating current and future trail use
•Integrating the Plan into a future Foothills Management Plan
The SE Group developed the proposed recommendations detailed in the plan and
summarized below through geospatial research and a thorough 14-day site review and
Foothills tour; incorporating SWCA’s pre-NEPA environmental and cultural resource
assessment; and coordination with SLC departments, committees, outside agencies, and
other stakeholders. Finally, a comprehensive inventory of existing trail assets and trailheads
was developed using geospatial material from the City, Utah’s State Geographic Information
Database (SGID), geospatial data produced through the pre-NEPA environmental review,
and data provided by local stakeholders and agencies.
SUMMARY OF THE 2020 SALT LAKE CITY FOOTHILLS TRAIL SYSTEM PLAN
EVALUATION
Overall, the Plan details an excellent framework to provide Salt Lake City with a world-class
trail system. The goals are appropriate and realistic for Salt Lake City’s high desert and
urban open space, given the diversity of its residents and visitors and the physical
geography of the Foothills. The evaluation found that the Plan has expected strengths and
areas for improvement:
Strengths:
•Includes a significant amount of input from stakeholders and the public
•Identifies the desire and need for an expanded, managed trail system to increase
accessibility, safety, and enjoyment for users and protection of the environment
•Identified the diversity of potential users in the Foothills and their needs
Areas for Improvement:
•Clarify and elaborate on the environmental damage caused by the many existing
unplanned trails and human impacts
•More specific implementation procedures
•More extensive trail alignment planning to match desired user experiences
•More specific implementation strategies for managing natural and cultural resources
PHASE I IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION SUMMARY
Page 4 of 6
The Phase I implementation of the Foothills Plan was both celebrated and condemned by
the community. Phase I provided several thoughtfully planned and well-built trails that are
popular with new and experienced users. Phase I also saw some trail segments built along
steep slopes less conducive to sustainable trail development and did not sufficiently account
for the pre-existing restoration needs. The Phase I evaluation findings are detailed here:
Phase I Strengths:
•Identified good conceptual trail planning that meets the needs of a diversity of new
and existing users in accessing desired Foothills destinations.
•Followed best practices in modern trail planning for design and construction of user-
specific trails (separate alignments for downhill bikes and hiking) and meets the
Plan’s goals for increased safety and enjoyment.
•Closed eroding trail segments and replacing them with more sustainably designed
and built sections.
Areas for Improvement:
•Trail development occurred in some areas where overly steep terrain and challenging
soils are combined
•Inefficient planning and insufficient oversight allowed for poor construction quality
in specific locations by contractor(s)
•Some trail segments were developed without a well-defined purpose
•Lack of community education procedures for trail decommissioning and community
education procedures
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
A more thorough planning process that:
Conducts Restoration and Recreation Planning by Zone, (Foothill Open
Space Zones or FOSZ): This updated approach to planning includes assessments
of ecology and geography; proposed trail alignments; recommended land
restoration; on-trail and trailhead signage and amenities; communications and
engagement planning; maintenance plans and budgets. With each zone boundary
roughly based on sub-watersheds rather than property lines to better reflect
landscape character, this zonal planning approach will allow for context-sensitive
decision-making for new trail development, necessary trail restoration and/or
closure, appropriate visitor use signage and amenities for a diversity of user types
and skill levels.
Defines a FOSZ Planning and Implementation Process: A Planning and
Implementation Process (PIP) is outlined in the report that will provide a more
effective and transparent process for planning, design, and implementation of not
only trails, but all the other elements listed in the FOSZ definition. This PIP follows a
similar process to the federal National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) to
better inform changes in the Foothill Open Space system.
Page 5 of 6
Prioritizes the Maintenance and Enhancement of Existing Trails and
Trailheads: Historically, existing trails in the Foothills have received minimal
maintenance, which has led to erosion and environmental degradation. Any
strategies to improve access and environmental sustainability in the Foothills should
prioritize the maintenance, enhancement, or closure of existing trails in combination
with consideration for new trail construction.
A more effective communications process that develops and implements:
A Consistent Public Communication Strategy: Sharing information with the
public will help improve maintenance and sustainability in the Foothills, as well as
improve relationships with visitors and build a culture of stewardship. Items to be
communicated should include:
•planned changes;
•identifying trailheads, preferred routes, closures, and restoration areas;
•and providing user etiquette, educational and other information
A Unified Wayfinding, Signage, and Information System: A good
wayfinding system not only guides people along sustainable routes to their
destinations but can enhance a user’s understanding and experience of the Foothills.
Ultimately, wayfinding’s contribution to more feet and wheels and paws on
sustainable trails and improved user appreciation for these public lands can make
significant contributions to the preservation of the Salt Lake City Foothills ecosystem
and trail network.
Prepares SLC Public Lands for future maintenance and management needs by:
Increasing Data Use to Inform Decision Making: Salt Lake City has been
maintaining trail count data at some locations throughout the Foothills since 2016.
The plan recommends more fixed and rotational counters and leveraging additional
data sources to understand use levels throughout the system. This data can help the
City understand the efficacy of various land closures, impacts of a trail reroute, or
gather data where none was previously available.
Developing Management Plans for the Foothills Natural Area: The
Foothills Natural Area has never been actively managed, and the 2020 Foothills Trail
System Plan and this evaluation process have highlighted maintenance and
management needs that must be addressed to preserve the Salt Lake City Foothills as
a place for nature and recreation. It is anticipated that management plans will be
developed alongside each FOSZ plan, and will reflect each zone’s unique character,
land-use context, recreation resources and environmental sensitivities.
CONCURRENT PUBLIC LANDS EFFORTS
Decades of unmanaged use in the Foothills has led to degradation including excessive trails
Page 6 of 6
to the same destination, widening and braiding trails, trails in unsustainable or
environmentally damaging areas, and a lack of accessible trails for a variety of users. During
this evaluation period, the Department of Public Lands has continued to address other
aspects of natural resource and trail system management and will continue to do so while
implementing the recommendations detailed here. Those concurrent activities include:
•Public Lands has hired on-the-ground Foothills-specific staff including two Park
Rangers and a trails and ecological maintenance team to prioritize maintenance and
enhancement of existing facilities and improve public communication. Additional
seasonal Foothills maintenance and communications staff begin in spring 2024.
•The Public Lands SLC Be W.I.L.D. community education campaign will welcome and
inform new and returning Foothills users and help build a sustainable trail culture.
•Critically important for a trail system along an urban interface, Public Lands has
begun the process to implement extensive improvements at major and minor
trailheads across the SLC Foothills. Off-street parking, trailhead amenities,
restrooms (when possible), waste receptacles, and wayfinding signage to support the
user experience and protect the natural areas will all be new additions in 2024.
REMAINING BUDGET ALLOCATION:
SLC Public Lands has approximately $380,000 remaining in existing Foothills Master Plan
capital funding. These funds are separated into two primary areas, including planning work
and implementation funding. Following the completion of the evaluation and all budget
contingencies have been met, Public Lands plans to move forward with Foothill Open Space
Zone Planning. These efforts will determine how remaining implementation funding will be
prioritized and spent, and may include updated signage, trailhead improvements, trail
construction, and trail restoration.
PUBLIC PROCESS: N/A
EXHIBITS:
A. Maps of Foothills Open Space Zones (FOSZ)
B. Foothills Trail System Evaluation and Recommendations, SE Group, Jan 2024
A.Maps of Foothills Open Space Zones (FOSZ)
EXHIBIT A
31Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
** Disclaimer: See Page 30 **
1.Recommendations for using the FOSZ
Develop a more robust, comprehensive management plan
that encompasses all seven zones. This overarching plan
will address various aspects, including trail development,
restoration, wayfinding enhancements, amenities, and
management strategies to cater to the diverse user types and
skill levels across the entire area. The development of these
plans should build upon the foundation provided by the
Foothills Plan and the information presented in this document.
Each Zone’s plan should include at least:
•an assessment of ecology and geography
•proposed trail alignments
•recommended land restoration and unsustainable trail
closures
•wayfinding and informational signage plan
•proposed amenities (seating, shelters, tables, etc)
•communications and public engagement process
•maintenance plan and budget
2.Evaluation of Individual Trail Alignments
Once a zone plan is complete, the proposed trail alignments
within that zone should be evaluated on a segment-by-
segment basis to identify alignments compliant with the
guiding principles of sustainable trail development. Proposed
trail alignments include existing trail realignment, restoration,
or closure. New trail maintenance or construction projects
are anticipated, particularly in cases of environmental
deterioration.
Following a thorough evaluation of the proposed alignment,
the City should proceed with the implementation of a zone
plan’s recommended restoration, ecological, and trail system
projects.
The following pages guide the development of zone-specific
plans, trail alignments, and environmental restoration projects.
Click on a zone to the right to be directed to that zone’s specific
recommendations page.
Map of Foothills Open Space Zones
Click on a
Zone to jump
to a full
description
32Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
Prioritization of FOSZ Planning and Implementation
The table below is designed to facilitate Salt Lake City’s approach to segment by segment
planning and implementation of the Foothills Plan. This guide is not prescriptive, but instead
provides a relative level of complexity for each zone that can identify a logical process to
approach less complex land areas first, and more complex land areas later.
FOSZ Name Complexity Level Rationale
Meridian Peak &
Shoreline Preserve Low
Supportive terrain for trail expansion. Robust
Trailhead established. Minimal adjacent land-
use practices and ownership.
North Capitol: West City
Creek, Ensign Peak &
Hell Canyon
Low
Clear and high demand for improvements to
existing trails. Few adjacent land-use concerns
due to capitol complex.
East City Creek & Upper
Avenues Medium
Trails implemented during phase 1
implementation should be revisited through
future planning efforts.
Perry’s Hollow, Twin
Peaks & Dry Creek High
Existing trail use conflicts and extensive user
trail network and habitat increase complexity of
trail improvements here.
Mt Van Cott & the
University Medium
Supportive partnership with University
conducting its own land use evaluation creates
opportunities for collaboration and efficiencies.
User trail prevalence and need for restoration
is high; along with trailhead access and
infrastructure.
Mt. Wire & Red Butte Medium/High
Trailhead access improvements needed
alongside any trail improvement / expansion
projects. Steep slopes of lands increase
complexity of implementation.
East Bench High
No prior planning document to guide FOSZ
process. Residential property adjacencies
increase complexity.
** Disclaimer: See Page 30 **
EXHIBIT B
Foothills Trail System Evaluation and Recommendations, SE Group, Jan 2024
JANUARY 2024
FOOTHILLS TRAIL
SYSTEM EVALUATION
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
2Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Evaluation History 5
How to Use this Document 6
Project Process 7
Engagement and Outreach 7
Methodology & Trail Evaluation Criteria 8
Existing Use 9
Comparable Region Evaluation 13
Case Studies 14
THE 2020 Foothills Plan Evaluation 17
Methodology 17
Plan Overview 18
Goals Evaluation 20
Evaluation of Phase I Implementation 22
Lower City Creek Loop 23
Avenues Ridge/19th Ave/BST Valleyview 24
Popperton Trails 25
Twin Peaks & Dry Creek 26
Evaluation Summary 27
Recommendations Summary 29
Restoration and Recreation Planning by Zone 30
Prioritization of FOSZ Planning and Implementation 32
FOSZ Planning and Implementation Process 47
PHASE 1: PLANNING 47
PHASE 2: DESIGN 48
PHASE 3: IMPLEMENTATION 48
Public Communications Strategy 49
Prioritize the Maintenance and Enhancement of
Existing Facilities 50
Develop a Unified Wayfinding System 51
Increase the Power of Trail Counts 52
Develop a Management Plan 53
Operations and Maintenance 54
Maintaining the Outdoors: The Blueprint for Trail Care 55
Methods to Accomplish Quarterly Inspections 56
Next Steps 57
INTRODUCTION 3 RECOMMENDATIONS 28
EVALUATION SUMMARIES 16
INTRODUCTION
4Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Introduction
Salt Lake City is among the fastest growing metropolitan
areas in the nation. With a thriving population of outdoor
enthusiasts, and more new residents looking to take advantage
of Salt Lake City’s recreational resources daily, the Salt Lake
City Foothills are the vanguard of the city’s outdoor recreation
offerings. With more than 60 miles of natural surface trail and
several access points along the nearly 10-mile span of the
Bonneville Shoreline trail, the Foothills Trail system offers world-
class outdoors access to the City.
Historically, trail access throughout Salt Lake City’s Foothills
were largely unmanaged, beyond improvements to the
Bonneville Shoreline Trail. This changed when the Salt Lake
City Public Lands Department adopted the Foothills Trail
System Plan (the Foothills Plan), which provided detailed
layout, design, and management recommendations for a
non-motorized recreational trail system within the Foothills.
The multi-year planning process included extensive public
engagement and outreach, a three-phased trail development
plan, and design guidelines and implementation steps to
guide the Public Lands Department in the development and
management of an extensive regional trail system.
From 2020 to 2021, the City implemented Phase I of the
Foothills Plan which built and enhanced approximately 15
miles of new trails. Phase I removed some pre-existing trails
and altered some use restrictions of the current trail system.
Public reaction to Phase I implementation ranged from
strong support to significant concern regarding the impact
and quality of new trail construction. Some members of
the public expressed concern about the City implementing
new trail construction without established maintenance or
management plans.
Due to this mixed response, the City paused the
implementation process to evaluate Phase I work. This
evaluation has taken the form of a detailed environmental
review (Foothills Environmental and Cultural Resource
Assessment) and this document, which identifies appropriate
processes and methodologies to follow as the Foothills Trail
System Plan is implemented.
This document represents provides guidance and
recommendations for:
•The establishment of Foothills Open Space Zones to
guide land and trail management decisions.
•The adoption of a more robust planning and
implementation process that incorporates additional
ecological and community inputs and tiered design
process to achieve the vision of the 2020 Foothills Trail
System Plan
•Improving public communications
•Prioritizing maintenance of existing facilities
•Developing a unified wayfinding system to improve
overall sustainability and safety
•Expanding data resources to inform decision making
•Establishing a management plan for Foothills Natural
Area
Bonneville Shoreline
Trail
5Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Introduction
EVALUATION HISTORY
The Salt Lake City Department of Public Lands launched
the 2020 Foothills Trail System Plan (the Foothills Plan) after
extensive planning and public engagement with landowners,
stakeholder groups, and invested residents and trail users.
The Foothills Plan was an important first step to begin
management of a previously unmanaged urban-adjacent
open space resource. The Foothills Plan developed five goals
for the trails, considering the City’s growing, diverse population
and the high desert climate and ecosystems of the Foothills:
the trail system should be Environmentally Sustainable,
Enjoyable, Safe, Accessible, and Low Maintenance.
Phase I implementation of the Foothills Plan in 2020-2021
was both celebrated and criticized by the community. The
15+ miles of newly built and signed trails saw significant use
but also raised questions and concerns about planning and
construction methods. The City paused trail construction
in the summer of 2021 to conduct a thorough evaluation of
the Foothills Plan working to fulfill the promise of a “world-
class trail system” that employs best practices for its design,
construction, and maintenance.
The City hired three consultants to independently evaluate
the Foothills Plan from their various areas of expertise. SWCA
Environmental Consultants were hired to complete a baseline
pre-NEPA ecological and cultural report that will inform future
areas for trail development and for conservation. SWCA’s
evaluation was completed in May 2023 and was shared in
community meetings and online.
Natural area recreation planning specialists SE Group and their
subcontractors, trail industry experts Kay-Linn Enterprises and
Applied Trails Research, were hired to complete a thorough
evaluation of Phase I construction and plan implementation,
which has culminated in this plan document. This team
was also tasked with creating an additional appendix and
recommendations for inclusion in the Foothills Plan.
The SE team met extensively with SWCA’s team for more than
6 months to ensure a complete analysis was conducted. Lastly,
DEA Inc civil planning communications consultants were
brought on board to assist with community engagement and
bolster communications efforts to more effectively deliver
messaging to the City’s constituents.
This report documents the findings and recommendations
of the evaluation performed by SE Group and its team of
recreation and natural resource experts. Specifically, the scope
of SE Group’s work included:
Evaluation of and Recommendations for:
•The 2020 Foothills Trail System Plan, led by Alta Planning &
Design
•Phase I implementation for the Foothills Plan
•Future trail planning and implementation
Providing recommended procedures for:
•Developing a wayfinding and signage system
•Developing a maintenance plan
•Evaluating current and future trail use
•Integrating the 2020 Plan into a future Foothills
Management Plan
6Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Introduction
HOW TO USE THIS DOCUMENT
To Learn the History of Salt Lake City’s Planning for
improvements to the Foothills Trail System, refer to the
introduction portion of this plan.
To Understand the strengths and drawbacks of the original
2020 Foothills Plan and the phase 1 trail construction that
came after, refer to the evaluation portion of this plan.
To Review the Recommended changes to the trail design
and development process that will guide future changes in
the Foothills, refer to the recommendations portion of this
plan.
Introduction Evaluation Recommendations
7Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Introduction
PROJECT PROCESS
This Foothills Trail System Evaluation has been conducted in
concert with two other projects:
•The Foothills Environmental and Cultural Resource
Assessment
•A Foothills Trails Public Communications effort
These efforts have been sponsored by the Salt Lake City
to implement the Foothills Plan vision methodically and
transparently while following environmentally sound practices.
The Foothills Environmental and Cultural Resource Assessment
is a preliminary, landscape-level environmental evaluation. The
assessment does not provide a level of detail suitable for trail
construction. This more granular level of detail is intended to
occur at later dates as precise trail alignments are determined.
Historically, a NEPA-level environmental review has only
been required for projects on United States Forest Service
(USFS) and other federal lands. The City Department of Public
Lands has determined that NEPA-level evaluation should be
performed on all future alignment proposals regardless of
land ownership. Findings from the environmental and cultural
resource assessment have directly informed this document’s
consideration of potential environmental, cultural, and
geotechnical resources throughout the foothills.
Additionally, the Department of Public Lands enlisted
the services of a communications consultant to enhance
transparency within this Foothills Plan evaluation process, and
convey expectations for future planning and development
within the Foothills. The consultant has been tasked to
support public communication on Foothills projects, guiding
engagement and messaging to residents, stakeholders, and
trail users.
Engagement and Outreach
This report summarizes professional assessments of the
Foothills Plan and Phase I implementation, along with Salt
Lake City residents, City staff, and stakeholder assessment.
Stakeholders consulted during this process include:
•SLC Engineering
•SLC Communications
•SLC Sustainability
•SLC Fire
•SLC Planning
•SLC Emergency Services
•SLC Public Utilities
•SLC Public Lands
•SLC Transportation
•SLC Mayors Office
•SLC Community Council Representatives
•Diversity advocates, US Forest Service, and Indigenous
community members
•Accessibility Advocates
•University of Utah
•Salt Lake City and regional trail and conservation advocates
The project team conducted an extensive listening tour of
these City Departments, stakeholder and leadership groups
from October 2022 through March 2023. Additional follow-up
sessions were conducted to fully address concerns and identify
an appropriate process for Trail System Plan Implementation.
Ten internal stakeholder interviews, four external stakeholder
meetings, two public workshops and two public presentations
were coordinated to gather broad public feedback regarding
the perceived benefits and drawbacks of the first phase of
implementing the Foothills Plan.
Key themes from this engagement process included:
•A need for improved wayfinding and signage throughout
the Foothills
•A need for improved communications to the public and
within city departments for plans and activities within the
Foothills.
•A need to promote responsible trail etiquette among users
•A need for clear evaluation of environmental impacts of any
proposed changes to the Foothills landscape
•A need to balance recreation, accessibility, and
environmental stewardship throughout the Foothills
These themes and additional feedback are integrated into this
document’s recommendations and summary.
8Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Introduction
METHODOLOGY & TRAIL EVALUATION CRITERIA
Before reviewing the 2020 Foothills Trail System Plan (the
Foothills Plan), the project team developed both sustainable
trail objectives and trail system guiding principles to provide
foundational guidance to the Foothills Trails Evaluation.
Sustainable Trail Objectives
Sustainable trail objectives provide a common language
between the City’s Public Lands Department, elected officials,
and the community. These sustainable trail objectives identify
best-practice outcomes for trail systems which provide long-
lasting and low-impact resources. These objectives include:
•Maintenance & Stewardship: Trail systems should require
minimal maintenance and be supported by appropriate
resources for ongoing enhancements and maintenance.
•Ecological Sustainability: Trail design should minimize
use-related ecological impacts on surrounding habitats and
ecosystems.
•Physical Sustainability: Trails should be built to retain
physical form over time while meeting the diverse needs
of different user types. Sustainable trails which maintain
physical resilience should actively minimize user conflict
through strategic design, such as maintaining line of sight
and appropriate widths where possible.
•Social Sustainability: Trails should prioritize social
sustainability to ensure easily navigable spaces for all users
regardless of age, level or ability. Trails should allow users
to reach desired destinations, such as viewpoints, with
clearly defined and purposeful construction. Cultural and
ecological interpretative signage as well as wayfinding and
regulatory signage is a crucial part of telling the “story” of
the Foothills and educating users regarding appropriate
use.
Trail System Guiding Principles
Guiding principles serve as broad criteria for evaluating
Salt Lake City Foothills management decisions. Rather
than strict guidelines, these principles act as focal points
during the decision-making process. Decisions can be
made outside these principles, but such deviations should
be intentional, accompanied by clear justification, and a
rationale demonstrating how the decision aligns with the goals
established in the Foothills Plan or other guiding documents.
These principles are:
•Support current and future use with minimal impact to the
area’s natural systems and wildlife
•Develop trails in areas already influenced by human activity
•Provide buffers to avoid/protect sensitive ecological and
hydrological systems
•Produce negligible soil loss or movement while allowing
native vegetation to inhabit the area
•Provide ongoing stewardship of the trails and adjoining
natural systems
•Ensure continued management and maintenance for the
system
•Accommodate existing sustainable use while allowing only
appropriate future use
•Recognize cultural needs in and around trail systems
•Work to provide a diverse system with inclusive
opportunities for all users
When applied to the Foothills Plan, these objectives and
principles reveal gaps and inconsistencies related to best
practice techniques, design guidelines, key construction
and maintenance principles, management strategies, and
proposed trail locations.
Sustainable Trail Example
Unsustainable
: Erosion and
trail braiding
due to steep
alignment and
trail design
Unsustainabl
e: Trail
widening or
“braiding”
9Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Introduction
EXISTING USE
To understand current trends and conditions regarding
trail use in the Foothills system, the project team consulted
available trail data. This informed the analysis of the 2020
Foothills Plan and subsequent recommendations.
The Salt Lake City Foothills Natural Area represents a valuable
open space asset adjacent to a large metropolitan population.
This asset should be open and accessible to visitors of all ages,
abilities, and backgrounds.
For years, many Salt Lake City hikers and bikers have enjoyed
access to the Foothills trails. Yet significant barriers remain for
large portions of the City’s population. Informal access points,
limited wayfinding and information, and steep and challenging
terrain create barriers for entry for many residents and visitors.
Experienced trail users may not recognize these hurdles and
these users only represent a fraction of the potential user base.
The City has compiled trail use data from crowdsourced apps
and trail counters at key access points along the Foothills.
These data provide important insights into trail use. However,
they do not tell the full story of access to the Foothills trails.
Beyond this data, the City is learning more about the real and
perceived barriers to entry for many community members
including those who face barriers to trail access or do not feel
comfortable using the trails.
The City acknowledges these barriers and will work to meet
unmet demand and make the Foothills Trail System an
inclusive community resource.
University Medical Campus Utility Road
10Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Introduction
Ensign Frontside Trail Use
Salt Lake City’s Trail Count Data
Since 2017, Salt Lake City has operated multiple infrared trail
counters throughout its trail network. 16 unique sites have
been measured, 9 of them within the Foothills. The inset map
illustrates current Salt Lake City trail counter locations (in pink).
Many locations have been gathering data for five years or more,
providing excellent opportunity for analysis and use of data
to guide decision making. This technology identifies users
crossing an infrared beam, but can not distinguish between
user types (hiker, biker, etc)
This data can be consulted when building each year’s
maintenance and restoration priorities. Use in a given area can
be measured by Average Daily Traffic (ADT) - a simple average
of users measured passing through a trailhead on an hourly,
daily, seasonal, or annual basis.
These data systems are not foolproof and data must be
reviewed by staff familiar with the dynamics of Foothills use to
scrub data for outliers or errors. Once cleaned of data outliers
and errors, each of these locations has a large amount of 24/7
data that can illustrate use patterns across time and compare
use between sites.
Data from these counters were used to generate information
on this and the following page, providing a brief overview of
trail user data in the Foothills.
Ensign Trail Data
The popular Ensign Peak Trail has approximately 4 full years
of data available between 2019 and 2023. Illustrated to the
right, this trail sees significant use throughout the year. Spring
peak use volumes are notable, cresting at figures that relate to
approximately 36 users each daylight hour in May.
Seasonal fluctuations are mirrored across this and other
counter datasets - with peak use happening in April / May /
June, and lowest use levels occurring in the coldest months of
December / January / February.
Trail Counter Locations as of winter 2023
source: trafx.com
Ensign Trail Use
20,000
18,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Ensign 2019 Ensign 2020 Ensign 2021 Ensign 2022 Ensign 2023
Foothills Sites Number of
data years Est 2022* ADT
Emigration Canyon Trailhead 7 521
18th Avenue TH 7 469
Ensign Peak TH 7 350
Tunnel Springs Trailhead 6 231
Mouth of Dry Creek 8 113
H-Rock/Devonshire 6 102
Bottom of Bobsled 6 58
Victory Road TH 6 42
Tomahawk Drive TH 6 28
Other Public Lands Sites
PHNP Main Road 2 937*
PHNP Upper Gate West Side 7 726
PHNP Upper Gate East Side 7 668
Hidden Hollow 6 461
Miller Park 6 101
Wasatch Hollow 6 35
McClelland Trail 6 91
*Indicates Average Daily Traffic (ADT) from years prior to 2022 due to data
avail.
11Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Introduction
Public TH Use Comparison
Trailhead Data
Three trailhead entrances have associated counts: Emigration
Canyon, 18th Avenue, and Tunnel Springs Trailhead.
Emigration Canyon and 18th Ave Trailhead have the most
complete datasets (most full years of counts available), and
after review and removal of outlier counts, the chart on this
page was produced to provide an overview of their historic use
patterns.
The takeaway from Foothills trailhead data is the significant
volumes of use at all times of the year. Averages of 15,000 to
20,000 users is not unusual during spring months and reflects
a baseline for use in the future. Even in the winter, low counts
show 5,000-6,000 users at a trailhead every month (or a
minimum of 166 users a day).
These data illustrate differences between individual trailheads,
such as differences in seasonal use rates. An example of this
would be that between November and February, Emigration
Canyon Trailhead averages higher use rates than I Street
Trailhead.
Trailhead Data Collection
In addition to this count data, Public Lands is developing a
novel method to measure relative levels of use throughout the
system - signage with a special QR ‘check-in’ code. Users will be
encouraged to scan a QR code (unique to each specific public
trailhead) that inquires about the user’s zip code, and type of
use (i.e. hike vs. bike; dogs). In turn, this will provide the City
with data to review the time, location, and volume of check-ins
across the network.
This system will by no means count every trail user, but can
represent a portion of total user access. This portion will likely
be consistent across the network. By correlating QR use with
known trailhead counts, Public Lands will be able to gauge
a relative level of use at each trailhead. The data will inform
maintenance and management of trailheads and can also be
used to apply for grant funding.
A low cost way to further leverage this data could be to partner
with a university to conduct manual user counts at trailheads
with QR codes, and specifically note what percent of trailhead
visitors engage with the QR codes. Manual intercept user
surveys can also help identify the distribution of user types -
something not possible with traditional trail counters. Survey
and manual count approaches are described in greater detail
in the recommendations section of this document.
In addition to surveys and manual counts, “Big Data” on
human mobility information from vendors like Placer.AI and
Strava Metro can help illuminate usage patterns, particularly
when paired with a robust trail counter dataset.
40000
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Emigration 2018 Emigraiton 2019 Emigration 2020 Emigraiton 2021 Emigration 2022 Emigraiton 2023
I st 2018 I st 2019 I st 2020 I st 2021 I st 2022 I st 2023
Public Trailhead Use Comparison
TRAILHEAD
USE AVERAGES
BETWEEN
160 AND 600
USERS DAILY.
12Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Introduction
Broader Growth Trends
More people on the Wasatch Front means more demands on
the Foothills. Plan for Growth.
Salt Lake City is a rapidly growing metropolitan area in a fast
growing state. This translates directly into surging demand
for and use of public trail and open space resources. As any
state demographer would point out - Utah must plan and
outdoor recreation sector contributes a significant $6.1 billion
to the state’s economy, employing over 66,000 individuals
and representing 2.7% of the state’s gross domestic product.
Outdoor recreation is a primary driver of Utah’s thriving tourism
industry.
The outdoor recreation sector has experienced substantial
growth, with a 27.3% increase from 2020 to 2021. In the Salt
Lake City Metro Area, the surge in outdoor recreation is evident
in the rising counts of trail use, corroborated by data and
anecdote alike.
prepare for more demands on resources, be they housing,
transportation, or the Salt Lake City Foothills.
By 2023, the population of the Salt Lake City Metropolitan
Area, (SLC and Tooele Counties per the US Census) reached
approximately 1,203,000, indicating a 0.92% increase compared
to the previous year. In recent years, both the metro area and
Salt Lake County have consistently demonstrated significant
population growth rates, with the metro area growing at a rate
of approximately one percent annually and Salt Lake County
experiencing growth of about 1.25% annually.
Projections from the University of Utah suggest that Salt
Lake County will continue this robust growth trend, with the
population projected to reach around 1.67 million by 2060. The
demand for recreational activities is expected to follow this
same growth pattern.
In recent years, participation in outdoor recreation in the
United States has witnessed a notable increase, as indicated
by a record-breaking 54% of Americans aged 6 and above
engaging in outdoor activities at least once in 2021, according
to the Outdoor Foundation’s 2021 Report. This upward trend
has been consistent over the past few years and was further
fueled by the COVID-19 pandemic. The State of Utah mirrors
this pattern, particularly in terms of its economic impact.
The Utah Division of Outdoor Recreation reveals that the
OUTDOOR RECREATION PARTICIPANT COUNT AND
PARTICIPATION RATE 2007 TO 2022
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
56%
54%
52%
50%
48%
46%
44%
Source: Outdoor Foundation’s 2023 Outdoor Participation Trends Report.
O
U
T
D
O
O
R
R
E
C
R
E
A
T
I
O
N
P
A
R
T
I
C
I
P
A
N
T
S
(
M
I
L
L
I
O
N
S
)
P
A
R
T
I
C
I
P
A
T
I
O
N
R
A
T
E
13Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Introduction
COMPARABLE REGION EVALUATION
How will case studies help this plan?
Case studies are instrumental in providing valuable insights,
facilitating informed decision-making, and optimizing the
effectiveness of this evaluation. To offer a comprehensive
perspective, three peer agencies from comparable
communities across the western United States have been
selected. These agencies were chosen for their parallel
approaches to trail development, community engagement,
and sustainable land management, making them relevant
benchmarks for Salt Lake City’s Foothills Trail System.
Jefferson County Open Space (Jeffco) has coped with growth
similar to Salt Lake City’s. Jeffco has dealt with growth and
demand by renewing focus on partnerships with local
organizations and municipalities through a grant program and
overarching open space management guidance.
Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks offers an example
of how a public agency can commit to maintaining steep
and informal trails. This agency is also known for proactively
planning for future growth and managing staff sustainability
and equitably.
In Boise, a trails-focused Ridges To Rivers partnership manages
trails on a variety of BLM, USFS, City and State lands with
highly skilled staff with strong volunteer support. They are
an excellent example of a capitol city-adjacent open space
district working well among numerous state and federal land
managers.
As SLC Public Lands strives for growth and innovation, case
studies offer opportunities for learning from peers. SLC Public
Lands should look to these organization for model strategies
and approaches that can be adopted and tailored to Salt Lake
City’s foothills.
Summary of Comparable Region Case Studies
Comparison
Location Population Staff Management
Strategy
Maturity of
Management
Plan
Trails/Acres
Managed
Partnership
Entities
Jefferson
County, CO 579,581 120, 300 active
volunteers
Managed By County
Department and
Friends Of group,
Strategic Plan
updated every
5-Years;
Established in
1972
265 miles of trail;
56,000 acres of
preserved land
Neighboring
jurisdictions,
USFS, Colo.
Parks and
Wildlife, CO Dept
of Agriculture,
Nonprofits
Boulder, CO 105,485 133
Managed By City
Department with
management/
acquisition
recommendations
by Open Space
Board of Trustees
Established in
1967
155 miles of trail;
100,000 acres of
open space and
managed land
USFS, Colo. Parks
and Wildlife,
Nonprofits
Boise, ID 511,931
10 Paid Staff;
15 Volunteer
Rangers
MOU Partnership Established in
1992
210 miles of trail
crossing and
connecting
85,000 acres of
land
City of Boise,
Ada County,
BLM Four Rivers
Office, Boise
National Forest,
Idaho Dept of
Fish and Game
Salt Lake City,
UT
City – 199,153
County -
1,068,295
3 Paid Staff;
2 Paid
Rangers
Managed by City
department with
MOU partnerships
with USFS, Utah
State Parks, and
University of Utah.
Foothills Plan
established in
2020.
City – 6,000 acres;
60 miles of trail
USFS, U of U,
Utah State Parks,
SLC Public
Utilities
14Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Introduction
CASE STUDIES
Jefferson County Open Space (Colorado)
Jeffco Open Space was founded as a land conservation
organization in 1972 by PLAN Jeffco and The League of Women
Voters of Jefferson County. These organizations proposed a
unique concept to the Board of County Commissioners to
preserve the scenic vistas and open lands within the county
using the collection of one-half of one percent tax on sales
in Jefferson County to fund the program. The voters agreed,
ensuring perpetual land conservation, stewardship of open
space and parklands, and access for public enjoyment.
Jeffco Open Space contributes to city and park district projects,
has preserved more than 56,000 acres, and manages 27
open space parks and 265+ miles of trails in Jefferson County,
Colorado.
Planning is completed on a variety of levels in a recurring
fashion. Designated mostly as parks, site-specific, detailed
individual park master plans are developed to concur with
an overarching, short range Jeffco Trails Plan and a similar
broad, strategic 5-year recurring Jefferson County Open Space,
Conservation Greenprint, both of which provide Jeffco Open
Space vision, goals, and metrics.
Jeffco Open Space has historically operated successful
volunteer trail stewardship programs, engaging individuals
and groups in trail assessments and volunteer work events.
As the municipalities within the County have rapidly grown,
Jeffco Open Space has developed the more formal Trails
Partnership Program to more efficiently target organized
groups and municipalities in assisting Open Space with
mutually beneficial projects. Key to this engagement is a grant
program that provides supplemental funding to assist partners
in implementing their priority projects (i.e. trail construction,
maintenance, amenities, stream restoration, tree planting,
etc.) within Jefferson County. Grants are awarded on an annual
basis. One grant application per year may be submitted by
each partner. Jeffco Open Space will consider funding up
to 25% for local projects and 50% for regional projects. Local
projects are defined as projects occurring within a single
jurisdiction while regional projects occur across multiple
jurisdictions.
Jefferson County, CO Open
Space
15Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Introduction
City of Boulder Open Space & Mountain Parks (Colorado)
Originally Boulder Mountain Parks, the conservation of
the foothills backdrop to the City of Boulder was originally
driven by not just a desire for conserving important lands for
habitat and recreation, but also to protect a visual backdrop
of undeveloped land to the west of the City. Formal trail and
natural resource planning was minimal for decades until steep,
informally developed routes, primarily to access numerous rock
climbing areas, were significantly degrading natural resource
conditions and spawning parallel routes, trampling vegetation,
and increasing erosion.
Trail by trail reconstruction of these routes began in the late
1980’s at great expense to staff time and labor. The amount
of resource damage so overwhelmed staff that, with the
advent of mountain biking, staff and City Council formally
banned mountain biking on Open Space trails in 1994 for
fear of more trail damage. That use ban was lifted in 2005
and recent research by the Open Space staff indicates no
greater deterioration on trails shared by mountain bikes and
pedestrians, as well as the highest percentage of individuals
remaining on trail by use type (mountain bikers, hikers, trail
runners, dog walkers, and equestrians). Additionally, the trails
shared by mountain bikers are collaboratively maintained by
local volunteers and Open Space staff.
Trail reconstruction of the steeper hiking/climbing trails that
began in the 1980’s continues today, often at great expense
and far beyond the capabilities of staff or volunteers. Millions of
dollars have been allocated to specialized trail contractors over
the last decade on less than 20 miles of trails as the demand for
accessing these locations remains incredibly high. With more
than 46,000 acres of open space to manage, Boulder Open
Space and Mountain Parks initiated a strategy for developing
trail plans for smaller, contiguous geographic areas around
2010.
That strategy helped balance specific resource management
needs with public access and recreation rather than
depending on one overarching approach to its entire open
space system. As subsequent areas went through formal trail
planning, adopted area plans were being implemented by staff
and partners.
City of Boise, Ridge to Rivers (Idaho)
The vision of preserving the foothills of Boise dates back to the
1940s when community leaders were discussing the future
of the hills that had been part of the Boise Army Barracks
military training area. In 1992 a variety of local, state and
federal agencies combined their efforts to turn this dream
into reality - the Ridge to Rivers partnership was formed. The
Ridge to Rivers partnership consists of the City of Boise, Ada
County, the Bureau of Land Management Four Rivers Field
Office, the Boise National Forest and the Idaho Department
of Fish and Game. The Partnership exists under a multi-
agency Memorandum of Understanding, with the City of Boise
serving as the lead agency. The success of the Ridge to Rivers
partnership is based on the concept of sharing funding and
expertise. By pooling limited funds and specialized knowledge,
this partnership effort can accomplish community goals
while using tax dollars efficiently. With a small staff of ten, but
including a full-time dedicated trail crew, the organization has
had great success in developing and maintaining a 210-mile
trail system.
Many landowners and citizens have given time and energy to
achieve the goal of an interconnected system of trails and open
space. With so many of the existing trails crossing private lands,
the landowners have been an important partner in creating
what has become a critical element of Boise’s quality of life.
Volunteers are also an important part of the maintenance of
the trails. Over 2,000 volunteer hours are applied each year in
caring for the foothills.
The organization operates in accordance with a 10-Year Trails
Plan, last updated in 2016, with guidance based on experience
zones (social to solitude) shaped roughly by proximity to the
City and elevation and/or distance from access points.
Boulder County, CO Open Space
EVALUATION
SUMMARIES
17Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Evaluation
THE 2020 FOOTHILLS PLAN EVALUATION
Methodology
The scope of this Foothills evaluation has three components:
an evaluation of the Foothills Plan and its goals; an evaluation
of the Phase I implementation management and the specific
trails; and an evaluation of the design and implementation
process for the future trail system in the Foothills.
The evaluation was led by a national recreation planning firm,
SE Group, which has a local office in Salt Lake City. In addition,
SE Group subcontracted two open space recreation and
restoration planning experts to lead field evaluation efforts.
Kay-Linn Enterprises has consulted on hundreds of trail
projects around the country to aid land managers in protecting
natural resources and enhancing community sustainability.
Their principal Scott Linnenburger holds a master’s degree
from Duke University in Environmental Management with a
focus on restoration and habitat planning and was a keynote
speaker at the International Trails Summit in April 2023.
Applied Trails Research is led by Jeremy Wimpey, PhD., one
of the country’s leading recreation ecology practitioners.
His applied field investigations help public lands managers
understand the phenomena and mechanisms associated with
visitor-use-related impacts to wildlife, water, vegetation, and
soils, and impacts to other users (degradation or enhancement
of users’ experiences) in outdoor settings. Jeremy and Scott
have partnered on dozens of projects around the country,
including many in the arid climate of the American West, to
address challenging and complex and recreation management
concerns.
This evaluation was conducted through geospatial and in-
person field review. The evaluation also integrated findings
from the 2022 pre-NEPA environmental and cultural resource
assessment to better understand cultural, ecological and soil
interaction with existing and proposed Foothills facilities.
In addition to this technical foundation, project team members
met with numerous SLC departments, committees, outside
agencies, and other stakeholders to gain an improved
knowledge and perspective on the implementation and
management of the Foothills Plan.
The project team conducted a thorough 14-day site review
and Foothills tour to gain a detailed understanding of current
conditions, Phase 1 implementation, and areas recommended
by the Foothills Plan for future development. During these
on-site reviews, the project team evaluated the condition
of existing and recently implemented trail sections, the
prevalence of invasive species along the trail corridors, erosion
and restoration needs, topography, soils and geology, and
future sustainable trail feasibility.
A comprehensive inventory of existing trail assets and
trailheads was developed using geospatial material from
the City, Utah’s State Geographic Information Database
(SGID), geospatial data produced through the pre-NEPA
environmental review, and data provided by local stakeholders
and agencies. This data was used to further support the
assessments presented in this evaluation.
18Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Evaluation
THE 2020 FOOTHILLS PLAN EVALUATION
Plan Overview
Overall, the 2020 Foothills Plan lays out an excellent framework
for the desired ‘world-class’ trail system. The goals are
appropriate and realistic for Salt Lake City’s high desert, urban
open space given the diversity of its residents and visitors and
the physical geography of the Foothills. Given the dynamic
nature of open space conservation and recreation planning,
the Foothills Plan has strengths and weaknesses.
What the Foothills Plan does well:
•Includes a significant amount of input from stakeholders
and the public.
•Identifies the desire and need for an expanded, managed
trail system to increase accessibility, safety, and enjoyment
for users and protection of the environment
•Identifies the diversity of potential users in the Foothills and
their needs.
What the Foothills Plan could improve upon:
•Clarify and elaborate on the environmental damage caused
by many unplanned trails.
•Include more specific implementation procedures.
•Propose more extensive trail alignment planning to match
desired user experiences.
•Suggest more specific implementation strategies for
managing natural and cultural resources.
The Foothills Plan provides high-level initial direction for
the vision and goals of an expanded and improved Foothills
Trail System.
The Foothills Plan successfully identifies conceptual trail
corridors to increase accessibility and minimize conflicts
between trail user types. By proposing alignments that
create more gradual trails, the proposed corridors should be
able to service more trail users. By separating uses in some
areas to specific trail corridors, such as separating downhill
bikes from other users, the Foothills Plan outlines the vision for
a safer and more enjoyable urban-adjacent trail network.
The Foothills Plan’s goal of providing enjoyable recreation
opportunities to the largest demographic of residents and
visitors is valuable. Extensive public engagement during the
initial planning process and during implementation identified
the desire and need for an expanded trail system that meets
the broader needs of the large and growing urban area of
Salt Lake City and the greater Wasatch Front. This goal should
continue to drive the implementation of projects across the
Foothills.
The Foothills Plan does not accurately discuss how the
existing and unmanaged 60+ mile system of unplanned
trails were damaging the Foothills and detracting from
a sustainable trail system. The Foothills Plan inadequately
accounted for the true extent of impacts resulting from
decades of unmanaged trail use, off-highway vehicles and
utilities creating scars to the landscape, invasive species spread,
and other activities encouraged by a historical legacy of little to
no formal management.
While the Foothills Plan recommends that some overly steep
routes be passively closed, it did not clearly communicate how
passive decommissioning is unrealistic in the arid Foothills
environment. Addressing the detrimental natural resource
impacts of widening and eroding ridgeline and riparian
gully trails, where species diversity and wildlife presence and
movement is generally higher, often requires permanent
closure through active restoration, barriers, signage and
community education.
The Foothills Plan lacks specificity in its implementation
strategies. It fails to equip the Public Lands Department,
a new trail system manager, with a thorough analysis of
suitable areas for trail development, as well as guidance on
construction and maintenance techniques. Furthermore, the
Foothills Plan recommends a simplified, contractor-driven
design-build approach, rather than offering detailed advice on
the comprehensive analysis of potential trail locations and the
provision of construction and maintenance guidelines.
19Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Evaluation
4400I2I2
I2
I2
I2
I2I2 D O W N T O W N
I2 I2 I2
I2
700 S
C E N T R A L C I T Y
I2
900 S
BELMONT AVE Liberty
Park
R
O
B
E
R
T
A
S
T B
L
A
I
R
S
T
P
A
R
K
S
T
200 S
400 S
COLFAX AVE 640 S
LOWELL AVE
VAN NESS PL
HUBBARD AVE
P
L
E
A
S
A
N
T
C
T
600 S
800 S
4
0
0
E
5
0
0
E
300 S
D
U
B
E
I
C
T
100 S
9
0
0
W
6
0
0
E
H
A
W
K
E
S
C
T
DA N S
EMERIL AVE
SOUTH TEMPLE
ST
IE DR
0 S
K
I
L
B
Y
C
T
3
0
0
W
ORCHARD PL
4
0
0
W
W
A
S
H
IN
G
T
O
N
S
T
100 S
6
0
0
W
20
0
W
20
0
E
700 E
8
0
0
E
500 S
3
0
0
E
W
IN
D
S
O
R
S
T
9
0
0
E
EAST
PL
11
0
0
E
BUENO
AVE
LINDEN AVE
FULLER AVE
E
L
I
Z
A
B
E
T
H
ST
1ST AVE
ST
A
TE S
T
S
T
R
I
N
G
F
E
L
L
O
W
C
T
12
0
0
E
2ND AVE
80
0
W
R
I
O
G
R
A
N
D
E
S
T
W
E
S
T
T
E
M
P
L
E
S
T
M
A
I
N
ST
O
S
T
P
S
T
Q
S
T
R
ST
S
S
T
D
O
U
G
LA
S
S
T
T ST
50 N
GENESEE AVE
E
L
I
Z
A
B
E
T
H
S
T
10
0
0
E
E
870 W
R
E
G
E
N
T
S
T
G
A
L
E
S
T
IO
W
A
S
T
L
IN
C
O
L
N
ST
HANOVER
PL
W
A
S
H
IN
G
T
O
N
S
T
J
E
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
H
A
X
T
O
N
P
L
1
0
0
0
E
G
R
A
N
D
S
T
LOWELL
AVE
G
R
E
E
N
ST
M
C
C
L
E
L
L
A
N
D
ST
SEGO
AVE
J
E
R
E
M
Y
S
T
E
D
I
S
O
N
S
T
LINDEN AVE
0 S
CIR
ARAPAHOE AVE
R
I
C
H
A
R
D
S
ST
W
E
S
T
C
T
D
O
O
L
E
Y
C
T
ELY
PL
W
O
O
D
B
I
N
E
S
T
PIERPONT
AVE
M
C
C
L
E
L
L
A
N
D
ST
SOCIAL HALL AVE
UPTON PL
V
O
L
N
E
Y
CT
M
A
J
O
R
ST GALLACHER PL
CHASE AVE
ALPINE
PL
PIERPONT AVE
300 S 300 S
L
IN
C
O
L
N
S
T
1
0
0
0
E
D
O
U
G
L
A
S
ST
700 S
700 W
ALAMEDA AVE
400 S
W
E
S
T
T
E
M
P
L
E
400 S
600 S
10
0
0
E
100 S
SUNNYSIDE
AVE
MICHIGAN
700
W
5
0
0
W
L
A
K
E
S
T
PACIFIC
AVE
500 S
13
0
0
E
U
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
ST
FIN
CH
GI
City
Creek
7000
74
0
0
7600
80 0 0
7 80 0
C I TYCREEK
THE 2020 FOOTHILLS PLAN EVALUATION
The Foothills Plan depicts recommended alignments on
a map for future trail development without documenting
segment purpose and experience. The Foothills Plan lacks
detailed specifications beyond regulated trail use to clearly
define the desired trail experiences, identify the beneficiaries
of each trail, and ensure that the Foothills Plan’s overarching
goals are achieved as alignments evolve through subsequent
site analyses, design phases, and construction processes. It
is essential to note that the trail alignments presented in the
Foothills Plan are purely conceptual and have not undergone
extensive ground-truthing for feasibility.
The Foothills Plan does not explicitly acknowledge the
preliminary nature of conceptual alignments nor emphasize
the importance of conducting further field reviews and design
assessments before moving forward with contracting and
construction activities. This phrasing may lead to confusion
among stakeholders, staff, and the community from believing
what is shown on the map will be constructed.
The Foothills Plan provides only a high level reference to
existing natural and cultural resources within the City’s
Foothills. The Foothills Plan delineates future habitat study
areas, many on United States Forest Service (USFS) land, but
does not provide specific guidance or a review process to
direct how to address the interaction between trail alignments
and identified natural and cultural resources. Importantly,
the USFS requires a more holistic approach that outlines the
time and evaluation process needed prior to trail design and
construction. This need is well articulated in the USFS Land &
Resource Management Plan. It is recommended that Public
Lands implement a more complete natural and cultural
resource analysis for all lands within the Foothills Trails System.
Tunnel Springs
Trailhead
!(
DAVIS COUNTY
SALT LAKE COUNTY
##MERIDIAN PEAK5948
2020 Foothills Plan Trail Map
The value of the Foothills Plan is as a set of master plan
recommendations - not specific trail alignments. The
Foothills map’s detailed presentation can incorrectly
communicate the message of a blueprint rather than an
outline. This map represents conceptual connectivity,
not specific alignments. (see page 4 of chapter 4 of the
Foothills Plan)
##ENSIGN PEAK5407 ##TWIN PEAKS6247
N
(!
Ensign
Downs
Park
(!
900 N !(
Warm Springs
VE
800 N Trailhead (!
REED AVE
Red Butte Canyon
Research Natural Area
PO HCR
A DR 700 N 15 FERN
AVE
700 N !((! Bonneville
Trailhead
600 N 600 N
500 N
400 N 400 N
C A P I T O L
H I L L
400 N
LER ##M O UNT VAN COTT6302
OURAY AVE
ARDMORE
Lindsey
Gardens
Park
KRISTIANNA CIR
PL AP OT
G R E A T E R
A V E N U E S
300 N
Memory Grove
Park Salt Lake
City Cemetery
HOYT PL
!(
Popperton
Trailhead
HILLSIDE AVE
200 N 200 N 200 N S ##RED BUTTE6598
DESTINATIONS + BOUNDARIES
Proposed Minor Trailhead
TRAIL NETWORK
EXISTING
Multi-directional Shared Use
Open To All Uphill Users/Downhill Bikes Prohibited
2ND AVE
NO ##
Proposed Major Trailhead I2 MOUNT WI
7106
(!
Existing Access Point Downhill Bikes Only U N I V E R S I T Y
O F U T A H 2I
TRAX Station Foot Traffic Only
School Bonneville Shoreline Trail !(
Project Boundary I2 2I
Habitat Study Area
PROPOSED
Multi-directional Shared Use
500 S
Cemetery Open To All Uphill Users/Downhill Bikes Prohibited Mount Olivet
Cemetery
Parks Downhill Bikes Only
Water Body Foot Traffic Only ¯E A S T
B E N C H
Sunnyside
Park
Salt Lake City SUNNYSIDE AVE
MILES
(!
Emigration
Trailhead
!(!(
0 0.5 1 HUBBARD AVE
MER DR
1600 N
DULUTH AVE
1500 N
EVERETT
AVE
17TH AVE
700 N
13TH AVE
12TH AVE600 N PENNY PARADE DR
11TH AVE
10TH AVE500 N
9TH AVEOURAY AVE
8TH AVE
GUNNELL PL 7TH AVESIMONDI AVE
5TH AVE
200 N
3RD AVE
E
A K
DR
DR
H
C
3RD AVE
M
L
Y
RI
Y
H
Y
D
A
W
DR
U
E
S
R
D
N
DRIVEWAY
I
L
V
T
R HOL O
L
A
I
P
T
E
N
R
F
C
A
IC
L
N
S
L
R
E
5600
L
O
E
FAIR
F
A
X
RD
E
I
R
HH
N
NO
R
T
H
HIL
L
S
DR
N
E
L
P
R
N IS
U
R
E
DR
W
W
K
D
A
I
E ST
H
L
RV
E
L
KOMAS
D
R
A
C
E
A
T
2
0
3
0 E
D
K
AL
S
I
EA
I
W
A
S
A
T
C
H
D
R
S
S
D
C
A
5400
B
E
C
K
S
T
T
A
D
W
M
M
E
1
9
0
0
E
S
2
0
3
0
E
E
E
54
0
0
C
H
I
P
E
T
A
W
A
Y
T
N
T
R
1
8
0
0
E
O
C
O
L
O
R
O
W
D
R
C
O
N
N
O
R
R
D
F
O
R
T
D
O
U
G
L
A
S
B
L
V
D
6
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
E
1
8
5
0
E
R
0
0
M
A
R
A
C
E
V
I
C
T
O
R
Y
R
D
L
M
S
E
W
A
L
L
S
T
P
I
S
T
F
O
O
T
H
I
L
L
D
R
B
R
R
H
N
G
S
4
8
0
0
I
M
6
4
0
0
4
0
A
M
E
L
PL
0
A
Z
U
9
0
0
W
C
O
N
N
O
R
S
T
R
D
R
E
C
I
I
C
H
T
C
A
P
L
6
O
5
S
5600
5
9
0
0
W
D
E
X
T
E
R
S
T
B
T
8
0
0
W
G
R
A
N
T
ST
7
0
0 W
RE
N
D
O
N
C
T
B
L
I
S
S
CT
B
E
A
U
M
O
N
T
C
T
5
0
0
W
5
0
0
W
P
U
G
S
L
E
Y
ST
B
A
LT
IC
C
T
Q
U
I
N
C
E
ST
M
A
I
N
S
T
C
O
L
U
M
B
U
S
ST
D
E
S
O
TO
S
T
C
O
R
TE
Z
ST
A
ST
B
S
T C
S
T D
ST
E
S
T
F
S
T
H
ST
J
S
T
K
ST
L
S
T
M
ST
M
ST
N
ST
ST
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
ST
V
I
R
G
I
N
I
A
ST
ALTA S
T
W
O
L
C
O
T
T S
T
15
0
G
U
A
R
D
S
M
A
N
W
AY
19
0
0
E
20
0
0
E
21
0
0
E
22
0
0
E
P
A
D
L
E
Y
ST
A
R
A
P
E
E
N
D
R
23
0
0
E
S
A
L
T
L
A
K
E
C
IT
Y
U
N
I
N
C
O
R
P
O
R
A
T
E
D
S
A
L
T
L
A
K
E
C
O
U
N
T
Y
6600
14
0
0
E
U
S
89
S
E
S
E
T
ER
CK
0
46
0
0
B
LG
E
EA
E
TS
L
C
E
O
L
R
A
P
I
5600
V
E
N EN
E
660
0
S
A
OL
T
RD
U
68
I
660
0 0
L
WAKARA
WAY
0
60
0
0
A P
64
0
0
E
D
TE
C
M
C
P
TT A
D
POLLO
C
K
RD
1700 N
0
E
E
N5800PCN
P
6200
R
EXPLORATION
WAY
N
U
B
S
0
STUDE
N
T
LIFE
WAY
U T
H
NO
R
T E
I
O
D
Red B
u
t
t
e
Creek
C
H
Y
E
6
R
2
A
E
A
B
C
O
ON
W
T
E
R
K
O
R
R
H
A
N
N
H
A
M
E
S
H
O
ST
A
RT
S
NTE
F
N
T
I
L
G T
5200
AL O
N
S
I
P
CAPITOL OAKS LN
N
C
R
ORE
G
D
ST
SI
T
T
VE
E
700 N
SALLIE
AVE
E
Y
H DR
A R
20Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Evaluation
GOALS EVALUATION
The Foothills Plan provides a set of five goals to capture the
vision for the Foothills Trail System. The goals aim for a Foothills
Trail network that is: Environmentally Sustainable,
Enjoyable, Accessible, Safe, and Low Maintenance.
The Foothills Plan’s achievement of each of its stated goals
varies, and is discussed further below.
Additionally, the Foothills Plan states that “the most suitable
slopes for trail construction are 8-20% in grade and require less
an unfortunate typo, as trails with tread gradients of 3-20% are
a generally recognized goal for sustainability.
Gradual slopes are problematic because it is difficult to
manage water off of trails built in these locations and social
trails can proliferate on these easily traversed slopes. This is
evidenced where sections of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail are
located on very gentle slopes and have developed muddiness,
trail widening and braiding, and other issues that make
for greater maintenance needs over time. A more refined
recommendation for sideslopes to accommodate sustainable
trails is 20-60%. These slopes are better at confining use to the
trail tread and can more readily accommodate trail designs
that are less prone to erosion.
destinations in as short a distance possible. While these types
of “peak bagging” trails are very prevalent throughout the
Foothills, they have considerable erosion, braiding, widening,
and natural resource-degrading issues. However, these
types of trails can be durably, if expensively, constructed and
maintained. If the Foothills Plan better recognized existing
use patterns associated with some of these steep, high-use
trails, Public Lands could take advantage of opportunities to
enhance existing informally developed facilities and focus on
connections rather than entirely new trail system development
- a potential cost and labor savings for the city’s teams as well.
Evaluation of Environmental Goal
The Foothills Plan identifies some sensitive ecological areas,
referenced as “Natural Habitat Areas.” Yet these areas did not
have formal recognition by the City or supporting evidence
for such a designation. The Foothills Plan could better
provide specific recommended actions to reduce erosion
and disturbance during construction and management of
the trail network. Despite well intentioned efforts, without
a clearly outlined Management Plan for environmental and
erosion issues, Salt Lake City staff are limited in their ability
to implement planned trail development and manage
environmental impacts.
Evaluation of Enjoyable Goal
The Foothills Plan correctly identifies the need to build “a
variety of experiences for users with different abilities and
interests.” Designing and building directional trails and
separate hiking, biking, or other user group specific trails is
a key facet of modern, high-use trail systems design. This
approach accommodates user desires while minimizing
conflicts between uses. This use-specific design and
management should be retained in future trail development.
A potential use consideration not covered by the Foothills Plan
is the desire of some pedestrian users (hikers and trail runners)
for a very steep, difficult experience that attains high quality
Evaluation of Accessible Goal
This goal seeks to expand access to recreation for users
of all ages and abilities. Yet the Foothills Plan conceptual
trail alignments cater heavily to experiences that would be
desirable for experienced and fit trail users such as longer
distances with higher elevation destinations and long loops.
Future trail planning should expand access to a broader suite
of abilities and address how new and less experienced trail
users might access, interact, and interpret the opportunities
presented. Shorter loops, out-and-back routes to easily
accessible scenic vistas, opportunities for passive enjoyment,
formalized barrier-free ADA experiences, mellow cross slopes
and appropriate trail widths for adaptive mountain bikes, etc.
should be considered, especially at major trailheads or transit-
accessed trails.
Goal 2: Enjoyable
Trails cater to a variety of recreation types, and to a variety
of desired experiences, including solitude, escape and
connection to the natural world; challenge and exercise;
and fun and excitement. Trail layout and construction is
optimized to the intended user group(s) of any individual
trail segment, and trails are routed to take users to
desirable areas and points of interest.
Goal 3: Accessible
Trails are accessible to a broad audience of beginner-to-
intermediate trail users, including families, seniors, and
people with disabilities. Trailheads are sited and designed
to make it easy for people to get on the trails, and are
connected to transportation routes. Wayfinding signage
and supplemental trail information makes it easy for
people to understand and navigate the trail system.
Foothills Trail System Evaluation Scoring
Green - Meets goals
Yellow - Partially meets goals
Red - Does not meet goals
Goal 1: Environmentally Sustainable
Trails avoid sensitive habitat, minimize erosion /
sedimentation and vegetation disturbance, and make
efficient use of available natural lands. The wild and scenic
nature of the Foothills landscape is protected. Fragile
natural or cultural features are avoided and trails direct
users away from closed or protected watershed areas.
21Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Evaluation
Evaluation of Safety Goal
These are excellent goals for modern, urban open space trail
system management. This goal is closely related to Goal 2
and the Enjoyability Assessment. Keys to avoiding potential
conflicts are the maintenance of adequate sight lines and
managing closing speeds between different users. Reducing
conflicts related to goal interference between users (i.e. passive
enjoyment of natural surroundings vs. fast paced fitness
training) is accomplished through messaging at trail access
points and ongoing on-trail outreach by rangers and volunteer
stewards.
Salt Lake City Public Lands can significantly improve
Emergency Management Services (EMS) efficacy in the
Foothills by enhancing wayfinding signage, establishing
emergency routes, and understanding road conditions.
There is a need for clear signage that integrates utility roads,
streamlining EMS access, reducing response times, and
optimizing efficiency. A comprehensive understanding of road
and trail networks together ensures emergency responders
and trail users can navigate with confidence, ultimately
enhancing safety throughout the Salt Lake City Foothills Trail
system.
Evaluation of Maintenance Goal
While thoughtful trail layout does reduce the creation and use
of informal trails, the Foothills Plan could have benefited from
greater clarity on the maintenance and/or restoration needs
for these existing routes and the “trade off” between new trail
construction and maintaining routes in-place. With a long
history of limited or no management of informally created
routes across the Foothills, there are long-established use
patterns that are difficult to change. These often much steeper
routes can be maintained in-place at a higher-than-typical
cost/labor burden. The Foothills Plan indicates that 41 miles
of existing routes would be incorporated into the formal trail
system, but does not hint at the different maintenance needs
for these trails above trails designed with improved water
management, lower trail gradients, and contour alignment.
Further, the Foothills Plan states 20.9 miles of trails will be
passively decommissioned. In a landscape of predominantly
arid grassland, passive trail closure is a near impossibility as a
limited number of use passes will keep these routes and their
destinations visible and eroding. Active closure and restoration
will be necessary to restore natural habitat and watershed
hydrology on these routes.
The Foothills Plan lacks a clear reference to the
maintenance needs and natural resource impacts of the
existing informal trail network. Addressing this issue going
forward should be a key focus of future Foothills land
management.
The lack of clear direction regarding the closure and repair
of the existing trail network has created confusion and
consternation for some trail users regarding the existing
impacts of the informal routes and the direction of long-term
management.
Goal 4: Safe
Trail user collisions and conflicts are mitigated and
minimized through trail design and use regulations.
Signage and natural barriers minimize incidences of lost
or disoriented persons, and make it easier for emergency
personnel to respond when needed. Trails are routed
to discourage trespassing on private property. CPTED
principles are incorporated in trailhead design to mitigate
theft and vandalism to parked cars.
Goal 5: Low Maintenance
Trails drain water naturally, follow contours instead of fall-
lines, and effectively encourage users to remain on-trail,
minimizing maintenance and reconstruction needs and
costs. Thoughtful trail layout reduces the creation and use
of informal trails and routes. Trails are sited to bring regular
trail users through “problem areas” to reduce incidences of
vandalism, graffiti, and illicit activity.
Seasonal Trail
Closure
22Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Evaluation
EVALUATION OF PHASE I IMPLEMENTATION
Following the adoption of the 2020 Foothills Plan by Salt Lake
City, Phase 1 Implementation began. This phase immediately
went to work developing recommended trail alignments
primarily in the area of the foothills behind the Avenues
neighborhood.
Key Projects included construction of:
•Lower City Creek Loop
•Avenues Ridge / 19th Ave / BST Valleyview
•Popperton Trails
•Twin Peaks / Dry Creek
The Phase I implementation of the Foothills Plan was both
celebrated and criticized by the community. This is to be
expected given the strengths and omissions of the Foothills
Plan as noted earlier.
What Phase I did well:
•New trail corridors enhanced user access to desired Foothills
destinations.
•Trail design and construction created user-specific trails
(separate alignments for downhill bikes and hiking)
meeting the Foothills Plan’s goals for increased safety and
enjoyment.
•Closed eroding trail segments and replaced them with
sustainably constructed alignments.
What Phase I could improve upon:
•Trail development occurred in some areas constrained by
both overly steep terrain and challenging soils.
•Construction quality of some segments was poor due to
Inefficient planning and insufficient oversight.
•Some trail segments were developed without a well defined
purpose.
•Insufficient community outreach around changes to the
trail network resulted in negative community reactions to
many changes, both good and bad.
•The existing unmanaged trail network and related
restoration needs/historic impacts was not fully accounted
for in Phase 1 implementation.
The following pages provide specific descriptions and photos
of the Phase I trail projects to evaluate the work and to educate
staff, stakeholders, and the community on best practices for
future Foothills Trail System development.
Round Circle teaching on the
BST
23Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Evaluation
EVALUATION OF PHASE I IMPLEMENTATION
Lower City Creek Loop
Pros:
•Good conceptual planning connecting the Capitol and
downtown and Memory Grove to natural lands with natural
surface trails; a much needed, access point to support a
diversity of new users.
•Thoughtful anchor points – places of interest such as views
of the Capitol and City Creek Canyon.
Cons:
•Slumping, unconsolidated soils are present in spots where
overly steep terrain and challenging soils are combined.
•Complex water management issues exist due to the
presence of the impervious road surfaces above much of
the trail.
•Improved specifications for the alignment and construction
practices would have mitigated the temporary large visual
impacts and left a more sustainable trail. Specifically,
utilizing a narrower trail excavator would have lessened the
height of the back slope cut, as well as installing enhanced
grade reversals and spot hardening of the trail in key
locations to better channel stormwater discharge from
Bonneville Boulevard.
BST East City Creek creates an important connection to Upper
Avenues trails with reasonable grades and enjoyable vistas.
Insufficient specifications for trail design and equipment
created unnecessary sloughing and visual impacts.
Inadequate slope analysis and design prior to construction
resulted in excessive impacts.
Lower City Creek Loop provides easy access trail experience
close to the Capitol.
24Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Evaluation
EVALUATION OF PHASE I IMPLEMENTATION
Avenues Ridge/19th Ave/BST Valleyview
Pros:
•The design of user-specific trails (separate alignments for
downhill bikes and hiking) follows best practices in modern
trail planning and meets the Foothills Plan’s goals for
increased safety and enjoyment.
•The re-routing and closing of the BST Valleyview segment
on the fall-aligned ridge to a trail that follows a natural
contour is more sustainable long term and will require less
maintenance.
19th Ave, Meadow, Avenues Ridge trail use: Densely designed
user- specific trails increasing safety and enjoyment for users
minimize impacted ecological areas
Cons:
•The 19th Ave trail was not executed to be a “beginner to
intermediate” trail for less experienced users as desired.
Redesign of many of the turns can address most of the
difficulty issues present.
•Changing the purpose of the Avenues Ridge Trail
(eliminating uphill biking) after construction began meant
that the alignment was not designed to be a hiking-only
trail which changes average grade and the design of turns.
Upper Aves mid saddle: New user-specific trails converge at
strategic junctions but ineffective restoration and
decommissioning efforts result in eroding and widening trails.
Comprehensive wayfinding efforts will be important to address
these issues.
•The closure of the BST ridge trail above Terrace Hills with
trenches was ineffective and not appropriate application
for the Foothills, which can be improved with more
experienced trail system management.
•The Upper Avenues area would have benefited from a more
thorough recreation and restoration planning by zone (See
p. 28 in Recommendations section) process. This process
would have given the Public Lands team and trail users a
specific vision and plan to accurately communicate and
implement.
19th Ave advanced option: 19th Ave trail built with over-
challenging features (left) redesigned to be more accessible
(right)
25Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Evaluation
EVALUATION OF PHASE I IMPLEMENTATION
Popperton Trails
Pros:
•Excellent conceptual planning with three distinct zones
(West, East, South) having well-defined goals. The Foothills
Plan’s goals of enjoyment and accessibility and safety are
all met by offering beginner skill and shorter distance
experiences. Given that Popperton is a lower Foothills
neighborhood open space and is adjacent to a City park
and community garden, its trails planning and design
align with the neighborhood’s character.
•The trail alignment’s designs and construction were of
good quality.
Cons:
•Pre-existing routes in need of restoration were not repaired
or actively decommissioned.
•The absence of a well-established trailhead and
insufficient wayfinding signage disrupts the user
experience and Popperton’s connection to the broader
trail system.
South Popperton erosion: South Popperton Walking Trail is
textbook “fall line” trail that should be realigned to shed water
and prevent erosion.
South Pop Bike Loop offers a safe and fun quarter-mile bike
circuit for beginner riders and children.
Popperton Ecological Site Visit: Public Lands Ecologists and
Natural Resource Specialists advised on alignments to avoid
sensitive ecology.
Popperton Kiosk: Minimal trailhead information is currently
available.
26Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Evaluation
EVALUATION OF PHASE I IMPLEMENTATION
Twin Peaks & Dry Creek
Pros:
•The Twin Peaks Trail represents a solid example of what
an intermediate to advanced trail to a peak can look like
elsewhere in the system. It has texture and grade reversals,
provides a longer outing at higher elevations, and integrates
steeper sections where rock, soils, and hydrology allow. The
new alignment would replace an overly steep ridge trail that
is only for the highest skill and fitness users.
•A sound decision was made by Public Lands to not move
forward with a Dry Creek trail alternate until a purpose is
defined and an appropriate alignment can be determined
on the ground. Given that the Dry Creek BST lies in a
seasonal creek bed, determining a new alignment could be
a priority.
Cons:
•The Twin Peaks Trail, while constructed well, did not have a
clearly defined purpose and its use-restriction was changed
after construction began. Planning the trail to allow uphill
bikes without having a descent for bikes was an oversight by
Public Lands staff.
Bonneville Shoreline Trail is built along contours in many
segments but needs tread repair to combat rutting water
erosion.
Dry Creek Trail: Trails in gully bottoms are prone to significant
water erosion and disturb critical wildlife habitat
27Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Evaluation
EVALUATION SUMMARY
The Foothills Trail System Plan suggests that its alignments are
conceptual and should be interpreted at a master plan level,
and will need further refinement:
“Proposed trail alignments shown in this chapter are a
‘planning-level’ representation of intended routes, which
provide connections between destination points, and
desirable trail experiences for a variety of users. In the final
implementation of proposed trail alignments, ‘construction-
level’ adjustments and modifications to the alignments
shown in this chapter are expected. “
Alignments alone do not communicate intended trail use
and purpose.
Developing a narrative for each identified zone within the
Foothills will help guide the development of trail segments
and connections which are well planned, designed, and
implemented. Effective communication will be supported
through a proposed system of sub-zones identified for the
Foothills (see recommendations chapter). These zones will help
develop context-sensitive trail opportunities and goals. This will
enable the City to provide a diversity of facilities for different
user types and build towards a trail network that provides
opportunities for all ages and abilities.
Environmental and cultural review of the Foothills Natural
Area has identified a wide variety of constraints.
A comprehensive environmental and cultural review
generally consistent with NEPA (National Environmental
Policy Act) standards is recommended for future proposed
trail corridors. This review should align with high-level
environmental standards and undergo a NEPA-level process
to determine specific alignment location and suitability
prior to implementation. This can be accomplished through
approaching the Foothills as a series of individual zones, rather
than a single entity. This can create a more manageable
workflow and efficient results and ultimately reduce the
number of lengthy review processes. Preliminary cultural
assessments of the area reveal that some sites are eligible
for the National Register of Historic Places. These spaces can
accommodate visitation within their vicinity by strategically
designing and developing trails that protect or showcase
cultural sites and interpret them from a distance.
Additional segment-by-segment evaluation is
recommended through implementation.
Establishing a flexible development strategy in which Public
Lands project managers work directly with trail design
and resource specialists on a segment-by-segment basis
is recommended to identify preferred alignments within a
designated corridor following an in-depth environmental
review. This strategy affords the City the flexibility needed
to make informed decisions during implementation, while
staying within the parameters of a thorough review process.
Some alignments identified within the Foothills Plan
should not be pursued for future trail development.
This specifically applies to trails routed along ridge tops and
within the bottom of gullies, areas which may be significantly
impacted by erosion and ecological damage. These alignments
should instead follow hillside contours with an appropriate
slope, crossing ridges and drainages as needed to provide
meaningful routes, connectivity, and access.
This report’s recommendations chapter provides additional
detail on areas where alignments may be inappropriate
and where additional environmental study and review is
recommended.
FOOTHILLS
TRAILS SYSTEM
RECOMMENDATIONS
29Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY
These recommendations are intended to support the 2020
Salt Lake City Foothills Trail System Plan vision and goals. By
addressing specific maintenance and management issues,
this report seeks to strengthen and expand on the framework
developed in the Foothills Plan.
Directing visitor use onto properly developed and well-
maintained trails should be the primary management
strategy for the overall vitality of the City’s Foothills Natural
Area. Focusing visitor use (rather than allowing it to disperse)
mitigates the impact of user created trails and establishes
sustainable long-term use patterns and habits among
trail users. With use patterns focused on sustainable trail
alignments, active environmental restoration of the user-
created and/or unsustainable routes is an additional, vital
component to responsible natural resource management.
These recommendations serve as a starting point for the
development and assessment of management approaches for
the Foothills. It is crucial to note that these recommendations
do not constitute a comprehensive management plan. Instead,
they lay the groundwork for future considerations.
Moving forward, it is anticipated that a more thorough Foothills
Trail System management plan will be established. This
future plan can delve into specific areas of concern, such as
steep hillsides and critical habitats, with the aim of crafting
appropriate land designations and implementing protective
measures.
It is important to recognize that these initial recommendations
provide essential insights for future planning, and their
implementation, even without a comprehensive management
plan in place, is vital to preventing potential harm to the
Foothills.
These recommendations include updated strategies to
responsibly design, approve, and implement the 2020 Foothills
Plan, with the objective to provide high-quality recreation
opportunities while preserving open space functions and
values with minimal impact to important environmental and
cultural resources.
Recommendations to implement the Foothills Plan through a
more balanced and environmentally sensitive planning process
include:
•Conduct Restoration and Recreation Planning by Zone
•Adopt a Segment by Segment Planning and
Implementation Process
•Develop and implement a Consistent Public
Communication Strategy
•Prioritize the Maintenance and Enhancement of Existing
Facilities
•Integrate Clear Wayfinding, Signage, and Information
•Increase Data Use to inform Decision Making
•Develop a Management Plan for the Foothills Natural
Area
The Foothills Trails System
Evaluation is part of an ongoing
review process for the Foothills
Trail System. It recognizes the
importance of on the ground
evaluation and thorough
environmental review prior to
implementation. This is intended
to address alignment concerns
early in a process and allow for
flexibility for alignment changes
based upon environmental and
technical findings.
30Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
CONDUCT RESTORATION AND RECREATION PLANNING BY ZONE
The Salt Lake City Foothills are not a uniform landmass.
The terrain, ecology, land use and social context varies
greatly across the area considered Salt Lake City’s Foothills.
Approached as a single unit, difficulties arise. What’s good for
the land behind the University may not be good for the land
behind the Avenues, or vice versa.
The use of a zoned system is recommended to improve the
implementation process of the Foothills Plan. Seven Zones
are outlined in this recommendation. Each zone boundary is
roughly based on sub-watersheds rather than property lines to
better reflect landscape character. The seven Foothills Open
Space Zones (FOSZ) are listed below from north to south, and
assessed in greater detail on following pages.
•Meridian Peak & Shoreline Preserve
•North Capitol
•East City Creek & Upper Avenues
•Perry’s Hollow, Twin Peaks & Dry Creek
•Mt. Van Cott & The University
•Mt Wire & Red Butte
•East Bench
These zones are the framework by which the Foothills Plan
should be implemented moving forward. The table at right
illustrates a broad overview of each zone, and the pages that
follow outline each zones’ unique set of recommendations to
be considered for improvement.
** DISCLAIMER: Included maps and data are for conceptual
purposes only and do not account for land ownership complexities
within the depicted Foothills Open Space Zones (FHOZ). The FHOZ
boundaries are generated conceptually and may not accurately
reflect legal or property ownership considerations. Detailed land
ownership considerations will be addressed during the segment by
segment planning and implementation process. Users should not rely
on this map for legal decisions, and thorough analysis is recommended
Kiosk at the “City Creek Saddle”
junction
FOSZ NAME Area (Acres)Number of Trailheads Trail Access Points
Meridian Peak & Shoreline Preserve 766 1 0
North Capitol, West City Creek, Ensign Creek 968 4 6
East City Creek & Upper Avenues 438 1 2
Perry’s Hollow, Twin Peaks & Dry Creek 2.399 1 5
Mt. Van Cott & University of Utah 476 0 1
Mt. Wire & Red Butte 1,418 1 4
East Bench 2,082 1 6
31Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
during subsequent planning processes. **
32Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
** Disclaimer: See Page 30 **
1.Recommendations for using the FOSZ
Develop a more robust, comprehensive management plan
that encompasses all seven zones. This overarching plan
will address various aspects, including trail development,
restoration, wayfinding enhancements, amenities, and
management strategies to cater to the diverse user types and
skill levels across the entire area. The development of these
plans should build upon the foundation provided by the
Foothills Plan and the information presented in this document.
Each Zone’s plan should include at least:
•an assessment of ecology and geography
•proposed trail alignments
•recommended land restoration and unsustainable trail
closures
•wayfinding and informational signage plan
•proposed amenities (seating, shelters, tables, etc)
•communications and public engagement process
•maintenance plan and budget
2.Evaluation of Individual Trail Alignments
Once a zone plan is complete, the proposed trail alignments
within that zone should be evaluated on a segment-by-
segment basis to identify alignments compliant with the
guiding principles of sustainable trail development. Proposed
trail alignments include existing trail realignment, restoration,
or closure. New trail maintenance or construction projects
are anticipated, particularly in cases of environmental
deterioration.
Following a thorough evaluation of the proposed alignment,
the City should proceed with the implementation of a zone
plan’s recommended restoration, ecological, and trail system
projects.
The following pages guide the development of zone-specific
plans, trail alignments, and environmental restoration projects.
Click on a zone to the right to be directed to that zone’s specific
recommendations page.
Map of Foothills Open Space Zones
Click on a Zone
to jump to a full
description
33Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
Prioritization of FOSZ Planning and Implementation
The table below is designed to facilitate Salt Lake City’s approach to segment by segment
planning and implementation of the Foothills Plan. This guide is not prescriptive, but instead
provides a relative level of complexity for each zone that can identify a logical process to
approach less complex land areas first, and more complex land areas later.
FOSZ Name Complexity Level Rationale
Meridian Peak &
Shoreline Preserve Low
Supportive terrain for trail expansion. Robust
Trailhead established. Minimal adjacent land-
use practices and ownership.
North Capitol: West City
Creek, Ensign Peak &
Hell Canyon
Low
Clear and high demand for improvements to
existing trails. Few adjacent land-use concerns
due to capitol complex.
East City Creek & Upper
Avenues Medium
Trails implemented during phase 1
implementation should be revisited through
future planning efforts.
Perry’s Hollow, Twin
Peaks & Dry Creek High
Existing trail use conflicts and extensive user
trail network and habitat increase complexity of
trail improvements here.
Mt Van Cott & the
University Medium
Supportive partnership with University
conducting its own land use evaluation creates
opportunities for collaboration and efficiencies.
User trail prevalence and need for restoration
is high; along with trailhead access and
infrastructure.
Mt. Wire & Red Butte Medium/High
Trailhead access improvements needed
alongside any trail improvement / expansion
projects. Steep slopes of lands increase
complexity of implementation.
East Bench High
No prior planning document to guide FOSZ
process. Residential property adjacencies
increase complexity.
** Disclaimer: See Page 30 **
34Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
** Disclaimer: See Page 30 **
Foothills Open Space Zone:
Meridian Peak & Shoreline
Preserve
Description: This is the northernmost extent of the area known
as the Salt Lake City Foothills. Bounded by the Davis / Salt Lake
City line to the north, the southern boundary is the ridge line
running between Jones and Hell Canyon, topping out at the
western ridge of City Creek Canyon. This zone consists of more
gradual terrain along the slopes of Meridian Peak, which is ideal
for providing various trail types and trail network connections.
This zone is one of the more approachable for trail development.
Land Management: USFS manages a significant portion of this
Foothills property and has indicated a willingness to partner
with the City in trails and land management processes. The zone
abuts Davis County and USFS lands to the north. Utah Open
Lands holds a conservation easement on 57 acres of open space
along the BST bench just south of Tunnel Springs Trailhead.
Adjacent Land Use: Davis County is currently working on
establishing a trail system near this zone, which may prove to be
a good partnership in trail development.
Environmental / Cultural Sensitivities: The Meridian Peak zone
consists of around 400 acres of grassland and other dispersed
brushwood. Salt Lake City Public Lands commissioned a
baseline environmental evaluation for the Foothills Natural Area.
This work, completed by SWCA Environmental Consultants,
considered vegetation, wildlife, aquatic, soil, geologic, and
cultural resources. That work should be considered and
supplemented if needed when planning within this FOSZ. The
NEPA process has already been completed for the majority of
USFS lands in this area as part of Davis County’s BST project.
Initial trail development proposed through that project has been
approved.
MERIDIAN PEAK & SHORELINE
PRESERVE FOSZ
AREA: 766 ACRES
TRAILHEADS/ACCESS: 1
MILES OF TRAIL: 3.6
35Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
Restoration Needs:
The trails in this zone exhibit medium environmental impact
and have moderate restoration needs. Restoration strategies
may include seeding of native grasses to stabilize the soil,
rerouting parts of the trail to more sustainable paths, and
employing simple erosion control measures like check
dams and grade reversals to address soil erosion and habitat
disruption.
Trail System Conditions: The Meridian zone presents a good
opportunity for trail development as there is little formalized
trail development already in place. Social trails are a concern
throughout. Throughout Meridian Peak and Shoreline
Preserve, less steep hillside slopes than in other Foothills
Open Space Zones support future sustainable shared use trail
alignments.
Public Access: This zone enjoys excellent public access from
North Salt Lake’s Tunnel Springs Park and Trailhead with
amenities such as restrooms and parking for 75+ vehicles,
making it ideal for youth bike teams as well as hikers with lower
skill or fitness. Users looking for longer excursions can also
access this FOSZ via Ensign Peak and Victory Road trailheads.
2020 Foothills Plan Recommendations: A network of single
and multi use trails are recommended across Meridian Peak,
increasing trail opportunities and density in this area. The
Foothills Plan also recognizes the need for habitat study
through the entirety of the area above the proposed Bonneville
Shoreline Trail Corridor. Much of this study has occurred as part
of Davis County BST NEPA process and will be reviewed again
with any proposed trail alignments.
Implementation Guidance: Meridian Peak should be
considered a first opportunity to expand the trail network
following this evaluation’s recommended processes.
Med
Meridian Peak & Shoreline Preserve Landscape
** Disclaimer: See Page 30 **
Foothills Open Space Zone:
North Capitol: West City Creek,
Ensign Peak & Hell Canyon
Description: Ensign Peak’s iconic vistas are part of Salt Lake
City’s identity. Yet steep side slopes and decades of significant
use create challenging access conditions to support a constant
level of use. This area receives extremely high use due to the
popularity of Ensign peak as a destination for Salt Lake City
residents, Utah school outings, and visitors from across the
globe.
Land Management: Salt lake City Public Utilities and Public
Lands manages the majority of lands in this zone, with smaller
parcels controlled by private interests.
Adjacent Land Use: The primary adjacent land use to this
zone is the Utah State Capitol complex. A historic residential
neighborhood lies adjacent to this zone as well, and care
should be taken that future improvements to the trail system
take into account this neighborhood’s access and concerns.
Environmental / Cultural Sensitivities: Salt Lake City Public
Lands commissioned a baseline environmental evaluation
for the Foothills Natural Area. This work, completed by SWCA
Environmental Consultants, considered vegetation, wildlife,
aquatic, soil, geologic, and cultural resources. That work should
be considered and supplemented if needed when planning
within this FOSZ.
Restoration Needs:
This area has been heavily utilized over time. Non-system trails
are prevalent and many are actively eroding and/or widening. A
concerted effort is necessary to restore this area.
35Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
High
NORTH CAPITOL / ENSIGN
PEAK FOSZ
AREA: 968 ACRES
TRAILHEADS/ACCESS: 10
MILES OF TRAIL: 14.1
Trail System Conditions: The Bonneville Shoreline Trail, Ensign
Peak Trails, and utility roads are the major trails in this area. The
Ensign Peak area is severely degraded due to extensive use,
steep slopes, social trail networks and limited management
resources. The Victory Road / Hell Canyon Trail, built by Public
Lands before the Foothills Plan offers an important access
point to the City’s west side.
Public Access: This FOSZ contains numerous public access
points. Multiple major trailheads and minor trail access points
are available throughout Lower City Creek and through
Dorchester Pointe and Colombus Court HOAs. Additional
overflow parking is available at the state capitol building.
2020 Foothills Plan Recommendations: A renewed
focus on the Ensign Peak Trail is needed to improve the
sustainability and user experience of this very highly used trail.
Redevelopment of the steep switchbacks on the BST which
climb out of City Creek would help support an improved
shared-use experience. It could also provide additional
connectivity from the proposed North City Creek Trail to
the Towers Trail. adding looping options, supporting more
dispersed use and increasing the utility of the City Creek TH.
Public Lands should consider removal of the Over the Cliff and
a proposed portion of the Lakeview Trail from the Foothills Plan
if a sustainable route is not possible through the steep rocks.
Alternatively, managing these routes for pedestrian use only
might be appropriate if only a narrow route can be established.
Implementation Guidance: As recommended in the Foothills
Plan, Ensign Peak Trail redevelopment should be a primary
focus. It will be a costly process, as much of the work will need
to be completed in or near the existing trail corridor and
will involve significant materials, equipment, and adjacent
drainage improvements. Yet the trail could become the jewel
of the North Foothills.
36Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
Hell Canyon
Trail
Foothills Open Space Zone:
East City Creek & Upper Avenues
Description: Similar to Meridian Peak, there are less steep
sideslopes and more amenable terrain in this FOSZ than
elsewhere in the system. This site was the first portion of the
2020 Foothills Plan to be built, and though the improvements
were seen as positive by many, the adjacent neighborhood
impacts and response to additional use in this area have
created conflicts.
Land Management: These lands are primarily managed
by Salt Lake City Public Land and Public Utilities with small
portions of private land ownership along the residential
boundaries.
Adjacent Land Use: Salt Lake City’s Avenues neighborhood
is located adjacent to this FOSZ. Access to the Foothills in
this zone should always consider residential impacts. Directly
north is the City Creek Canyon watershed which has unique
needs and regulations (such as no dogs allowed). Community
education about the watershed boundary is critical.
Environmental / Cultural Sensitivities: Salt Lake City Public
Lands commissioned a baseline environmental evaluation
for the Foothills Natural Area. This work, completed by SWCA
Environmental Consultants, considered vegetation, wildlife,
aquatic, soil, geologic, and cultural resources. That work should
be considered and supplemented if needed when planning
within this FOSZ.
Restoration Needs:
The legacy routes and social trails in this FOSZ create moderate
to high restoration need in this FOSZ. Most of these are direct-
ascent (fall-aligned) trails along ridges and gullies and will
need full restoration following improvement/additions to the
formal trail system. Many are old motorized routes, which will
not recover on their own due to large footprints and incision;
these will continue to carry water even if use can be shifted
elsewhere.
37Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
High
** Disclaimer: See Page 30 **
EAST CITY CREEK & UPPER
AVENUES FOSZ
AREA: 438 ACRES
TRAILHEAD/ACCESS: 3
MILES OF TRAIL: 10.5
38Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
Trail System Conditions: This zone’s trails have largely been
built out as a result of the Phase 1 implementation of the
Foothills Plan. Although trail development in this area has
not been without conflict due to neighborhood impacts
and environmental concerns, the expansion of trail access
in this FOSZ has been perceived as largely beneficial by the
recreational community.
Public Access: This FOSZ has two major trailheads (Bonneville
Boulevard and 18th Avenue) that have improvements
scheduled for 2024 to increase parking and add trailhead
amenities. Terrace Hills Drive has two trail access points at its
northern terminus that should receive improved wayfinding
signage in 2024. The residential proximity of the popular 18th
Avenue and Terrace Hills trailheads creates a need for the City
to continue to educate trail users on the respectful and low
impact trailhead access and use.
2020 Foothills Plan Recommendations: More direct
pedestrian access from the 18th Avenue/Morris Meadow TH to
the BST to provide a short, scenic loop opportunity would be
a great addition when the trailhead is redeveloped in the near
future. The incorporation of the existing utility road network in
maps and signage would improve navigation and wayfinding
Implementation Guidance: While the majority of new trails
in this zone were built in Phase I, additional elements should
be planned and implemented in future FOSZ planning
processes. When the trailhead is redeveloped and a short trail
constructed to connect up the south aspect to the BST, a few
interpretive pull-offs could be created to provide vistas into the
city. Narrowing the Morris Meadows utility road with fencing,
rectifying drainage issues on the road, and providing etiquette,
restoration, stay on trail, and dog management information
at this highly utilized trailhead may help to educate visitors on
proper use of the area.
Photos from East City Creek & Upper Avenues
39Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
** Disclaimer: See Page 30 **
Foothills Open Space Zone:
Perry’s Hollow, Twin Peaks &
Dry Creek
Description: This is the largest designated FOSZ in the Foothills
encompassing over 2,000 acres. Perry’s Hollow to the west is
similar to the Upper Avenues FOSZ in that abuts many residential
homes. It is bisected by the infamous “Bobsled Trail”. Twin
Peaks anchors the center of the FOSZ and has been a popular
destination for hikers and bikers via ridge line social trails. The Dry
Creek watershed cuts deep into Foothills with its north and south
forks and separates City Creek Canyon Watershed from the Red
Butte Canyon Research Natural Area.
Land Management: The land management of this zone is the
most complex in the Foothills. The USFS has a large parcel on
the western slope of Twin Peaks. Much of Perry’s Hollow and the
open space above Tomahawk Drive is privately owned, and the
University of Utah has shared holdings with the City in much of
lower Dry Creek Canyon and the eastern slopes of Twin Peaks.
Adjacent Land use: Popperton Park and the surrounding
residential neighborhoods are nestled within this zone.
The upper north and south forks of Dry Creek Canyon are
sandwiched between the City’s watershed area (City Creek
Canyon) and the Red Butte Canyon, the University of Utah’s
research area.
Environmental / Cultural Sensitivities: Salt Lake City Public
Lands commissioned a baseline environmental evaluation
for the Foothills Natural Area. This work, completed by SWCA
Environmental Consultants, considered vegetation, wildlife,
aquatic, soil, geologic, and cultural resources. This included an
in-depth cultural investigation of indigenous heritage connected
to the Twin Peaks Area. The Lime Kiln, managed by the
University of Utah, is a historic site that should be preserved and
acknowledged.
PERRY’S HOLLOW, TWIN
PEAKS & DRY CREEK FOSZ
AREA: 2399 ACRES
TRAILHEAD/ACCESS: 6
MILES OF TRAIL: 10.1
40Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
Photos from Perry’s Hollow, Twin Peaks, and Dry
Creek
Restoration Needs:
The trails in this zone exhibit significant environmental
impact and would benefit from comprehensive restoration
measures. Techniques for these areas may involve extensive
re-vegetation projects, complete trail realignment to minimize
environmental impact, and the construction of more
advanced erosion control structures, such as retaining walls
or boardwalks to mitigate ongoing degradation. Intensified
education and enforcement are also vital to reduce further
impacts on these trails.
Trail System Conditions: The BST runs through the heart of
this FOSZ. Access trails from residential trailheads connect to
the BST in multiple locations. An extensive user-created social
trail system exists, particularly in lower Perry’s Hollow and the
south and west slopes of Twin Peaks. Fewer significant trails
run up the forks of Dry Creek Canyon but signs of social trails
are increasing. In Phase I, the Twin Peaks Trail was 80% built
but paused for this evaluation. Popperton Park’s open space
received new use-specific hiking and biking trails which have
been applauded by the community.
Public Access: Popperton Park and a neighborhood access
point on Tomahawk Drive are the two official access points.
Popperton Trailhead is the one major trailhead in this FOSZ
and has significant improvements scheduled for 2024.
Popperton’s parking capacity will increase by 40-50 spaces
and a restroom will be installed which will make this one of the
most important access points to the City’s Foothills. The four
residential trail access points off of Tomahawk Drive should
receive improved wayfinding signage in 2024 as well.
2020 Foothills Plan Recommendations: The proposed BST
uphill/Dry Creek would be an exceedingly challenging trail to
build due to steep slopes. An alternative management and
trail development strategy would involve restricting mountain
bike traffic to uphill only on the existing Dry Creek Trail and
developing a new downhill mountain bike alternative from the
existing Twin Peaks Trail junction down to the Dry Creek TH.
Implementation Guidance: To address user conflicts on the
Twin Peaks trail and promote sustainability, specific measures
are proposed in Popperton Park. Clear signage and maps
should guide visitors directly to the Foothills trail networks.
Additional trail development in the area north and east of Twin
Peaks (North Fork Dry Creek Trail, and Dry Spell) is dependent
on further study of wildlife habitat and potential impacts to
that habitat. This review and decision process will take time to
complete. The completion of the shared-use Twin Peaks Trail,
Avenues Ridge Trail and the pedestrian-only Gullies & Hollows,
Perry’s Hollow West Loop, East Fork Perry’s, East Fork Parleys,
and Block can likely proceed on a shorter timeline. The new
trail construction should be combined with active restoration
of informal trails and improvements to the drainage on existing
routes.
High
41Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
** Disclaimer: See Page 30 **
Foothills Open Space Zone:
Mt. Van Cott & The University
Description: Due to years of uncontrolled use directly adjacent
to the University of Utah and the significant foot traffic an
institution of that nature will generate, there is a significant
web of social trails established throughout this zone. At the
farthest eastern reaches of this zone lies a research area and
restricted access reservoir.
Land Management: This land is managed by either USFS or
owned by the University of Utah.
Adjacent Land Use: This is the University of Utah’s back door.
Land is primarily owned and managed by the University of
Utah, who is a supportive partner in an effort to manage and
improve access to the Foothills trail network outside of its
classrooms, fields, and research labs.
Environmental / Cultural Sensitivities: Salt Lake City Public
Lands commissioned a baseline environmental evaluation
for the Foothills Natural Area. This work, completed by SWCA
Environmental Consultants, considered vegetation, wildlife,
aquatic, soil, geologic, and cultural resources. That work should
be considered and supplemented if needed when planning
within this FOSZ.
Restoration Needs:
The trails in this zone exhibit moderate environmental impact
and have some restoration needs. Rocky Mountain Power has
a utility easement along the BST and recently conducted a
power pole replacement project that left significant impacts
for restoration and repair. Strategies may include seeding
native grasses to stabilize the soil, rerouting parts of the trail
with more sustainable design, employing simple erosion
control measures like drain fans and grade reversals, and
directing trail users with clear signage and fencing off closed
areas.
Med
MT. VAN COTT & THE UNIVERSITY
FOSZ
AREA: 476 ACRES
TRAILHEAD/ACCESS: 1
MILES OF TRAIL: 1.4
42Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
Photos from Mt. Van Cott & University of
Utah
Trail System Conditions: Intensive social trail proliferation
characterizes this zone, primarily stemming from uncontrolled
use adjacent to the University of Utah. The University’s
significant foot traffic and ownership make closure
challenging. Restoration needs are moderate, requiring
efforts like native vegetation planting and trail rerouting. The
challenge lies in balancing environmental preservation with
ongoing University-related use.
Public Access: Despite the increased growth of the University
of Utah, there are no formal trailheads or available un-
permitted parking areas in this FOSZ. The base of Red Butte
Canyon Road and the trail access from Medical Campus Drive
are two key sites under consideration for future trailhead
development.
2020 Foothills Plan Recommendations: Reducing trail user
numbers and potential use conflicts in Dry Creek should be a
focal aim and the development of the proposed relocation of
the BST and the addition of the Dry Creek South Fork would
only attract more use to the area. Altering the proposed
shared-use Mt. Van Cott Trail to form a complete loop with
connections to the Skyline Nature Trail West and a direct,
armored pedestrian-only spur to the Mt. Van Cott summit
and active restoration of the Van Cott Ridgeline Trail would
reduce trail user traffic in Dry Creek canyon. This work should
be completed in concert with drainage improvements of
Skyline Nature Trail West and active informal trail closure and
restoration of the numerous summit routes and fall-aligned
routes down to the university. With a more accessible summit
access, care will need to be taken to preserve the north-facing
meadow.
Dry Creek canyon and Red Butte Gardens corridor could be
redeveloped with the BST routed onto the higher Skyline
Nature Trail West out of the Red Butte Trailhead and the
existing BST/Med Campus Trail corridor more formally
developed as park space to provide a number of shorter, more
accessible trail experiences from the Medical Campus and
Red Butte Trailhead and better preserve a sense of a park/
conservation corridor.
Implementation Guidance: Guided by the recognition
of extensive social trail proliferation the implementation
strategy for this zone focuses on trailhead enhancement and
restoration initiatives. Improving existing informal trailheads
and prioritizing restoration efforts on medium-impacted trails
should be a priority. Collaboration with the University of Utah is
emphasized, acknowledging their ownership and supportive
partnership for effective land management and improved trail
access. With the majority of this area owned by the University
of Utah and active construction at the Medical Campus, the
planning for a Medical Campus Park will need time to fully
develop and set the stage for trail construction and trail
restoration.
Foothills Open Space Zone:
Mt. Wire & Red Butte
Description: Mt. Wire and Red Butte stand above the rest of
the Foothills with Wire’s summit (also known as “Big Beacon”)
peaking at 7146 feet. Mt. Wire’s expansive slopes run down
the Lithograph Fork into Emigration Canyon and down into
George’s Hollow to the west. Various routes to the popular
“Living Room” run up the steep slopes below Red Butte.
Land Management: Primarily USFS managed parcels, there
are some University of Utah holdings interspersed in this zone.
Utah State Parks owns approximately 200 acres of open space
east of This Is The Place Heritage Park.
Adjacent Land Use: Primary neighbors are institutional in
this zone and include The University of Utah’s Research Park,
Red Butte Gardens, Natural History Museum, and This is the
Place Heritage Park. Emigration Township to the east has been
discussing trail planning and connectivity to the Foothills.
Environmental / Cultural Sensitivities: Salt Lake City Public
Lands commissioned a baseline environmental evaluation
for the Foothills Natural Area. This work, completed by SWCA
Environmental Consultants, considered vegetation, wildlife,
aquatic, soil, geologic, and cultural resources. That work should
be considered and supplemented if needed when planning
within this FOSZ.
Restoration Needs:
The trails in this zone, particularly around George’s Hollow, the
Living Room access routes, and the braided and widening
BST, exhibit significant environmental impacts and should
be addressed with comprehensive restoration measures.
Techniques for these areas may involve extensive re-
vegetation projects, complete trail realignment to minimize
environmental impact, and the construction of more advanced
erosion control structures to mitigate ongoing degradation.
Intensified education and enforcement are also vital to reduce
further impacts on these trails.
43Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
High
** Disclaimer: See Page 30 **
MT WIRE & RED BUTTE FOSZ
AREA: 1418 ACRES
TRAILHEAD/ACCESS: 5
MILES OF TRAIL: 6.3
Trail System Conditions: The popular Living Room trail is
a good example of conditions in this zone where numerous
individual pathways lead down from the iconic view at
this location. The BST and Skyline Trail would both benefit
from thorough tread repair and maintenance and spot
realignments. Multiple social ridge trails ascend the steep
grades up to Red Butte and Mt. Wire.
Public Access: The Emigration Trailhead, behind This Is The
Place, is the one major trailhead in this zone. Partnership and
planning with Utah State Parks could develop into future
facilities to support the Foothills Trail System and This is The
Place. Additional Foothills trail access points are in Research
Park on Colorow Road and Wakara Way.
2020 Foothills Plan Recommendations: The proposed
portion of the Living Room Trail connecting to Skyline Nature
Trail East will be very difficult to accept as the preferred route
back to the Colorow Road area. A more direct route from
the Living Room along the western-running ridgeline and
incorporating a number of the existing switchbacks will more
effectively channel use. Given the nature of this steep terrain
and the challenge of establishing a wider shared-use trail, it
is recommended that new trail segments be managed for
pedestrian use only.
The somewhat less valley-dissected terrain in the Mount Wire
area is well-suited for a more diverse, shared-use system than
the Living Room area. The number of switchbacks necessary
to control trail grades and access Red Butte, Mount Wire, and
Lithograph Point would lead to difficulty in controlling short
cutting, informal route development or closure. Instead, upper
elevations of existing routes could be improved and managed
as pedestrian-only experiences. In addition to the contouring
shared-use trail, a steeper pedestrian-only route from the
“jug handle” on the wagon route/Wagner Peak Loop Trail to
the proposed junction of the Lithograph Fork and Connector
trails would allow those users to more expeditiously access the
higher terrain.
A more dense than proposed mountain bike trail park focused
on the lower bench slopes would provide easily accessible
terrain and elevation. The proposed mountain bike trail
development, contour-oriented routes toward the higher
terrain, and accessibility on Emigration Canyon Road will likely
lead to a large increase in car traffic to these trails, outstripping
the proposed trailhead capacity.
The abandoned road benches and flatter terrain on the east
side of the state park would be ideal for a large modern
trailhead. This area is only between 75 and 150 vertical feet
above the existing trailhead on Emigration Canyon Road. The
lack of a steep climb into the trail system from this location
would instantly make this area more accessible to a broader
swath of recreationists.
Implementation Guidance: Significant trailhead
improvements should be considered here, but should be
approached in stages due to the complexity of the vision. State
park ownership, traffic analysis and design considerations must
all be considered to develop a large capacity trailhead. The first
priority would be permission and engineering of the trailhead
access road and parking. If successful, improvements to the
BST and lower elevation mountain bike trails would come next,
followed by new trail construction and significant restoration of
the myriad informal trails.
Careful FOSZ planning with partner agencies - including
significant restoration, wayfinding, and thoughtful community
engagement and education should help meet the goals of the
Foothills Plan.
44Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
Photos from Mt. Wire & Red Butte
** Disclaimer: See Page 30 **
Foothills Open Space Zone:
East Bench
Description: East Bench FOSZ was not included in the
2020 Foothills Plan as Emigration Canyon was defined as
the southern extent of the Foothills Plan. As such, it was not
physically reviewed as part of this Evaluation. However, it is
included in this report as it constitutes the southern extent of
the Foothills managed by Salt Lake City Public Lands.
Land Management: The majority of open space in the East
Bench is privately owned except for parcels within the H-Rock/
East Bench Preserve and the 270 acres acquired by the City in
2021 that includes the new BST Parleys Point segment.
Environmental / Cultural Sensitivities: Salt Lake City Public
Lands commissioned a baseline environmental evaluation
for the Foothills Natural Area. This work, completed by SWCA
Environmental Consultants, offers insights into the type of
cultural and environmental resources that may be found in the
East Bench FOSZ. No East Bench specific studies have been
completed at this time and will need to be further evaluated as
part of a FOSZ planning process. .
Restoration Needs:
The trails in this zone exhibit minimal environmental impact
and have relatively low restoration needs. These paths may
benefit from small-scale techniques such as periodic litter
cleanup, minor trail maintenance, and strategic placement of
erosion-control structures like gravel or mulch in high-traffic
areas to prevent further soil disturbance.
Adjacent Land Use: This zone is bordered by single family
residences to the west and high elevation US Forest Service
Lands to the east.
45Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
Low
EAST BENCH FOSZ
AREA: 2082 ACRES
TRAILHEAD/ACCESS: 7
MILES OF TRAIL: 6.3
46Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
Trail System Conditions: This zone was not formally assessed
through this project. The main trail resource is the Bonneville
Shoreline Trail (BST) and connection spurs to surrounding
neighborhoods. The BST connects to points southerly thanks to
the adjacent I80 overpass.
Public Access: Although there are numerous trail access
points along public roads in this zone, the only designated
trailhead is at the northern end of Lakeline Drive. The City is
currently looking to acquire space at this location to develop an
off-street trailhead.
Key Zone Recommendations: The planning of the East Bench
FOSZ should take place after other zones within the Foothills
have made significant progress towards the Foothills Plan
goals. This area is included in this report to recognize its need
to be included in the broad planning efforts moving forward,
but is not the top priority for implementation due to it not
being included in prior master planning efforts.
Photos from East
Bench
47Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
FOSZ PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS
The City should adopt a NEPA-like process to finalize all
changes to trail networks within the Foothills Open Space
system by creating area-specific Project Implementation Plans
(PIPs). The primary goal for each PIP is to establish a more
formal process through which Public Lands can thoughtfully
implement trail rehabilitation, development, and access
projects. It is expected that Public Lands, upon determining
the need for specific projects, will initiate the PIP in partnership
with other entities or land managers (such as the USFS) as
appropriate. Each PIP will document the materials gathered
and considered in establishing a specific project(s) within a
single Foothills Open Space Zone (FOSZ).
Project Implementation Planning is comprised of three
phases – Planning, Design and Implementation, each with
multiple steps. Each phase is described here.
STEP 1: PROJECT INITIATION
During this step, it is essential to clearly define the primary
objectives, requirements, purpose, and need for projects
within a specific FOSZ. Public Lands will consider the
recommendations from the 2020 Foothills Plan, including
desired system connections, access points, trail and user
characteristics, restoration goals, and land management
priorities. Additionally, Public Lands will consider the
recommendations for each FOSZ in this document and
may seek additional relevant information such as natural
resource data, wayfinding plans, surveys, and trail count
data. This information will inform core project objectives and
requirements. If necessary, Public Lands may seek outside
expertise on trail planning, land surveying, engineering,
costing, environmental resource identification, or other
relevant information. The information considered in this step
will be captured in a document that describes the project,
establishes its core objectives, and outlines any specific
requirements that must be met through the implementation
process.
STEP 2: BASELINE AREA REVIEW AND DOCUMENTATION
Public Lands will review the existing pre-NEPA level
environmental and cultural review document to identify
limitations or areas to avoid. Depending on the level of
effort required in Step 1 to define the core objectives and
requirements of the project, Public Lands might require
more information to establish and document the existing
conditions within the planned project area. This could involve
a more detailed assessment of crucial ecological, land use,
access, or cultural/archaeological concerns in the FOSZ. This
could also require additional field data collection, surveying, or
legal review. Public Lands may also engage external experts
to conduct these reviews. Public Lands will compile the
information gathered during this step.
PHASE 1: PLANNING
48Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
PHASE 2: DESIGN PHASE 3: IMPLEMENTATION
STEP 3: ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT
Public Lands will consider proposed alignments, restoration,
and closure alternatives based on the project objectives,
baseline assessment, and requirements for partner land
management agencies. If alternatives are prepared,
conceptual plans depicting alignments, access points, general
specifications, etc. will be developed. Public Lands will inform
Key Stakeholders to gain input on the potential alternatives
and inform Public Land’s selection of a preferred alternative.
STEP 4: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Based on its review of the project(s), input from the public and
Key Stakeholders, and other considerations, Public Lands will
select and document its preferred alternative.
STEP 5A: PRELIMINARY DESIGN
Public Lands will review the preferred alternative at a site visit
along with other relevant partners. Public Lands may elect to
retain the services of an outside trail expert, engineer, natural
resource specialist, or other party to participate in this site
review of the preferred concept before initiating preliminary
design
work. Public Lands may elect to issue a Request for Proposal
(RFP) associated with the development of preliminary design
plans. Public Lands will monitor and review the development
of preliminary engineering designs associated with the
project(s). Preliminary design plans will be suitable for project
costing.
STEP 5B: LANDOWNER AND LEGAL REVIEW
Public Lands will be responsible for overseeing necessary land
ownership or property legal review related to the project(s). If
required, Public Lands may choose to engage external legal
counsel or surveying services to support the development of
the preliminary design plans.
STEP 5C: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PERMITTING
When planning projects on lands managed by the USFS,
Public Lands will consult with the USFS and complete
any necessary environmental reviews under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
STEP 5D: NEPA PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
Public Lands will engage in and respond to USFS public
engagement requirements as part of NEPA environmental
reviews.
STEP 5E: FINAL DESIGN
Upon final approval of Public Lands and following the
issuance of any required permits, Public Lands will oversee
the development of a final engineering design package
encompassing all approved project(s). Public Lands may elect
to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) associated with the
development of final design plans.
STEP 6: FINALIZE AREA-SPECIFIC MAINTENANCE AND
OPERATIONS PLAN
Public Lands will establish a detailed approach to routine
inspections, repairs, enhancements, and the protection of
sensitive ecosystems in the FOSZ.
STEP 7: BIDDING AND CONTRACT
Public Lands will prepare and oversee the bidding and contract
process for the construction of all project components. The bid
process will conform to appropriate Salt Lake City procurement
requirements. Following the completion of the bid process,
Public Lands will provide its final approval and authorization to
proceed.
STEP 8: CONSTRUCTION PROCESS
Public Lands will inform the public about construction using
its existing communication channels and field signage. It
will monitor and oversee the construction process with the
chosen contractor. Following the completion of the project,
Public Lands will review the work and discuss any feedback or
guidance that might inform future decision-making.
49Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
IMPLEMENT A CONSISTENT PUBLIC COMMUNICATION STRATEGY
The Foothills Plan is informed by significant public input
showing the desire for a world class trails system in Salt Lake
City. One complaint with the Phase 1 implementation was that
the changes being made were not communicated clearly to
the public. Public Lands recognizes that maintaining a high-
level of communication with the public is important and has
implemented the following mechanisms by which the public
can be informed.
•Rangers: two Foothills-dedicated Rangers are patrolling to
assist and educate trail users, report areas of concern, and
support the health of the Foothills natural area. You can
meet them at trailheads.
•Improved trailhead, wayfinding and field signage: A
good wayfinding system not only guides people along
sustainable routes to their destinations but can enhance
a user’s understanding and experience of the Foothills.
Improved wayfinding can also help accommodate a
growing number of users and preserve delicate ecosystems
by routing visitors to designated trails and away from
unsanctioned routes. Public Lands has developed a unified
wayfinding system and will begin installing improved
signage in 2024. Public Lands will begin implementing
consistent field signage to identify areas undergoing
ecological restoration, closure, or other needs. Signage can
both educate trail users about the value of these projects
and restrict access.
•Foothill Communication Channels: Public Lands has
expanded its Communications staff and is providing regular
updates via the following communication channels
•SLCTrails.com website
•Foothills e-newsletter
•@SLCPublicLands social media
•PNUT Board and Community Council coordination:
Public Lands will continue to provide updates on Foothills
related projects, processes, or issues via regularly scheduled
Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry & Trails (PNUT)
Advisory Board and Community Council meetings.
Public Lands will also establish a Key Stakeholder Group to
help inform FOSZ PIP planning. This group would include key
stakeholders with knowledge of environmental, trails, and
other management issues and will also represent the variety of
distinct user groups and interests in the Foothills.
50Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
PRIORITIZE THE MAINTENANCE AND
ENHANCEMENT OF EXISTING FACILITIES
The Foothills Plan does not provide an evaluation of the
existing formal trails within the Salt Lake City Foothills. This
is an important consideration for the future capacity to
manage the overall system and provide high quality recreation
experiences.
Historically, the formal trails in the Foothills have received
minimal maintenance. Contrary to the rolling contour, hillside
construction that is the modern standard for sustainable, low-
impact trail development, many of the existing trails slated
for incorporation into the larger system (i.e. Dry Creek, Living
Room, Bobsled, Jones Canyon) are located almost solely at the
bottom of a stream valley/riparian corridors. While these are
not perennial streams, these valleys do experience water flow
at times and the trails have suffered erosion or braiding. These
impacts increase the footprint of the recreational trail corridor
and can exacerbate negative wildlife impacts as the trails are
located in some of the few riparian corridors of the foothills.
To evaluate existing trails, the following factors should be
weighed:
•the value of existing trails to the overall system outweighs
the potentially negative natural resource impacts,
•whether portions or all of these recreational corridors could
be relocated outside the riparian corridor, and/or
•if they are to remain in place, how to better manage the
impacts of intermittent stormwater/snowmelt on the trail
tread.
Other existing trails to be incorporated into the system are
located on relic roadbeds (i.e. portions of the Bonneville
Shoreline Trail, North City Creek Ridgeline, Morris Meadows,
Terrace Hills). These trails require a different level of
maintenance need, dependent upon sometimes significant
landscape manipulation to provide proper drainage. Widening
and braiding are also common on these routes and narrowing
of use corridors through fencing and/or vegetative restoration
may need to be considered.
As the spine of the trail system, the Bonneville Shoreline Trail
(BST) should receive considerable maintenance attention.
In addition to the aforementioned issues, the route that was
initially utilized through the area was one of convenience
rather than ideal recreational trail design. As such, the Foothills
BST lacks a consistent character and the quality of the user
experience is sometimes low. Ideally, the trail should retain a
common specification throughout the North Foothills that
would make this segment emblematic of the vision and goals
for this long-distance recreational and interpretive facility.
Recent maintenance of the BST in upper City Creek has been
successful for better managing water and trail users with little
impact outside the trail corridor, and can be a model for future
maintenance needed in Hell Canyon, as well as other existing
trails to be incorporated into the system that are more contour-
oriented (i.e. Skyline, Tomahawk, Lakeview, and Under The
Cliffs).
Popperton Seasonal Grass
Trimming
51Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
Color Blind Safe Color Palettes
DEVELOP A UNIFIED WAYFINDING SYSTEM
Improved wayfinding can help accommodate a growing
number of users and preserve delicate ecosystems by routing
visitors to designated trails and away from unsanctioned
routes.
A good wayfinding system not only guides people along
sustainable routes to their destinations but can enhance
a user’s understanding and experience of the Foothills.
Ultimately, wayfinding’s contribution to more feet and wheels
on sustainable trails and improved user appreciation for
these public lands can make significant contributions to the
preservation of the Salt Lake City Foothills ecosystem and trail
network.
Unified Wayfinding System:
The cornerstone of a good wayfinding system is uniformity.
All trail markers, signposts, maps, and trailhead kiosks should
be developed with a uniform design. This extends to shapes,
materials, fonts, colors, and layout of each. Creating a uniform
approach will also support integration of future trail networks,
reroutes, or closures into the official Foothills trails system. The
design should be as unique as Salt Lake City and its foothills,
communicating a sense of place that is instantly recognizable
to any visitor.
Educational Signage:
Incorporating interpretive and educational signage along
with wayfinding is important. Educational signs should be
strategically located to identify sensitive species, unique
habitat, historic and cultural landscape narratives and other
elements. For the Foothills specifically, educational signage
regarding the damage caused by social trails would be useful.
Promotion of Responsible Usage:
Trailhead and wayfinding signs should communicate in simple
terms and encourage responsible trail use. The incorporation
of Leave No Trace principles and local regulations is key,
underscoring the importance of adhering to designated trails.
Safety and Emergency Preparedness:
Ensuring the safety of trail users is paramount. Signage should
provide concise information about emergency contacts,
park hours, and safety guidelines, particularly in remote
or challenging terrain. Mile markers or other indicators
of placement along a trail can further help emergency
responders locate the site of an accident. This ensures user
security and preparedness during outdoor activities.
Restoration Zones Identification:
Official signage should identify areas undergoing ecological
restoration. Signage can both educate trail users about the
value of these projects and restrict access. This initiative
supports successful ecosystem rehabilitation and prevents
further degradation.
Community Engagement:
Installation of signage across the Foothills is a time-consuming
task. Consider engaging volunteers to support staff efforts
when installing wayfinding signage. Active involvement of the
local community in the placement of signage fosters a sense
of ownership and responsibility. Collaborative efforts bring
community insights and ensure a stronger connection to the
trail system.
Accessibility and Inclusivity:
Signage should highlight wheelchair-accessible routes and
accessible facilities, promoting equal access to all users. These
accessible routes are popular with many users, including the
young and old, cyclists of all types, and those with mobility
impairments. Inclusivity and universal access are paramount in
ensuring a broad spectrum of users can enjoy the trail system.
Another key consideration for accessibility is ensuring that final
colors are ‘colorblind safe.’ Many maps and signs utilize green
red pairing, which are commonly lost when viewed by the 8%
of men and .5% of women with limited color vision. Below are
three common color blind safe color sets. Click on the image
to review a comprehensive discussion (and digital color codes)
of these palettes.
52Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
INCREASE THE POWER OF TRAIL COUNTS
As discussed in the evaluating existing demand section of this
document, Salt Lake City has been maintaining trail count
data throughout its networks since 2016. This document
recommends continuing to use the systems in place, but
leveraging and utilizing that data through new partnerships,
big data resources, and community surveys.
Permanent vs. Mobile Counters:
With approximately 16 counters in place, the City should ensure
that several counters stay fixed to locations where counts have
proven to be reliable and use is known to be ‘typical’ for the
Foothills. Over time, these permanent counters will provide
important baseline information regarding system use patterns,
growth, and relative demands through the system. Historically,
the consistent counter locations have been the Mouth of Dry
Creek, Emigration Canyon TH, Ensign, and I Street TH.
Once permanent counter locations are determined, a series of
additional counters should be deployed on a rotating basis to
analyze use levels throughout the system. Temporary counters
can help understand the efficacy of various land closures,
impacts of a trail reroute, or gather data where none was
available prior.
Increase Depth with Manual Counts and
Community Surveys:
The data available from a perfect trail counter system will never
tell us why some people don’t feel comfortable or welcome
using the Foothills. It will be important for Public Lands
to conduct trailhead demographic surveys to understand
who uses the trail networks, and which demographics or
geographies in Salt Lake City are under-represented at the
trailhead. Similarly, targeted community surveys to groups who
are not well represented in current trail user demographics can
help the City understand barriers to access to the Foothills.
Increase Breadth with Big Data:
Additional insights can be gained by correlating physical
trail count data with the broad coverage offered by big data
sources. From the free (to municipalities) resource of Strava
Metro, to more expensive but broad reaching datasets like
Placer AI, Many platforms available can offer a chance to
see beyond the individual counts. It is worth noting that big
datasets will not capture ALL trail users, but they represent a
specific percentage across the entirety of the Foothills network.
Increase Power with Universities:
It is time consuming enough to procure trail counters, deploy
them, pull data from them, and aggregate the data - to say
nothing of the time needed to analyze one or more datasets
and assemble useful insights.
Partnerships with regional universities may offer a solution to
this workload challenge, as there are many degrees at local
institutions that could benefit from a partnership with the City.
Analyzing big datasets, developing trail count dashboards, or
delivering and analyzing community intercept surveys are just
a few of the ideas that could become a classroom or thesis
project.
Trail Count System Comparison
Technology Relative
Cost
Pros Cons Examples
Manual Counts $-$$
Can determine precise use
types, demographics, or
specific details like QR
code usage.
Cost-prohibitive if not using
volunteers. Labor-intensive to
coordinate and report out.
counterpointapp.org/
Infrared
Counters $$
Relatively inexpensive 24/7
costs. Proven technology
and relatively simple to
operate
Can not distinguish between use
types, often require monthly ‘data
pulls’, limited to one location per
unit.
www.TrafX.com
Video Detecting
Systems $$$$
Can offer 24/7 counts and
distinguish between bikes
and pedestrians
Can require additional expertise to
operate, often requires subscription
to service for processing.
https://miovision.com/
scout
Big Data $-$$$$Can offer a ‘global’ view of use Not representative of all users, can
be very costly.
https://metro.strava.com/
https://www.placer.ai/
Key: lower cost = $ higher cost = $$$$
53Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
DEVELOP A MANAGEMENT PLAN
The Foothills Natural area has never been actively managed,
and the Foothills Plan and this evaluation processes have
highlighted maintenance and management needs that must
be addressed to preserve the Salt Lake City Foothills as a place
for nature and recreation.
A management plan should be developed which addresses the
unique qualities and considerations identified for each FOSZ
and includes the following components.
•Public Land’s Role
•Conservation and Preservation Goals
•Trail Use Types
•Trail Use Areas
•Trail Design Practices
•Environmental Strategies
It is anticipated that management plans will be developed
alongside each FOSZ plan, and will reflect each zone’s
unique character, land-use context, recreation resources and
environmental sensitivities. An overarching management
plan for the Foothills Natural Areas should not be uniform in
approach, but instead represent the same zonal approach
recommended in this document. However, all management
plans should be developed in concert with and a goal of
consistency with relevant USFS Land Management plans and
policies.
Examples of management plans for case study communities
include Boulder, Colorado’s Open Space Master Plan, and Boise
Idaho’s Reserves Management Plan.
54Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
Operations and maintenance (O&M) upholds the functionality,
safety, and sustainability of a community trail system. O&M
extends beyond mere task lists; it symbolizes the unwavering
commitment to delivering an exceptional outdoor recreational
experience for users and foundation for future development.
This section outlines some methodical and conscientious O&M
approaches that can maintain Salt Lake City trails within the
Foothills region. It provides an approach to routine inspections,
repairs, enhancements, the protection of sensitive ecosystems,
and community engagement. All these actions are intended
to preserve the trails’ integrity and ensure they remain a source
of inspiration, adventure, and solace for residents and visitors.
Trail maintenance principles form the cornerstone of robust
O&M, ensuring that trail systems remain sustainable, safe, and
accessible for all users. Trail maintenance is guided by several
fundamental principles:
•Visitor Safety: Ensuring the safety of trail users is
paramount. Maintenance aims to prevent accidents and
injuries by addressing potential hazards and structural
issues promptly.
•Resource Protection: Protecting the natural and cultural
resources that the trail traverses is central to maintenance.
Preventing resource damage and ensuring minimal
environmental impact is a core objective.
•Public Investment Preservation: Trail maintenance
safeguards the public’s investment in the trail system,
ensuring that the trails remain a valuable asset and a source
of recreation and enjoyment for years to come.
•User Convenience: Maintenance should prioritize the
convenience of trail users by addressing issues that could
hinder their experience, such as fallen trees, debris, and
damaged structures.
Trails Maintenance Categories:
Many trail programs manage substandard trail systems
that require more than just maintenance to stay open
and safe. Inadequate funding, lack of management
prioritization, and poor initial designs contribute to a backlog
of rehabilitation, reconstruction, or rerouting projects,
often funded through deferred maintenance budgets. To
address these issues efficiently, a well-defined process for
identifying and prioritizing maintenance projects is necessary
(typically through a Management Plan). When it comes to
maintenance, there are two categories to consider.
Ongoing Maintenance:
This category pertains to routine activities that must be
conducted on a recurring basis, typically on a seasonal basis,
or within a two to five year cycle. Ongoing maintenance
preserves the intended functionality of a trail and continued
user experience. It encompasses routine upkeep, along with
regular inspections and evaluations of recurring maintenance
tasks. Additionally, it addresses ad-hoc incident-related repairs,
which are unpredictable issues that may arise, as well as the
phased replacement of trail structures that have reached the
conclusion of their useful lifespan. The specific frequency of
these maintenance tasks can be adjusted to accommodate
local factors, such as regional weather patterns and local soil
and vegetation types.
Deferred Maintenance:
Deferred maintenance comes into play when the trail’s
maintenance needs exceed the program’s capabilities,
often due to poor design, inadequate funding, or natural
disasters. These are typically large-scale projects involving the
replacement or reconstruction of multiple trail structures or
rerouting of the trail.
Fall line trail that has been
closed
55Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
Maintaining the Outdoors: The Blueprint for Trail Care
To build a successful Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
approach for a trail system, it’s valuable to understand the ‘why’
behind sections that would typically be included in such a plan.
These components are the strategic pillars that ensure the
sustainability, safety, and overall quality of a trail network. The
following paragraphs outline these critical sections, illustrate
how they work in concert, and how they are embedded
within the overarching implementation of operations and
maintenance.
Quarterly Routine Maintenance:
Quarterly routine maintenance serves as the backbone of any
successful trails system. This section should identify vital tasks
required to ensure the trail system’s ongoing functionality
and safety. Regular trail inspections should be conducted
to identify and address issues promptly, guaranteeing user
safety and preventing further degradation. Clearing vegetation
should maintain a safe and aesthetically pleasing path,
enhancing the overall user experience. Drainage maintenance
is essential to prevent erosion and protect the trail’s integrity
and nearby ecosystems. Finally, trash removal maintains
the trail’s cleanliness, benefiting both aesthetics and the
environment. These routine maintenance activities are the
proactive measures that help address challenges before they
become major problems, providing a solid foundation for a
well-maintained and user-friendly trail system.
Repairs and Rehabilitation:
Repairs and rehabilitation are crucial components of
operations and maintenance, ensuring the longevity and
continued usability of the trail network. Trail repairs are
necessary for addressing issues identified during inspections
and user feedback, preventing further deterioration and
ensuring safety. The maintenance of signage and wayfinding
elements plays a significant role in not only guiding users
safely but also preventing the development of social trails,
which can harm the environment. Infrastructure maintenance
ensures the safety and accessibility of the trail network,
protecting users while preserving its functionality.
Environmental Stewardship:
Operation and maintenance should focus on environmental
stewardship to highlight responsible and sustainable
management of our trail system. Protection of wildlife and
sensitive habitats during maintenance activities is vital, as it
safeguards the natural ecosystem and ensures that the trail
network coexists harmoniously with the environment. The
control of invasive species is essential to protect the local
ecosystem from harmful encroachment. Erosion control
measures are in place to prevent soil degradation and preserve
the integrity of the trail and its surroundings. Additionally,
seasonal closures are employed to protect ecosystems
and wildlife during critical periods. These environmental
stewardship efforts not only promote responsible trail
management but also contribute to the long-term health and
sustainability of the trail network.
Reporting and Communications:
Reporting and communication mechanisms within a
management plan should be included to engage the
community, enhance transparency, and maintain an efficient
operation and maintenance process. Incident reporting
provides a direct channel for users to report issues, damage,
and feedback. This user involvement ensures that problems
are promptly addressed, fostering a sense of ownership and
accountability within the community. The use of a dynamic
story map with interactive mapping components for trail
updates is a modern, user-friendly method to keep the
community informed about maintenance activities, closures,
and important updates. This approach not only enhances
user experience but also creates a collaborative relationship
between the city and its trail users. Effective reporting and
communication methods are the glue that binds together the
various elements of a trails plan, providing a mechanism for
community involvement and transparent trail management.
Living Room Lone
Tree
56Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
Methods to Accomplish Quarterly Inspections
On-Site Visual Inspection:
Assign trained personnel or volunteers to physically walk
or bike the trail, observing and documenting any issues or
concerns they encounter.
Checklists:
Develop and provide inspection checklists that cover all
relevant aspects to guide inspectors in their assessments. This
can help ensure thorough and consistent inspections.
Photographic Documentation:
Use cameras or smartphones to take photos of areas that need
attention. This visual documentation can be invaluable for
assessment and reporting.
GPS and Mapping Tools:
Utilize GPS devices or smartphone apps with mapping
capabilities to accurately mark the location of identified issues
for future reference and repair.
Communication and Reporting:
Establish a clear process for inspectors to report their findings,
including any safety hazards or required maintenance. Create a
central reporting system for easy access.
Swift Response:
Once issues are identified, ensure there is a well-defined
process for addressing and resolving them in a timely manner.
Prioritize and schedule necessary maintenance or repairs.
Additional support would be provided through developing a
detailed maintenance plan. A maintenance plan would inform
the City’s role as primary maintenance support and manager
for the Foothills, and provides the knowledge and skills sets to
aid the city to self-manage and maintain trail system assets.
In addition to extensive in-person training conducted during
this process, this plan includes written guidance on trail
development techniques, construction quality management,
opportunities for enhanced maintenance on existing trails,
monitoring, and management guidance, methods of
record keeping and planning/budgeting tools to achieve
departmental goals.
That stated, complete management of the existing or
redeveloped trail system will likely continue to pose a
significant challenge to the growing but still small Public
Lands Department. An effective and robust stewardship
program will also need to be developed to positively engage
Salt Lake City residents in the collaborative maintenance and
management of their public trail system, as well as continue
a partnership with stakeholders to share resources and
collaborate on future projects and initiatives.
Youth Riding Group in Salt Lake City
Foothills
57Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
NEXT STEPS
This evaluation identifies goals in the 2020 Foothills Plan
that should continue to guide Salt Lake City’s Public Lands
Department as they work to provide a more sustainable
approach to evaluating and managing the Foothills Natural
Areas. This evaluation outlines specific procedures to ensure
that the Public Lands team has the knowledge and skills to
effectively plan for and maintain the Foothills Trail System and
its surrounding natural areas.
A new approach to planning, as outlined in this report,
develops plans for interconnected Foothills Open Space Zones
(FOSZ), so that new trail development will be accompanied
by necessary restoration of eroding trails and that appropriate
visitor use signage and amenities will be included for a
diversity of user types and skill levels. These FOSZ plans will
include assessments of ecology and geography; proposed
trail alignments; recommended land restoration; on-trail
and trailhead signage and amenities; communications and
engagement planning; maintenance plans and budgets.
This planning approach will help Public Lands reduce
environmental degradation caused by existing trails and the
extent of human impacts from decades of unmanaged use
and will detail the ways in which deteriorating trails should be
sustainably restored or closed while also defining how new
trails should be constructed and monitored sustainably.
Each FOSZ plan will integrate the recommendations made
here to:
•Prioritize the Maintenance and Enhancement of Existing
Facilities
•Integrate Clear Wayfinding, Signage, and Information
System
•Use Data to inform Decision Making
If this evaluation and its recommendations are approved
by the Salt Lake City Council, FOSZ planning should begin
immediately. Once the FOSZ plans are in process, Public Lands
should begin work to develop a Management Plan for the
Foothills Natural Area. The Public Lands Department should
continue other ongoing management efforts which are critical
to support the recommendations made here.
•To prioritize maintenance and enhancement of existing
facilities, as well as improve public communication, the
City has committed to on-the-ground Foothills-specific
staff including two Park Rangers and a trails and ecological
maintenance team. The Public Lands “SLC Be WILD”
community education campaign will welcome and inform
new and returning Foothills users and help build a trail
culture together. And
•Critically important for a trail system along an urban
interface, the City has already begun the process to
implement extensive improvements at major and minor
trailheads across the SLC Foothills. Off-street parking,
trailhead amenities, restrooms (when possible), waste
receptacles, and wayfinding signage to support the user
experience and protect the natural areas are all anticipated
in 2024.
Living Room
View
58Foothill Trail System Evaluation - Recommendations
This document suggests new trail development within the
Meridian Peak FOSZ as a starting point for future trail system
development. The development of specific projects within
Meridian Peak FOSZ should follow the multi-step Project
Implementation Process (PIP). There are numerous benefits to
beginning the Project Implementation Process with Meridian
Peak:
•The development of new trails and access improvements
in Meridian Peak FOSZ would provide new opportunities
for recreational access to City residents and would support
a diversity of trail types to appeal to a wide cross-section of
users.
•Project(s) in the Meridian Peak FOSZ will require permitting
with the USFS through the NEPA process. The rigorous
nature of this process will help establish the level of natural
and cultural resource review needed as a model for future
implementation projects in all FOSZs.
•Meridian Peak can act as a test of the PIP protocols and
provide valuable feedback to Public Lands to inform future
project development.
While Meridian Peak is proposed as a ‘next step’ for trail
development, Public Lands will continue on numerous parallel
efforts in the foothills.
Public Lands will maintain and conduct restoration projects
throughout the Foothills Open Space on an ongoing basis.
New wayfinding systems will be installed within 2 years,
providing tangible benefits to user access, education, and trail
sustainability. Trailhead improvements are being developed
to better integrate those access points with their surrounding
communities and improve user experience.
The future of trail system development in the Salt Lake
City Foothills is one of balance, patience, and holistic and
methodological processes. By planning and proceeding
through the recommended FOSZ planning process, and using
each project as an opportunity to improve environmental
review, public communication, land management,
and construction efforts, we can ensure the long-term
sustainability of the Foothills for generations to come.
COUNCIL STAFF
REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY25
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke, Sylvia Richards
Budget and Policy Analysts
DATE: August 27, 2024
RE: Budget Amendment Number 1 of Fiscal Year (FY) 2025
Budget Amendment Number One includes 22 proposed amendments, ($421,029,704 in revenues and $443,720,223
in expenditures) of which $1,969,783 is from General Fund Balance, requesting changes to thirteen funds with
three proposed general fund positions and four grant-funded positions. Most expenses in this budget amendment
are housekeeping items found in section D. There are four proposed Council-added items; however, only one of
these items would draw from the General Fund Balance. If all the items are approved as proposed, then the FY2026
annual budget would need $1.5 million to cover new ongoing costs. This increases to $4.5 million if the Homeless
Shelter Cities Mitigation State Grant funding is not awarded for FY2026.
Fund Balance
If all the items are adopted as proposed, including the $505,000 from Council-Added Item I-1 for tree
replacements on North Temple, then the General Fund Balance would be projected at 14.72% which is $8,262,954
above the 13% minimum target.
Four Straw Poll Requests
The Administration is requesting straw polls for four items. First is Item A-1 Attorney’s Office Organizational
Structure Change, requesting three new FTEs. The straw poll would allow early advertising of the job postings.
The Council may also wish to consider taking a straw poll for Item D-4, a request to add the $6.9 million operating
budget for the EDLF fund, which was inadvertently left out of the Mayor’s Recommended FY2025 annual budget.
Economic Development has submitted a request for $75,000 from the EDLF to Policy Kings Brewery. The Council
could consider a straw poll for the loan processing to begin before the Budget Amendment #1 adoption vote.
D-8 is another follow up from the annual budget which included a new financial analyst IV on the staffing document
but the funding for the position was inadvertently left out of the Mayor’s Recommended Budget. This position is
needed to comply with new state requirements for impact fees tracking and reporting.
D-14 includes claims related to the damage at the Dee Glen Tennis Bubble. Repairs have been paid for by the third-
party contractor. The City needs to reimburse the contractor. The Finance Department indicates this item is time-
sensitive and now requests a straw poll to expedite payment.
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
Project Timeline:
1st Briefing: August 27, 2024
2nd Briefing & Public Hearing: Sept. 3, 2024
3rd Briefing: Sept. 10, 2024 (if needed)
Potential Adoption Vote: Sept. 17, 2024
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Because this budget amendment is being transmitted within the first month of the Fiscal Year, no adjustments to the revenue
budget are anticipated at this time.
Fund Balance Chart
The Administration’s chart below shows the current General Fund Balance figures. Fund balance has been updated to include
proposed changes for BA#1.
Based on those projections adjusted fund balance is projected to be at 14.83%
The proposal includes nineteen initiatives for Council review.
A summary spreadsheet outlining proposed budget changes is attached. The Administration requests
this document be modified based on the decisions of the Council.
The budget opening is separated in eight different categories:
A.New Budget Items
B.Grants for Existing Staff Resources
C.Grants for New Staff Resources
D.Housekeeping Items
E.Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
F.Donations
G.Council Consent Agenda Grant Awards
I.Council Added Items
PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing
Impact Fee Unallocated “Available to Spend” Balances and Refund Tracking
The Council approved several million dollars of impact fee projects in the past few years. The table below is current as of
May 1, 2024 and includes a couple adjustments based on Budget Amendment #5 of FY2024 which was adopted after the
Mayor’s Recommended Budget was proposed to the Council on May 7. Available to spend impact fee balances are bank
account balances subtracting encumbrances and expired funds. The Mayor’s recommended CIP budget proposes using
$3,824,800 of parks impact fees. Impact fees must be encumbered or spent within six years of the City receiving them.
Expired impact fees must be returned to the entity who paid them with interest over the intervening six years.
Type Unallocated Cash
“Available to Spend”Next Refund Trigger Date $ Expiring in
FY2027
Fire $578,695 More than two years away -
Parks $20,931,089 August 2026 $6,893,768
Police $1,553,249 More than two years away -
Transportation $1,154,192 August 2026 $2,691,888
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: Attorney’s Office Three New FTEs, Leasing Office Space, and Organizational Structure Change
($522,461 from General Fund Balance for ongoing FTE costs, $102,000 from General Fund Balance to
the IMS Fund for one-time costs, and Rescope and Transfer to the CIP Fund $280,000 of the Existing
Interlocal Agreement Budget to Lease Office Space)
On June 28, 2024, the District Attorney’s Office notified the City Attorney’s Office of their intent to terminate the
management services interlocal agreement between the City and County. The agreement allows either party to initiate
the termination process. No specific termination criteria are required; the agreement may be ended with or without
cause. A six-month transition period is required before the agreement terminates which will end on December 31,
2024. Under the agreement, the County District Attorney also serves as the City Prosecutor and manages 31 City FTEs
in the City Prosecutor’s Office who are also located in the DA’s office building at 35 East 500 South. This budget
amendment item has three proposed parts to terminate the agreement and shift operations back into the City
Attorney’s Office.
$522,461 for Three New FTEs and Leadership Structure Change:
Listed below are the three new positions, costs for the positions through the remainder of FY2025, and the fully
loaded annual costs that would need to be included in the FY2026 General Fund annual budget. The total cost in
FY2025 for the three new FTEs is estimated to be $522,461.
- Senior City Attorney pay grade 39 proposed for 8 months at a cost of $157,636. The fully loaded annual cost is
estimated to be $236,454.
- City Prosecutor pay grade 39 proposed for 9 months at a cost of $178,278. The fully loaded annual cost is
estimated to be $237,704. A job description for this new position is included in the Administration’s
transmittal.
- Deputy Director of Administration pay grade 40 proposed for 9 months at a cost of $186,547. The fully loaded
annual cost is estimated to be $248,730. A job description for this new position is included in the
Administration’s transmittal.
It’s worth noting that when the interlocal agreement between the City and the DA was originally implemented in 2015,
four senior level positions in the Attorney’s Office were eliminated.
$280,000 Rescope for Leasing Office Space and Utilities:
According to Schedule A of the interlocal agreement, the total cost to the City for FY2025 is $944,596 ($443,708 lease
fee + $237,002 management fee + $263,886 operating fee). The fees are paid on a quarterly basis. Terminating the
agreement halfway through FY2025 would leave a remaining balance of $472,298. The Administration is proposing to
rescope $280,000 of this to lease office space for the 31 FTEs currently leasing office space in the District Attorney’s
Building and the new City Prosecutor. This would leave a remaining balance of $192,298. The Administration may
return to the Council in a budget amendment to rescope those remaining funds for other related costs such as tenant
improvements, equipment, furnishings, and if the office rent is greater than anticipated.
$102,000 for Hardware, Software, and IMS Costs:
The Administration is proposing a one-time transfer of $102,000 from General Fund Balance to the IMS Fund for
hardware, software, licensing, electronic devices, and other IMS costs for transitioning the 31 existing FTEs in the
Prosecutor’s Office and the three new FTEs referenced above. The existing case management system segregates City
Prosecutor and DA cases. This allows a data dump of the City’s cases to transfer onto another system.
Policy Questions:
➢Long-term Office Space for the City Prosecutor’s Office – The Council may wish to discuss with the
Administration options for identifying long-term office space for the City Prosecutor’s Office including room
to grow, limiting new leasing contracts to shorter terms to allow time to evaluate more options, and how this
could fit into the City’s overall space needs. In FY2024 CIP, the Council approved $200,000 for a
development strategy and spacing needs study. The Council could also ask the Administration to share the
final report from the study and/or provide a briefing.
➢Primary Responsibility for Class A Misdemeanors – The Council may wish to ask the Administration how the
decision will be made whether the City Prosecutor’s Office would take back primary responsibility for Class A
misdemeanors? Under the soon to be terminated interlocal agreement, the District Attorney has primary
responsibility for felonies, Class A, B, and C misdemeanors as well as infractions. After the agreement is
terminated, the new City Prosecutor would have primary responsibility for Class B and C misdemeanors and
infractions but Class A misdemeanors are less certain.
➢A Successful Transition and Performance Measures – The Council may wish to ask the Administration what
will a successful transition look like for the City Prosecutor’s Office functions to be brought back into the City
Attorney’s Office? The Council may also wish to ask the Administration to provide performance measures to
monitor how the transition goes such as average and median number of days to dispose cases by type, average
number of cases per prosecutor, number of cases referred to diversion courts (drug court, mental health court,
etc.), number of cases filed by type, number of convictions by type, number of victim notifications, etc.
STRAW POLL REQUEST: The Administration has requested a straw poll for this item to allow early hire advertising
of the three new positions before the budget amendment is formally adopted. The Council could also indicate whether
the rescope of funding to lease office space is generally supported or more time is needed to consider and share
information.
A-2: Reappropriation for Expanded Air Quality Incentives Pilot Program to Provide Indoor Devices
($30,000 one-time from the Environment & Energy Fund Balance)
This is a re-appropriation of $30,000 that the Council approved in Budget Amendment #4 of FY2024 because the
funding wasn’t encumbered under a contract, so it lapsed to the Environment & Energy Division Fund Balance at the
end of FY2024. This one-time expansion of the Air Quality Program would be a pilot program. The Division has
coordinated with the Housing Stability Division to potentially partner with the City’s existing home repair and
rehabilitation programs. Partnering with a community-based organization is also possible. An estimated 60
households are anticipated to participate. The pilot program would provide indoor air purifiers, HVAC filters, air
quality monitors, and single burner induction cooktops.
D-1: Airport Interim Financing ($400 Million one-time in the Airport Fund)
Salt Lake City Department of Airports (SLCDA) plans to issue interim financing up to $400 million for a Line of Credit
directly with a bank. We are currently in the procurement process and are negotiating the terms of the agreement
which we deem to be favorable, especially considering the low-interest rate environment. These funds will ultimately
be refunded with long-term debt, but we will maintain the facility for upwards of three years to help with financial
flexibility on the Airport Redevelopment Project. These funds can be used for operating and maintenance expenses or
to fund construction costs as determined by the Airport Finance division. Staff note: The Council held a public
hearing on this item at the August 13 formal meeting. This is the follow up budgeting step to authorize accepting and
spending the anticipated funds up to the $400 million maximum.
D-2: Interest on General Obligation (GO) Streets Reconstruction Bonds Series 2020, 2021, and 2022,
and Sales Tax Revenue Bonds Series 2022 B Tax Exempt and Series 2022 C Federal Taxable, and GO
Parks, Trails, & Open Space Bonds Series 2023 ($10,483,609 one-time interest earnings available to
projects eligible under the bond’s original authorization)
This item would recognize nearly $10.5 million of accumulated interest earnings from six bonds the City issued
between 2020 and 2023. Interest earned are considered bond proceeds and are spent on capital projects eligible
under the bond’s original authorization. The interest earned may not be used to pay debt service on the bonds. The
four general obligation bonds were authorized by voters. The two sales tax revenue bonds were authorized by the
Council.
The $4 million of interest from the three streets reconstruction GO bonds would be used to fund additional rebuilds of
city streets as determined by the Engineering Division’s Six Year Pavement Plan and deliberations of the Roadway
Selection Committee. The City uses a data-driven approach to first reconstruct streets with pavement in the worst
condition in collaboration with other public right of way projects such as public and private utilities.
At the time of publishing this staff report, the Administration was evaluating whether to recommend the $1 million of
interest from the 2023 Parks, Trails, & Open Space GO Bond should be contingency funding available to any of the 14
capital projects originally funded by the bond or to a specific project(s). This bond originally included $16 million as
contingency funding available to any project.
At the time of publishing this staff report, the Administration was evaluating whether the nearly $3.5 million of
interest from the sales tax revenue bond Series 2022 B should be contingency funding available to any of the five
capital projects originally funded by the bond or to a specific project(s). Those original projects and bond funded
amounts are: $6,100,000 for the Westside Railroad Quiet Zone project, $8,000,000 for the Warm Springs Plunge
Structure Stabilization & Improvements project, $11,200,000 for City Cemetery Road Repairs / Reconstruction
project, $9,753,000 for the 600 North Corridor Transformation project, and $7,500,000 for the Radio Towers
project. This bond originally had no contingency funding available to any project. As a tax-exempt bond, all of these
funds should be spent within three years of the issuance date which would be by September 2025.
Policy Question:
➢Flexible Contingency Funding or Use for Specific Projects – The Council may wish to discuss with
the Administration whether to approve the interest earnings from the Parks Bond and the Sales Tax Revenue
Bond for flexible contingency funding available to any projects originally funded by those bonds or identify
specific projects that would receive additional funding.
➢October 2025 Spending Deadline for Sales Tax Revenue Non-taxable Bond Proceeds – The
Council may wish to ask the Administration for status updates on the five projects funded by this bond and
next steps to meet the three-year spending deadline. As of May this year, only 5% of the $42.5 million from
the bonds had been spent. However, construction is anticipated to proceed soon on three of the five projects
which will significantly increase spending of the bond funds.
The following five paragraphs are from the City Treasurer’s Office and detail the interest earnings by bond issuance. A
best practice is to spend interest earned from unspent bonds before issuing new bonds for the same purpose.
General Obligation Bond Series 2020 was issued in September 2020 to fund reconstruction of City streets. Par
value of the issued bonds was $17,745,000. At the time the bonds were issued the proceeds were deposited with the
Trustee. Since then, unspent bond proceeds have earned interest. This amendment will adjust the budget to reflect
actual proceeds available including interest earned from December 2022 through June 2024. The interest related to
this issuance amounts to $571,672.02.
General Obligation Bonds Series 2021 was issued in November 2021 to fund reconstruction of City streets. Par
value of the issued bonds was $20,600,000. At the time the bonds were issued the proceeds were deposited with the
Trustee. Since then, unspent bond proceeds have earned interest. This amendment will adjust the budget to reflect
actual proceeds available including accumulated interest from December 2022 through June 2024. The interest
related to this issuance amounts to $1,463,994.53.
General Obligation Bonds Series 2022 was issued in September 2022 to fund reconstruction of City streets. Par
value of the issued bonds was $21,785,000. At the time the bonds were issued the proceeds were deposited with the
Trustee. Since then, unspent bond proceeds have earned interest. This amendment will adjust the budget to reflect
actual proceeds available including accumulated interest from October 2022 through June 2024. The interest related
to this issuance amounts to $1,966,209.86.
Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2022 B&C were issued in October 2022 for the purpose of financing several
capital projects throughout the City. The bonds were issued at a par amount of $64,225.000. This amendment will
adjust the budget to reflect actual proceeds available including accumulated interest from November 2022 through
June 2024. The interest related to this issuance amounts to $3,462,304.21 and $1,960,713.54 respectively.
General Obligation Bonds Series 2023 was issued in August 2023 to fund improvements of City parks and trails.
Par value of the issued bonds was $24,765,000. At the time the bonds were issued the proceeds were deposited with
the Trustee. Since then, unspent bond proceeds have earned interest. This amendment will adjust the budget to reflect
actual proceeds available including accumulated interest from September 2023 through June 2024. The interest
related to this issuance amounts to $1,058,714.66.
D-3: WITHDRAWN
D-4: Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF) Budget ($6,994,737 one-time for New Loans in
FY2025)
A budget for EDLF was inadvertently left out of the FY2025 annual budget. This item would provide an operating
budget for the EDLF to issue new small local business loans during FY2025. New loans would still be subject to
Council review and approval during public meetings. The Administration reports that a plan and mechanism are being
put into place to avoid such an oversight in the future. Typically, the EDLF fund balance would be included in the
Mayor’s Recommended Budget as the operating budget for the new fiscal year. The Council may wish to request that
in the future the Mayor’s Recommended Budget Book include greater information about the EDLF to improve
transparency and provide another mechanism to reduce the likelihood of this situation repeating.
D-5: Increased Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA) Federal Grant Award
($12,359 one-time in the Misc. Grants Fund)
This item is to recognize the increased HUD HOPWA award in the amount of $12,359 for FY 2025. The Council
approved and allocated the City's anticipated HUD HOPWA award in the total amount of $932,841 on
April 16, 2024. On June 11, 2024, the City was notified of the City's final HOPWA award in the total amount of
$945,200. The additional funds, the difference between the two amounts, are being allocated as per the Council
approved contingencies.
D-6: Rescope Vacant and Leased City-owned Property Maintenance Funding for Fleet Block
Predevelopment Activities including Surveys, Environmental Remediation, Demolition, and Security
(Rescope $200,000 from FY2023 and $500,000 from FY2024 both in the CIP Fund)
The Administration is requesting that $700,000 of FY 23 and FY 24 CIP Vacant/Surplus Maintenance funding be
rescoped to prepare the Fleet Block property, located at 300 – 400 West and 800 – 900 South for redevelopment. At
the time of publishing this staff report, the Council was also considering in the FY2025 CIP budget an additional
$500,000 for the same purpose. $1.2 million would be provided between the FY2025 CIP funding and these proposed
rescopes.
Funding will be utilized to prepare the property for redevelopment and to mitigate mounting security and safety
issues. It has become increasingly costly to secure the block, with the Administration seeing an immediate need for
security services of over $250,000 per year to address daily break-ins and vandalism. Rather than hiring long-term
security services, the Administration proposes substantially decreasing security concerns and increasing public safety
at the property site as soon as possible. Specific activities will be terminating utility connections, surveying the
property, abating asbestos and other environmental contaminants within the buildings, and demolition activities.
In October 2023, the Council approved $600,000 from the first issuance of the Parks, Trails, & Open Space Bond for
public engagement, concept development, and planning for creating a green public space on the southeast quadrant of
the Fleet Block. An additional $5.4 million for design and construction from that bond is anticipated in future
issuances. Council discussion included potentially including a civil rights monument / memorial / public art.
In December 2023, the Council adopted an ordinance that established the Form Based Mixed Use 11 zoning district,
and rezoned the Fleet Block to Form Based Mixed Use 11. The Council also adopted an ordinance that established the
southeast portion of the block as a public square in Title 15, pursuant to the boundaries included in the ordinance. The
Council also adopted a legislative action requiring a restrictive covenant be recorded against the property that
identifies that area of the Fleet Block as a public square.
D-7: Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF) Interest Forgiveness ($5,264 one-time from General
Fund Balance)
HUB Salt Lake, LLC, a borrower from the Economic Development Loan Fund, requested forgiveness from Salt Lake
City on accumulated interest from the period of 9/2021 – 4/2024, due to the unforeseen hardship and impacts from
the COVID pandemic and inability to access Salt Lake City’s small business relief programs. This request was not
recommended by the Department of Economic Development (DED) but was brought to City Council for consideration.
At the authorization and approval of City Council, the Department of Economic Development has submitted a budget
amendment request to allocate the requested funding to the Economic Development Loan Fund to be distributed to
the business/borrower. The loan, including accumulated interest, to Hub Salt Lake LLC was paid off in May of 2024,
and as such, the requested amount would be submitted to the borrower as a reimbursement.
D-8: Annual Budget Cleanup; Impact Fees Tracking & Compliance Financial Analyst IV FTE in the Capital
Asset Planning Office of the Finance Department ($143,258 from General Fund Balance, $140,258
ongoing Reimbursement to the General Fund from Impact Fees, and $3,000 one-time to the IMS Fund)
This is a follow up item from the annual budget. A financial analyst IV FTE was inadvertently not included in the Mayor’s
Recommended Budget. The position would be funded for 10 months to recognize the time to hire at a cost of $143,258 at
pay grade 32. The fully loaded annual cost is estimated at $171,910. The position would be fully funded from impact fees
and entirely dedicated to tracking, compliance, and planning for impact fees. The four types of impact fees (fire, parks,
police, and transportation) could equally split the cost of the position depending on factors such as how much time the
analyst spends working in each area, the outstanding available balance by type, and number of projects by type. The
Finance Department provided the below summary of why the position is needed. Staff note: state law requires impact
fees to be encumbered or spent within six years of the City receiving them, and a refund of impact fees must be paid with
interest to the original payor.
"We are requesting the position based on the new requirements from the state auditor. The reporting and tracking for
impact fees has become extremely complex. All impact fees that are budgeted must be tracked individually. This includes
the dedicated revenues that are associated by the building permit as well as any match. Individual revenues and expenses
have to be tied to the individual project. This tracking is going to take a lot of work for Salt Lake City to ensure that the
revenues are being spent in a timely fashion by project and to update the departments that the timing of the funds needing
to be spent. If we don't do this type of tracking on an ongoing basis, it could result in more refunds that have to be given."
STRAW POLL REQUESTED: The Administration has requested a straw poll for this item to allow early advertising of
the job posting.
D-9: Maintenance on New Public Lands Assets and Expanded Complaint-based Weed Abatement
($329,150 one-time Transfer from the Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Transportation and $142,800 from
General Fund Balance to Nondepartmental)
This budget amendment requests approval to fund unfunded maintenance for 9 new properties and the complaint
based weed abatement. This funding will cover FY 2025 maintenance needs for these properties. The total one-time
funding of $471,950, will be funded by transferring $329,150 from Fund Balance of the Transportation Fund to the
General Fund, and an additional $142,800 from the General Fund. This is a one-time funding request. In the future,
these properties will be included the Capital Asset Planning Team led assessment of all unfunded maintenance of
General Fund owned properties that will score, rank, and recommend a holistic approach to funding unfunded
maintenance going forward.
Breakout in cost:
- $32,800 Seasonal Staff Hours
- $439,150 Contracted Services
- $471,950 Total BA Request
Funds are to be transferred into Non-Departmental within the Public Lands Cost Center.
D-10: Reappropriations for Public Utilities Enterprise Funds ($1,047,200 one-time in the Storm
Water Fund, $659,624 one-time in the Water Fund, and $575,000 one-time in the Sewer Fund)
This item includes three reappropriations for budgets that the Council previously approved in FY2024 because the
funding wasn’t encumbered under a contract so it lapsed to the fund balances for each of the three enterprise funds at
the end of FY2024. The funds would cover a mix of equipment and project procurements that are still needed.
D-11: Attorney’s Office Breakroom Construction ($149,000 one-time from General Fund Balance)
The Department of the City Attorney’s office has engaged with the Engineering/Public Services team to complete the
work for the fifth-floor breakroom construction presented initially in FY 2024 and had been informed we will not be
able to secure work orders/contracts prior to the end of the fiscal year.
Improvements are all directed towards the 5th floor breakroom. The 5th floor currently houses the majority of the
Attorney’s department (civil, litigation, risk, legislative affairs).
Related, as noted in Item A-1, the Prosecutor's Office is returning to the leadership of the City Attorney's office in
December, which requires the hiring of a City Prosecutor and transitioning 31 employees from the District Attorney
Offices to a City-managed space and using City devices.
D-12: Rescope Waste & Recycling Division Temporary Staffing Agency Funding to Provide Seasonal
and/or Part-time Equipment Operators ($75,000 rescope one-time in the Waste & Recycling Fund)
The Waste & Recycling Division of Sustainability is requesting to transfer $75,000 from the Other Charges & Services
spend category used to pay a temporary staffing agency to provide seasonal and part-time personnel. The Division
typically hires 4-5 temporary employees at times throughout the year to support a variety of needs resulting from
increases in seasonal workloads. Rather than pay a temporary staffing agency their typical 30-40% wage loading rate,
the division can hire seasonal and/or part-time employees with more flexibility and more cost effectively. This, in
turn, also allows the Division to be more wage competitive in what remains a very tight labor market.
D-13: Reappropriation for Security Access Control System Upgrades ($400,000 one-time from
General Fund Balance)
This is a reappropriation of $400,000 that the Council approved in Budget Amendment #3 of FY2024 because the
funding was encumbered under a contract so it lapsed to the General Fund Balance at the end of FY2024. 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 may wish to request an update on other planned security improvements and consider
whether funding for the security access system should be a new appropriation instead of using
funds that were originally budgeted for physical security improvements at the City & County
Building.
D-14: Claims Damage Reimbursement for Tennis Bubble ($23,634 one-time from the Risk Fund)
In March of 2024, the Dee Glen Tennis Bubble located at 1216 Wasatch Drive was damaged. This exposure caused the
Tennis Bubble to deflate causing significant damage to both the exterior and interior of the Tennis Bubble.
Additionally, some of the equipment and electrical inside the Tennis Bubble was damaged. The Tennis Bubble is
owned and insured by Salt Lake City, but managed, maintained, and operated by a third-party contractor. The repairs
have been paid for by the third-party contractor and the City needs to process the awarded claim settlement and
distribute it to the third-party contractor in the amount of $23,633.48.
STRAW POLL REQUESTED: The Administration has requested a straw poll for this item to allow expediting the
receipt and payment of the reimbursement.
D-15: Accelerate 14 Parks Capital Projects (Rescope $5.35 Million of Parks Bond Funds from Glendale
Park to Nine Parks Projects, New $15.35 Million of Parks Impact Fees to Four Parks Projects, and
Rescope $3 Million of Sales Tax Revenue Bond Funds from Smith’s Ballpark Plus $1.96 Million in
Bond Interest Earnings to Pioneer Park)
The Administration is proposing $17.3 million of new capital improvements funding to accelerate 14 parks projects.
Most of this comes from $15.35 million of parks impact fees. It also would rescope $5.35 million from the Parks Bond,
rescope $3 million and $1.96 million of interest earnings from the 2022 Sales Tax Revenue Bond. The changes are
meant to better align the spending deadlines of bond funds and impact fees with project construction timelines, and it
should be noted that the projects as previously presented will still be completed, these changes mostly affect funding
sources and timelines while a few have scope increases. Impact fees must be spent within six years. Nearly $7 million
of parks impact fees are scheduled to expire in FY2027 and capital projects typically take two years or more to be
completed. The City’s balance of parks impact fees is approximately $21 million as of May 1, 2024. Non-taxable bond
funds must be spent within three years. The 2022 Sales Tax Revenue Bond Series B were issued in October 2022 and
have a spending deadline of October 2025. The table below shows the fund source changes proposed for the 14
projects and the net change in the project funding. The notes column has details such as additional project funding,
construction timelines, and Council District for the smaller neighborhood parks.
Project Parks Bond
Parks
Impact
Fees
2022
Sales Tax
Revenue
Bond
Change in
Project
Funding
Notes
Glendale Park $ (5,350,000) $ 11,350,000 $ - $ 6,000,000
Phase 1 construction would
remain fully funded. The
$6 million increase is for
Phase 2 construction.
Additional Parks Bond
funding is anticipated in
future issuances. The
Council approved $3.2
million of parks impact fees
for the project previously
Jordan River
Corridor $ 500,000 $ - $ - $ 500,000
Would fund designs based
on the Emerald Ribbon
Action Plan (upcoming
interim check in briefing
for the Council)
Donner Trail
Park $ 675,000 $ - $ - $ 675,000
Construction would be in
2025. District Six
neighborhood park
Taufer Park $ 675,000 $ - $ - $ 675,000
Construction would be in
2025 or 2026. District Four
neighborhood park
Richmond Park $ 675,000 $ - $ - $ 675,000
Construction would be in
2025 or 2026. District Four
neighborhood park
Steenblik Park $ 675,000 $ - $ - $ 675,000
Construction would be in
2025. District One
neighborhood park
Ida Cotton Park $ 675,000 $ - $ - $ 675,000
Construction would be in
2025. District Five
neighborhood park
Madsen Park $ 675,000 $ - $ - $ 675,000
Construction would be in
2025. District Two
neighborhood park
Project Parks Bond
Parks
Impact
Fees
2022
Sales Tax
Revenue
Bond
Change in
Project
Funding
Notes
Contingency $ 500,000 $ - $ - $ 500,000
Funding available to cover
cost overruns for any Parks
Bond project
Public Art at
Parks Bond
Funded Projects
$ 300,000 $ - $ - $ 300,000
Would go through the Arts
Council with contracts
signed in 2025 and art
installed 2025 or 2026
Liberty Park
Rotary All
Abilities Play
Park &
Playground
$ - $ 2,000,000 $ - $ 2,000,000
Would double the total
project funding to $4
million; project is already
receiving $2 million from
the Parks Bond
Folsom Trail
Landscaping &
Irrigation
$ - $ 1,000,000 $ - $ 1,000,000
Would increase the total
project funding to $6
million; project is already
reciing $5 million from the
Parks Bond
Warm Springs &
North Gateway
Park
$ - $ 1,000,000 $ - $ 1,000,000
The two parks are on either
side of the Warm Springs
Historic Plunge Building.
Council gave direction to
combine them into Warm
Spring Park, likely by
ordinance amendment
Smith’s Ballpark $ - $ - $ (3,000,000) $ (3,000,000)
As a non-taxable bond,
these funds have an
October 2025 spending
deadline. The RDA Board
approved $715,000 for the
Ballpark Next Strategy
which is anticipated to be
completed in 2025
Pioneer Park $ - $ - $ 4,960,714 $ 4,960,714
Would increase the total
project funding to over $18
million ($10 million from
the sales tax bond and over
$3.4 million from parks
impact fees). As a non-
taxable bond, these funds
have an October 2025
spending deadline
Funding
Source Totals $ - $15,350,000 $ 1,960,714 $ 17,310,714
$17.3 million of new
spending would be
authorized by the Council.
The remaining balance of
unallocated parks impact
fees would be approx. $3
million. The $1.96 million
is interest earnings from
the sales tax bond
This request accelerates project construction, builds more of the amenities the public has requested without creating
new projects, and improves the City’s ability to quickly spend funding from the 1st Tranche (Nov 2022; Oct 2023) of
the Parks GO Bond, Parks Impact Fees, and the Sales Tax Revenue Bond (Aug 2022).
Parks GO Bond 1st Tranche: Reallocate $5,350,000 (of $9,000,000) from Glendale Park Phase 1 Construction/Phase
2 Design. Allocate $5,350,000 to accelerate the construction of nine (9) existing Parks GO Bond projects that would
otherwise have to wait for the issuance of the Parks GO Bond’s 2nd Tranche (see bullet point list below). This saves
the City and taxpayers money by delaying the issuance of the 2nd Tranche of the Parks GO Bond until FY 2026 and
allows those nine projects, which need $5,350,000 for bidding and contracting as soon as January 2025, to move
forward without delay. The projects included are:
- Jordan River Corridor: $500,000 for 2025 design (Phase 1 projects prioritized by the City and the public in
the Emerald Ribbon Action Plan)
- Donner Trail Park: $675,000 for 2025 construction
- Taufer Park: $675,000 for 2025 or 2026 construction
- Richmond Park: $675,000 for 2025 or 2026 construction
- Steenblik Park: $675,000 for 2025 construction
- Ida Cotten Park: $675,000 for 2025 construction
- Madsen Park: $675,000 for 2025 construction
- Contingency: $500,000
- Art: $300,000 for anticipated 2025 artist and fabricator contracts
Parks Impact Fees: Allocate $5,350,000 in Parks Impact Fees to Glendale Park Phase 1 Construction/Phase 2 Design
(replacing the GO Bond’s 1st Tranche allocation of the same amount, described above). Allocate an additional
$6,000,000 in Parks Impact Fees for Glendale Phase 2 Construction, potentially reducing the size of the 2nd Tranche
of the Parks GO Bond, freeing up 2nd and 3rd Tranche funding for other Parks GO Bond projects, and/or increasing
the Phase 2 Design team’s ability to provide more of the amenities that the public requested in the Glendale Regional
Park Vision Plan. (Note: Additional Parks Impact Fee requests for Glendale Park are very likely; they would occur
after future design phases are more fleshed out and cost estimated.) Also allocate an additional $4,000,000 in Parks
Impact Fees to three, fully impact fee-eligible, in-progress Parks GO Bond projects that could easily incorporate
additional funding without any delays to their established project schedules or to the public’s project delivery
expectations. These projects include:
- Liberty Park Rotary Play Park and Playground: $2,000,000 for 2025 construction (new, accessible features
requested by hundreds of children and parents involved in the project in 2023 and 2024)
- Folsom Trail Landscaping and Irrigation: $1,000,000 for 2025 construction (more robust landscaping,
irrigation, and amenities improvements in the Folsom Corridor between 1000 West and 500 West, beyond
the original construction estimate that focused only on improvements near intersections)
- Warm Springs and North Gateway Park: $1,000,000 for 2026 or 2027 construction (greater ability for the
City to deliver the vision that is being developed by the stakeholders involved in this project, including Native
American, Pacific Islander, and local communities)
Sales Tax Revenue Bond: Recapture and reallocate $3,000,000 (of $3,000,000 total) from the now tentative
Smith’s Ballpark project and allocate an additional $1,960,713.54 (of $1,960,713.54 total) from the Revenue Bond’s
interest income to the Pioneer Park sales tax revenue bond-funded project.
D-16: Rowland Hall Contribution for Traffic Calming on Sunnyside Ave ($100,000 one-time to the
CIP Fund)
As part of a Development Agreement with Rowland Hall to develop a certain property on Sunnyside Avenue, Rowland
Hall has agreed to contribute $100,000 to the City to be used for traffic calming and pedestrian safety measures on
Sunnyside Avenue. The development is now in a phase where the funding has come due, and, as such, needs to be
appropriated.
Section E: Grants Requiring No Staff Resources
E-1: Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Grant FY25 ($2,945,958 from Grant Fund)
The grant funds 20.75 hourly positions. These positions are broken down as follows:
- 1.0 HEART Grant Specialist-50% of time is charged to the grant.
- 2.0 FTE HEART Coordinators-100% of time is charged to the grant.
- 1.0 Justice Court Intercept-100% of time is charged to the grant.
12.0 officers-100% of time is charged to the grant
- 3.0 Sergeants-100% of time is charged to the grant
- 3.0 officers - 6 months of time is charged to grant
- 1.0 Lieutenant - 9 months of time is charged to the grant
Note: All positions EXCEPT 3 officers and 1 Lieutenant are positions that have been previously paid for by the grant.
The 3 officers and Lieutenant are new to this grant for this funding year.
Policy question:
➢The Council may wish to ask the Administration when they will be requesting the $662,760
needed from the General Fund for the equipment and safety gear needed for all the grant-funded
positions or whether existing budget could absorb some or all the costs? The grant provides 4 new
positions in SLCPD to assist with HRC’s & YWCA. Sub-award will go to Volunteers of America. The award was less
this year and does NOT fund police vehicles and computers or ongoing equipment costs for 15 officers. The
Administration indicates it will request that general fund balance be used to fund these needs which the grant no
longer covers.
Questions and Responses from the Administration:
•Are there any one-time costs needed but not covered by this grant which would be paid for
another way (e.g, vehicles, equipment, supplies)?
HEART – All costs are included in the funding request.
SLCPD –Police officer one-time costs for vehicles and computers are not covered by this grant. Also, no
ongoing costs for any of the police equipment on the current or new FTE’s are included. See one-time costs in
the chart below:
Housing Mitigation Cost Estimate for FY 25
Equipment Costs FTE Cost Total
Officer Vehicles (Fleet) - NEW 4 $ 69,000 $ 276,000
Computers /software (IMS) - NEW 4 $ 7,150 $ 28,600
Officer Equipment/Safety/gear 15 $ 44,184 $ 662,760
Officer Equipment/Safety/gear - NEW 4 $ 48,887 $ 195,548
Overtime MOU related- 15 hours/Month per FTE 19 $ 11,200 $ 212,800
Total cost estimate for FY 25 $ 169,221 $ 1,375,708
•Would this shift the $662,760 of ongoing costs for the 15 existing officers out of the Police
Department budget to this grant? It seems those ongoing costs would have been covered in the
PD budget for the existing employees.
Those costs have not yet been moved to general fund. They have been covered by the grant in previous fiscal
years but the grant funding is not enough to cover personnel and equipment in fy25 - only personnel. Because
of that, we need to make a request to have ongoing costs for all non-personnel costs covered in general fund.
Grant Funded Positions
EXISTING POSITIONS # of hourly
positions
Salary Amount
HEART Grant Specialist list -50% of time charged
to grant
.50 $42,296.80
2 FTE HEART Coordinators 100% of time charged
to grant
2.0 $157,414.40
1 Justice Court Intercept 100% of time charged to
grant
1.0 $87,360
12 officers- 100% of time charged to grant 12.0 $778,752
3 Sergeants-100% of time charged to grant 3.0 $330,720
NEW POSITIONS
3 officers-6 months charged to grant 1.5 $76,076
1 Lieutenant-9 months of time charged to grant .75 $98,280
20.75 $1,570,899.20
Other Employee Costs
Differential salary rate estimate $9,919.01
Salary amount FTE $1,570,899.20
12.5% of total salaries of SLCPD
PTO moved to fringe per state
requirement
(160,479)
Total Salary costs $1,420,339.51
Total fringe for all employees $1,112,767.20
Grand total Personnel Costs $2,533,106.71
Volunteers of America – the VOA subaward supports the continuation of the Mitigation Outreach Team with five (5) FTE
positions. The members of the Mitigation Outreach Team include one (1) Business and Community Liaison to coordinate
support and advocate for neighbors of SLC qualifying shelter programs, as well as unhoused individuals to the City. 4 FTE
Street Outreach workers prov ide direct services include street outreach care coordination to connect individuals with
opportunities for short- and long-term support and resources, and housing focused case management to support
unsheltered individuals transition to housing. The VOA subaward is $402,007.06.
The request includes funds for supplies and training for two (2) HEART Team members. This includes material for
community engagement, ($3,000) mobile phones ($1,071), and attendance at the National Alliance to End
Homelessness ($6,770.)
•Is there a status update on the request for a match waiver?
We have not heard back yet. It will probably be early September before they announce awards and notify us if
a match waiver was granted.
•How much funding would the grant need to be next year to fully cover the ongoing costs
including the new FTEs?
If the program maintains the same level of SLC staffing and costs for supplies and travel, the budget will
increase approximately $1,179,246.60. This number reflects the new FTE’s increase to 100% and a 5%
increase in salaries and benefits. It is unknown if the VOA sub award will increase.
SLC will be notified of the FY 26 allocation in Summer 2025. The program is funded by the State Homeless
Fund. If the amount reduces or the increase is ≤$1,179,246.60, the program will reevaluate how services are
delivered and seek improvements to maintain a level of service with fewer funds.
•Could you please clarify the second HEART Community Engagement Coordinator? The
Council approved a Sequential Intercept Program Coordinator (Miami Model) as part of the
grant last year but the new grant memo shows that position as new? There is also a second
HEART Community Engagement Coordinator listed as existing but this does not appear to be
what the Council approved for the grant last year?
The second HEART Community Engagement Coordinator has been included in the Homeless Shelter Cities
Mitigation grant funded positions since FY22. The position has continued to be a part of budget.
Section F: Donations
(None)
Section G: Grant Consent Agenda No. 4
G-1:
(None)
Section I: Council-Added Items
I-1: Replacing Trees on North Temple ($505,000 from Funding Our Future Fund Balance/Parks
Maintenance)
Council Members asked what funding would be needed to replace the dying trees and landscaping along North Temple
where herbicide was accidentally sprayed last October. Using FY2025 CIP funding and / or $933,152 of parks capital
maintenance funding in CIP could be used. During the August 13 CIP briefing, the Council decided that addressing this
project better belonged in Budget Amendment #1 pulling from General Fund Balance because it’s an emergent situation
using one-time funding. The Public Lands Department stated 219 dead or dying trees are estimated to be removed in the
next couple months. The irrigation system along North Temple is in good condition. The manufacturer recommends
waiting until October 2026 before planting trees back into the grounds where the herbicide was applied. A new “double-
safe procedure” has been implemented requiring a supervisor and a warehouse employee to both approve checking out
herbicide to prevent a similar situation from happening. The Department provided the below interim plan, table of
potential costs, and Attachment XXX as a community flyer about the situation.
Item Subtotal
Tree removal, stump grinding, new trees planted in planters $85,000
Tree planters (Qty 100, Unit Cost ~$2,000)$200,000
Landscaping, soil removal (top 4”), mulch, modify irrigation for
planters $220,000
Total $505,000
Policy Question:
➢Additional Resources Needed – The community flyer distributed by Public Lands states that “the department
is committed to replanting two trees for every tree lost due to unintentional herbicide use.” The Council may wish
to ask the Administration are additional funding requests anticipated beyond the $505,000 estimate to keep this
public commitment? Or would existing budgets be sufficient to purchase additional trees?
I-2: PLACEHOLDER: Follow-up on CIP to Recapture Funds from a Cancelled Project and Projects
Completed Under Budget
This item is a placeholder depending on the outcome of the Council’s CIP deliberations and adoption vote scheduled for
August 27. At the time of publishing this staff report, the Council was considering a recapture of the $1,012,153 from
capital projects that were completed under budget and the $875,000 from the cancelled Sorenson Center connecting
corridor project (originally funded in 2019).
I-3: Follow-Up on CDGB - Two Funding Awards Applied for and Declined by Switchpoint ($60,000)
The CDBG award was less than anticipated. As a result, the funding for Utah Legal Services was reduced to zero. Some
Council Members have requested that $30,000 be provided to Utah Legal Services and that the remaining $30,000 be
added to the next CDBG cycle.
I-4: PLACEHOLDER Y2 Analytics Contract – Funding for Additional Surveys
ATTACHMENTS
1. North Temple Trees Community Flyer
ACRONYMS
CAFR – Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
CDBG – Community Development Block Grant
CREP – Commission on Racial Equity in Policing
CIP – Capital Improvement Program
FOF – Funding Our Future
FTE – Full time Employee / Equivalent
FY – Fiscal Year
GF – General Fund
HOPWA – Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS
IMS – Information Management Services
RDA – Redevelopment Agency
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Request: Tracking New Ongoing Costs to the General Fund
Council staff has provided the following list of potential 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 costs 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 FY2026
Annual Budget
Full Time Employee
(FTEs)Notes
#1
Item A-1 Attorney’s Office
Organizational Structure
Change
$722,888
3 FTEs:
1 City Prosecutor
1 Senior City Attorney
1 Deputy Director of
Administration
City Prosecutor $178,278 for 9 months/$237,704
annually
Senior City Attorney Class 39 - $157,635.74 for 8
months/$236,454 annually
Deputy Director of Administration Class 40 -
$186,547 for 9 months or $248,730 annually.
At the time of publishing this staff report, the cost to
lease office space is unknown. The cost could be more or
less than the current budget under the soon to be
terminated interlocal agreement with the District
Attorney’s Office.
#1
Item D-8
$171,910
1 FTE:
Capital Asset Planning
Financial Analyst IV
position
Inadvertently left out of the Mayor’s Recommended
FY2025 Budget. Position would be dedicated to impact
fees compliance tracking and reporting for new state
requirements. Impact fees fully reimburse the General
Fund for the position’s cost.
$2,945,957 grant
funding*
4 FTEs:
3 Officer positions
1 Sergeant position
*Amount of grant funding needed in order to fully cover
the ongoing costs including the new FTEs.
#1
Item E-1 Homeless
Shelter Cities Mitigation
Grant FY25
Costs currently paid for
by the Homeless Shelter
Cities Mitigation Grant in
FY2024 that might be
shifting to the General
Fund in FY2025 $662,760
For ongoing costs related
to 15 existing FTEs
$662,760 is needed for ongoing equipment for all 15
officers. The Administration is checking whether existing
budgets could absorb some of these costs.
TOTAL $4,503,515 8 New FTES
North Temple Tree Replacement Plan
This document provides detailed information about the herbicide application
occurrence, our current situation, and next steps.
Last fall, a Parks Division maintenance
worker did not follow the correct
herbicide application protocols,
leading to the poisoning of many
mature trees along North Temple
Street. The herbicide is typically used
to kill shrubs and trees without
harming grass. However, it was
mistakenly applied near the base of
trees to kill weeds.
As a result, 219 trees have died.
Industry specialists have advised us to
wait three years before replanting
new trees to prevent any remaining
active herbicide in the soil from
negatively impacting future tree
plantings.
What Happened
Only trained and licensed staff are
permitted to spray certain chemicals.
Public Lands added additional
measures to prevent future incidents.
A new double-safe procedure
requires licensed staff to get approval
from a supervisor and a trained
warehouse technician before they
can check out herbicides. Public
Lands will include training for these
new controls in the park maintenance
procedures and the annual training
for the spraying season.
Response
Many trees will be replaced along the North
Temple Corridor. Additionally, the department
is committed to replanting two trees for every
tree lost due to unintentional herbicide use.
Public Lands staff are identifying suitable new
planting areas in the North Temple area and will
update the community as soon as these new
locations are determined.
Future Planting Efforts
Public Lands is working to address the dead
and dying trees along the west side of North
Temple through a holistic landscape design
approach.
Though there are various landscaping options,
we acknowledge several critical limitations the
community should be aware of that will inform
the landscape design decisions for the corridor.
1. Industry experts have recommended a three year rest period before in-ground tree plantings proceed. Public Lands will begin planting in-ground in Fall 2026.
2. Trees replaced along the corridor will be re-planted in the ground once soil tests are approved.
3. Several landscaping styles are found along the corridor, and each one can accommodate different planting features. The corridor cannot accommodate a one-size-fits-all approach, so each area will receive a specialized landscape design approach.
SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL
To:
Salt Lake City Council Chair
Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency Chair
Start Date:
08/13/2024
Date Sent to Council:
08/13/2024
From:
Employee Name:
Hillier, Randy
E-mail
Randy.Hillier@slc.gov
Department
Finance
Department Director Signature Chief Administrator Officer's Signature *
Director Signed Date
08/13/2024
Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date
08/13/2024
Subject:
FY 2025 Budget Amendment #1 - Retransmittal
New transmittal or
Revision *
New transmittal
Revision
Revision Updates:
Two items were added, job descriptions for Attorney's Office positions were revised, and various numbers were updated accordingly.
Additional Staff Contact:
Greg Cleary Greg.Cleary@slc.gov and Mary Beth Thompson Marybeth.Thompson@slc.gov
Presenters/Staff Table
Greg Cleary Greg.Cleary@slc.gov and Mary Beth Thompson Marybeth.Thompson@slc.gov
Document Type *
Ordinance
Budget Impact *
Yes
No
Budget Impact:
$442,951,174
Recommendation:*
The Administration recommends that subsequent to a public hearing, the City Council adopt the following amendments to the FY 2025 adopted budget.
Background/Discussion (?)
The Administration is requesting a budget amendment totaling $421,534,704in revenues and $442,951,174 in expenses across all funds. The amendment proposes changes in 13 funds, with three (3) general fund positions being proposed, and four(4) grant funded positions. The proposal includes two (2) new initiatives for Council review and additional housekeeping and grant related items.
A summary spreadsheet outlining proposed budget changes is attached. The Administration requests this document be modified based on the decisions of the Council.
Will the City Council need to hold a public hearing for this item?*
Yes
No
Public Process
Public Hearing
Chief Administrator Officer's Comments
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: _______________
Jill Love, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: __________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: August 13, 2024
Victoria Petro, Chair
FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT: FY25 Budget Amendment #1 - Retransmittal
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 2025 adopted budget.
BUDGET IMPACT:
REVENUE EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND 469,408.00 1,793,932.52
AIRPORT FUND 400,000,000.00 400,000,000.00
HOUSING & LOAN FUND 6,994,736.48 6,994,736.48
CIP FUND 10,983,608.82 28,294,322.36
IMPACT FEES FUND 0.00 140,258.00
IMS FUND 105,000.00 105,000.00
TRANSPORTATION FUND 0.00 329,150.00
STORM WATER FUND 0.00 1,047,200.00
WATER FUND 0.00 659,624.00
SEWER FUND 0.00 575,000.00
SUSTAINABILITY FUND 0.00 30,000.00
RISK MANAGEMENT FUND 23,633.48 23,633.48
MISCELLANEOUS GRANTS FUND 2,958,317.00 2,958,317.00
TOTAL 421,534,703.78 442,951,173.84
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Revenue for FY 2025 Budget Adjustments
The chart below presents General Fund Projected Revenues for FY 2025. Because this budget
amendment is being transmitted within the first month of the Fiscal Year, no adjustments to the
revenue budget are anticipated at this time.
The table below presents updated Fund Balance numbers and percentages, based on the proposed changes
included in Budget Amendment #1.
With the complete adoption of Budget Amendment #1, the available fund balance will adjust to 14.83 percent
of the FY 2025 Adopted Budget. Please note that year end activity will be finalized in the coming months,
which may impact fund balance percentage.
FOF GF Only TOTAL FOF GF Only TOTAL
Beginning Fund Balance 24,309,089 178,266,652 202,575,741 18,112,496 95,271,568 113,384,064
Budgeted Change in Fund Balance (3,657,641) (29,211,158) (32,868,799) (4,162,906) (36,664,442) (40,827,348)
Prior Year Encumbrances (2,538,952) (18,618,979) (21,157,931)
Estimated Beginning Fund Balance 18,112,496 130,436,515 148,549,011 13,949,590$ 58,607,126$ 72,556,716$
Beginning Fund Balance Percent 34.61%33.26%33.42%22.72%13.99%15.10%
Year End ACFR Adjustments
Revenue Changes - - -
Expense Changes (Prepaids, Receivable, Etc.) (2,484,423) (2,484,423)
Fund Balance w/ ACFR Changes 18,112,496 127,952,092 146,064,588 13,949,590 58,607,126 72,556,716
Final Fund Balance Percent 34.61%32.63%32.86%
Budget Amendment Use of Fund Balance
BA#1 Revenue Adjustment - - - 469,408
BA#1 Expense Adjustment - (204,200) (204,200) (1,793,933)
BA#2 Revenue Adjustment - - -
BA#2 Expense Adjustment - 763,950 763,950
BA#3 Revenue Adjustment - - -
BA#3 Expense Adjustment - (3,046,220) (3,046,220)
BA#4 Revenue Adjustment - - -
BA#4 Expense Adjustment - (2,890,480) (2,890,480)
BA#5 Revenue Adjustment - 5,513,148 5,513,148
BA#5 Expense Adjustment - (32,816,722) (32,816,722)
BA#6 Revenue Adjustment - - -
BA#6 Expense Adjustment - - -
Change in Revenue - -
Change in Expense -
Fund Balance Budgeted Increase - -
- - Adjusted Fund Balance 18,112,496 95,271,568 113,384,064 13,949,590 58,607,126 71,232,191
Adjusted Fund Balance Percent 34.61% 24.29% 25.51%22.72% 13.99% 14.83%
Projected Revenue 52,338,120 392,166,803 444,504,923 61,397,384 419,006,975 480,404,359
Salt Lake City
General Fund
TOTAL
Fund Balance Projections
FY2025 BudgetFY2024 Budget
The Administration is requesting a budget amendment totaling $421,534,704 in revenues and
$442,951,174 in expenses across all funds. The amendment proposes changes in 13 funds, with
three (3) general fund positions being proposed, and four (4) grant funded positions. The
proposal includes two (2) new initiatives for Council review and additional housekeeping and
grant related items.
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
This page has intentionally been left blank
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. ______ of 2024
(First amendment to the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, including
the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2024-2025)
An Ordinance Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 46 of 2024 which adopted the
Final Budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2024, and Ending
June 30, 2025.
In June of 2024, 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,
2024, and ending June 30, 2025, 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. 46 of 2024.
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, 2024 and ending June 30, 2025, 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:
_______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. _________ of 2024.
Published: ___________________.
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Approved As To Form
___ _______
Jaysen Oldroyd
This page has intentionally been left blank
Initiative Number/Name Fund Revenue Amount Expenditure
Amount Revenue Amount Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
1 Attorney's Office Organizational Structure Change GF 0.00 (280,000.00)One-time -
1 Attorney's Office Organizational Structure Change CIP 280,000.00 280,000.00 One-time -
1 Attorney's Office Organizational Structure Change GF 0.00 522,461.00 Ongoing 3.00
1 Attorney's Office Organizational Structure Change GF 0.00 102,000.00 One-time -
1 Attorney's Office Organizational Structure Change IMS 102,000.00 102,000.00 One-time -
2 Indoor Air Quality Incentives Sustainability 0.00 30,000.00 One-time -
1 Airport Interim Financing Airport 400,000,000.00 400,000,000.00 One-time -
2 Interest on General Obligation Series 2020 thru 2023
and Sales and Excise Tax Bond Series 2022 B&C CIP 10,483,608.82 10,483,608.82 One-time -
3 Community-based Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
Training (CREP Holding Account)GF 0.00 (240,950.00)One-time -
3 Community-based Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
Training (CREP Holding Account)GF 0.00 240,950.00 One-time -
4 Economic Development Loan Fund Budget Housing & Loan 6,994,736.48 6,994,736.48 One-time -
5 Increased HOPWA Awards FY 25 Misc Grants 12,359.00 12,359.00 One-time -
6 Fleet Block Demolition Rescope - FY 2023 (Surplus
Maintenance Fund)CIP 0.00 (200,000.00)One-time -
6 Fleet Block Demolition Rescope - FY 2023 (Surplus
Maintenance Fund)CIP 0.00 (500,000.00)One-time -
6 Fleet Block Demolition Rescope - FY 2023 (Surplus
Maintenance Fund)CIP 0.00 (500,000.00)One-time -
6 Fleet Block Demolition Project - New Project CIP 0.00 1,200,000.00 One-time -
7 Economic Development Loan Fund Interest GF 0.00 5,263.52 One-time -
8 Position for Capital Asset Planning GF 140,258.00 143,258.00 One-time -
8 Position for Capital Asset Planning Impact Fees 0.00 140,258.00 One-time -
8 Position for Capital Asset Planning IMS 3,000.00 3,000.00 One-time -
9 Unfunded Maintenance on New Park Properties GF 329,150.00 471,950.00 Ongoing -
9 Unfunded Maintenance on New Park Properties Trans 0.00 329,150.00 Ongoing -
10 Public Utilities Budget Carry Forward Storm Water 0.00 1,047,200.00 One-time -
10 Public Utilities Budget Carry Forward Water 0.00 659,624.00 One-time -
10 Public Utilities Budget Carry Forward Sewer 0.00 575,000.00 One-time -
11 Attorney's Office Breakroom GF 0.00 149,000.00 One-time -
12 Waste & Recycling Part-time Equipment Operator Sustainability 0.00 (75,000.00)One-time -
12 Waste & Recycling Part-time Equipment Operator Sustainability 0.00 75,000.00 One-time -
13 Access Control Systems Upgrade - Security GF 0.00 400,000.00 One-time -
13 Access Control Systems Upgrade - Security CIP 400,000.00 400,000.00 One-time -
14 Risk Adminsitration - Tennis Bubble Claim Risk 23,633.48 23,633.48 One-time -
15 Public Lands CIP Projects CIP 0.00 (5,350,000.00) One-time -
15 Public Lands CIP Projects CIP 0.00 5,350,000.00 One-time -
15 Public Lands CIP Projects CIP 0.00 15,350,000.00 One-time -
15 Public Lands CIP Projects CIP 0.00 (3,000,000.00)
15 Public Lands CIP Projects CIP 0.00 4,960,713.54 One-time -
16 Rowland Hall Contribution for Traffic Calming CIP 100,000.00 100,000.00 One-itme -
Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
1 Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Grant FY 25 Misc Grants 2,945,958.00 2,945,958.00 One-time 4.00
Fiscal Year 2024-25 Budget Amendment #1
Council ApprovedAdministration Proposed
Section A: New Items
Section D: Housekeeping
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources
1
Fiscal Year 2024-25 Budget Amendment #1
-
Consent Agenda #
Total of Budget Amendment
Items 421,534,703.78 442,951,173.84 - - 7.00
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 469,408.00 1,793,932.52 - - 3.00
Airport Fund Airport 400,000,000.00 400,000,000.00 - - -
Housing & Loan Fund Housing & Loan 6,994,736.48 6,994,736.48 - -
CIP Fund CIP 10,983,608.82 28,294,322.36 - - -
Impact Fees Fund Impact Fees 0.00 140,258.00 - -
IMS Fund IMS 105,000.00 105,000.00 - -
Transportation Fund Trans 0.00 329,150.00 - -
Storm Water Fund Storm Water 0.00 1,047,200.00 - -
Water Fund Water 0.00 659,624.00 - -
Sewer Fund Sewer 0.00 575,000.00 - -
Sustainability Fund Sustainability 0.00 30,000.00 - -
Risk Management Fund Risk 23,633.48 23,633.48 - -
Miscellaneous Grants Fund Misc Grants 2,958,317.00 2,958,317.00 - - 4.00
Total of Budget Amendment Items421,534,703.78 442,951,173.84 - - 7.00
Administration Proposed Council Approved
Section I: Council Added Items
Section F: Donations
Section G: Council Consent Agenda -- Grant Awards
2
Fiscal Year 2024-25 Budget Amendment #1
Current Year Budget Summary, provided for information only
FY 2024-25 Budget, Including Budget Amendments
FY 2024-25 Adopted Budget BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total Total Revenue
General Fund (FC 100)437,777,040 469,408.00 438,246,448.00
Debt Service Fund (FC 101)31,051,086 31,051,086.00
Other Improvement Fund (FC 150)3,000 3,000.00
Capital Improvement Fund (FC 300)37,572,843 10,983,608.82 48,556,451.82
Water Utility Fund (FC 400)268,411,698 268,411,698.00
Sewer Utility Fund (FC 410)331,758,784 331,758,784.00
Stormwater Utility Fund (FC 420)23,017,198 23,017,198.00
Street Lighting Utility Fund (FC 430)5,113,968 5,113,968.00
Department of Airports Fund (FC 540)585,303,900 400,000,000.00 985,303,900.00
Fleet Management Fund (FC 610)26,262,291 26,262,291.00
Risk Management Fund (FC 620)65,149,109 23,633.48 65,172,742.48
Governmental Immunity Fund (FC 630)4,200,545 4,200,545.00
Information Mgt Serv Fund (FC 650)40,526,281 105,000.00 40,631,281.00
Local Building Authority Fund (FC 660)1,176,125 1,176,125.00
Refuse Collection Fund (FC670)22,662,393 22,662,393.00
Golf Fund (FC 680)13,618,816 13,618,816.00
Housing and Loan Fund (FC 690)5,419,000 6,994,736.48 12,413,736.48
CDBG Fund (FC 710)5,485,515 5,485,515.00
Miscellaneous Grants Fund (FC 720)6,644,210 2,958,317.00 9,602,527.00
Demolition Weed and Forfeiture (FC 730)400,000 400,000.00
Emergency 911 Dispatch (FC 750)3,925,000 3,925,000.00
Downtown Alliance Fund (FC 760)1,700,000 1,700,000.00
Donations Fund (FC 770)500,000 500,000.00
Funding Our Future Fund (FC 780)18,798 18,798.00
3
Fiscal Year 2024-25 Budget Amendment #1
Transportation Fund (FC 785)9,700,000 9,700,000.00
DEA Taskforce (FC 901)1,074,233 1,074,233.00
Redevelopment Agency Fund (FC 920)84,658,884 84,658,884.00
GUCOA (FC 990)- -
Total of Budget Amendment Items 2,013,130,717 421,534,703.78 - - - - 2,434,665,420.78
Total Expense BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total Total Expense
General Fund (FC 100)480,404,359 1,793,932.52 482,198,291.52
Debt Service Fund (FC 101)29,531,934 .29,531,934.00
Other Improvement Fund (FC 150)3,000 3,000.00
Capital Improvement Fund (FC 300)37,572,843 28,434,580.36 66,007,423.36
Water Utility Fund (FC 400)206,304,772 659,624.00 206,964,396.08
Sewer Utility Fund (FC 410)312,791,857 575,000.00 313,366,856.79
Stormwater Utility Fund (FC 420)28,249,581 1,047,200.00 29,296,781.03
Street Lighting Utility Fund (FC 430)6,776,763 6,776,763.28
Department of Airports Fund (FC 540)576,395,100 400,000,000.00 976,395,100.05
Fleet Management Fund (FC 610)27,947,665 27,947,665.00
Risk Management Fund (FC 620)65,169,109 23,633.48 65,192,742.11
Governmental Immunity Fund (FC 630)3,894,763 3,894,763.43
Information Mgt Serv Fund (FC 650)41,031,482 105,000.00 41,136,481.81
Local Building Authority Fund (FC 660)1,176,125 1,176,125.00
Refuse Collection Fund (FC670)26,037,892 30,000.00 26,067,892.48
Golf Fund (FC 680)20,461,398 20,461,397.50
Housing and Loan Fund (FC 690)5,419,000 6,994,736.48 12,413,736.48
CDBG Fund (FC 710)5,485,515 5,485,515.00
Miscellaneous Grants Fund (FC 720)6,644,210 2,958,317.00 9,602,527.00
Demolition Weed and Forfeiture (FC 730)400,000 400,000.00
Emergency 911 Dispatch (FC 750)3,913,585 3,913,585.00
Downtown Alliance Fund (FC 760)1,700,000 1,700,000.00
Donations Fund (FC 770)500,000 500,000.00
Funding Our Future Fund (FC 780)49,547,429 49,547,429.35
Transportation Fund (FC 785)11,758,312 329,150.00 12,087,462.00
DEA Taskforce (FC 901)1,074,253 1,074,252.57
Redevelopment Agency Fund (FC 920)84,931,213 84,931,213.21
GUCOA (FC 990)1307115.76 1,307,115.76
-
Total of Budget Amendment Items 2,036,429,276 442,951,173.84 - - - - 2,479,380,449.81
4
Fiscal Year 2024-25 Budget Amendment #1
Budget Manager
Analyst, City Council
Contingent Appropriation
5
This page has intentionally been left blank
Salt Lake City FY 2024-25 Budget Amendment #1 - Retransmittal
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
1
Section A: New Items
A-1: Attorney’s
Office
Organizational
Structure Change
GF One-Time ($280,000.00)
CIP One-Time $280,000.00
GF Ongoing $522,461.00
GF One-time $102,000.00
IMS One-time $102,000.00
Department: Attorney’s Office Prepared By: Cindy Lou Trishman
For question, please include Katie Lewis, Cindy Lou Trishman
On June 28, 2024, the District Attorney’s Office provided the City Attorney’s Office notice of intent to terminate the
interlocal agreement between the City and County under which District Attorney Gil serves as the City Prosecutor. The
notice of termination requires the City to vacate the approximately 31.0 City employees from the District Attorney’s
Office building by December 31, 2024, to move these employees under the City Attorney’s Office’s management, and to
hire a new City Prosecutor.
By ending the agreement on December 31, 2024, it is estimated there will be a remaining budget of approximately
$500,000 to account for leased office space and operational costs. It is proposed that $280,000 of the remaining
budget be transferred from the Prosecutors General Fund budget to CIP to account for the need to lease office space,
which is in the initial phases and will be finalized in the coming months following the adoption of this item. The City
Attorney’s office will work to stay within this budget through the remainder of FY25 or will return to council later in the
year if necessary.
As a result of the notice provided by the District Attorney’s Office to discontinue the interlocal agreement for the
services of the City Prosecutor’s team, the City Attorney’s office has re -evaluated the leadership structure and is
requesting (3) full time positions to accommodate the growth and management considerations.
The positions requested include:
(1) City Prosecutor position – Class 39 (New position). The anticipated cost for 9 months is $178,278;
(1) Senior City Attorney – Class 39. The anticipated cost for 8 months is $157,635.74, and;
(1) Deputy Director of Administration - City Attorney’s Office – Class 40 (New position). The anticipated cost for 8
months is $157,636.
IMS costs for hardware and software for all incoming/new staff of $102,000.
Job descriptions for the City Prosecutor and Deputy Director of Administration positions are included as attachments.
A-2: Indoor Air
Quality Incentives Sustainability One-time $30,000.00
Department: Sustainability Prepared By: Sophia Nicholas / Angie Nielsen
For questions, please include Sophia Nicholas, Debbie Lyons and Angie Nielsen
Funding is being requested for the Indoor Air Quality initiative in the amount of $30,000. The Department of
Sustainability will work with the City's Housing Stability Division’s Handyman and Home Repair Programs to distribute
high-efficiency HVAC filters, air purifiers, and single burner induction cooktops to homeowners served by these
programs. The effort is anticipated to reach 60 homes. This program will also include an educational component to help
residents understand how to improve indoor air qualit y in their homes, such as brochures and in-person consultations.
Air quality monitors may also be included as a tool to help residents become aware of how routine activities impact
Salt Lake City FY 2024-25 Budget Amendment #1 - Retransmittal
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
2
indoor air quality. Additional distribution through community-based organizations may also be considered if full uptake
is not exhausted through Housing Stability.
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources
Section D: Housekeeping
D-1: Airport
Interim Financing Airport One-time $400,000,000
Department: Airport Prepared By: Brian Butler
For questions, please include Brian Butler
Salt Lake City Department of Airports (SLCDA) plans to issue interim financing up to $400 million for a Line of Credit
directly with a bank. We are currently in the procurement process and are negotiating the terms of the agreement
which we deem to be favorable, especially considering the low interest rate environment. These funds will ultimately be
refunded with long-term debt, but we will maintain the facility for upwards of three years to help with financial
flexibility on the Airport Redevelopment Project. These funds can be used for operating and maintenance expenses or
to fund construction costs as determined by the Airport Finance division.
D-2: Interest on
General
Obligation Series
2020 thru 2023
and Sales and
Excise Tax Bond
Series 2022 B&C
CIP One-time $10,483,608.82
Department: Finance-Treasurer Prepared By: Gaby Ewell / Jou Ying Su
For questions, please include Marina Scott, Samantha Kinney, Gaby Ewell and Jou Ying Su
General Obligation Bond Series 2020 was issued in September 2020 to fund reconstruction of City streets. Par
value of the issued bonds was $17,745,000. At the time the bonds were issued the proceeds were deposited with the
Trustee. Since then, unspent bond proceeds have earned interest. Thi s amendment will adjust the budget to reflect
actual proceeds available including interest earned from December 2022 through June 2024. The interest related to this
issuance amounts to $571,672.02.
General Obligation Bonds Series 2021 was issued in November 2021 to fund reconstruction of City streets. Par
value of the issued bonds was $20,600,000. At the time the bonds were issued the proceeds were deposited with the
Trustee. Since then, unspent bond proceeds have earned interest. This amendment will adjust the budget to reflect
actual proceeds available including accumulated interest from December 2022 through June 2024. The interest related
to this issuance amounts to $1,463,994.53.
General Obligation Bonds Series 2022 was issued in September 2022 to fund reconstruction of City streets. Par
value of the issued bonds was $21,785,000. At the time the bonds were issued the proceeds were deposited with the
Trustee. Since then, unspent bond proceeds have earned interest. Th is amendment will adjust the budget to reflect
actual proceeds available including accumulated interest from October 2022 through June 2024. The interest related to
this issuance amounts to $1,966,209.86.
Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2022 B&C were issued in October 2022 for the purpose of financing several
capital projects throughout the City. The bonds were issued at a par amount of $64,225.000. This amendment will
Salt Lake City FY 2024-25 Budget Amendment #1 - Retransmittal
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
3
adjust the budget to reflect actual proceeds available including accumulated interest from November 2022 through
June 2024. The interest related to this issuance amounts to $3,462,304.21 and $1,960,713.54 respectively.
General Obligation Bonds Series 2023 was issued in August 2023 to fund improvements of City parks and trails.
Par value of the issued bonds was $24,765,000. At the time the bonds were issued the proceeds were deposited with
the Trustee. Since then, unspent bond proceeds have earned interest . This amendment will adjust the budget to reflect
actual proceeds available including accumulated interest from September 2023 through June 2024. The interest related
to this issuance amounts to $1,058,714.66.
D-3: Community-
based Diversity,
Equity and
Inclusion Training
GF One-time ($240,950.00)
GF One-time $240,950.00
Department: Police Prepared By: Shellie Dietrich
For questions, please include Shellie Dietrich
The Police Department is requesting budget in the amount of $240,950 to be appropriated from the Commission of
Racial Equity in Policing (CREP) non-departmental holding account for the CREP to the Police Training account to
fund three community-based, diversity, equity and inclusion trainings that have been recommended and are supported
by the Racial Equity in Policing Commission.
• Equality Utah - $15,000
• Legal Equity Advocates - $77,450
• True Empowering - $148,500
D-4: Economic
Development Loan
Fund Budget
Housing & Loan One-time $6,994,736.48
Department: Economic Development Prepared By: Suzanne Swanson
For questions, please include Suzanne Swanson, Jacob Maxwell, Jolynn Walz
A budget for the Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF) was inadvertently left out of the FY 2025 budget adoption.
This budget amendment will provide an operating budget for the EDLF for FY 2025. A plan and mechanism are being
put into place to avoid such an oversight in the future. The primary use for the EDLF is to be the vehicle for the City to
provide small business loans. The EDLF Fund Balance will be recognized as the FY 2025 Annual Budget.
D-5: Increased
HOPWA Awards
FY 25
Misc Grants One-time $12,359.00
Department: CAN Prepared By: Brent Beck / Tony Milner
For questions, please include Suzanne Swanson, Brent Beck and Tony Milner
This item is to recognize the increased HUD HOPWA award in the amount of $12,359 for FY 2025.
The Council approved and allocated the City's anticipated HUD HOPWA award in the total amount of $932,841 on
April 16, 2024. On June 11, 2024, the City was notified of the City's final HOPWA award in the total amount of
$945,200. The additional funds, the difference between the two amounts, are being allocated as per the Council
approved contingencies.
Salt Lake City FY 2024-25 Budget Amendment #1 - Retransmittal
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
4
D-6: Fleet Block
Demolition
Rescope
CIP One-time ($200,000.00)
CIP One-time ($500,000.00)
CIP One-time ($500,000.00)
CIP One-time $1,200,000.00
Department: CAN Prepared By: Brent Beck / Tammy Hunsaker
For questions, please include Tammy Hunsaker , Brent Beck and Blake Thomas
The Administration is requesting that $700,000 of FY 2023 and FY 2024 CIP Vacant/Surplus Maintenance funding be
rescoped to prepare the Fleet Block property, located at 300 – 400 West and 800 – 900 South for redevelopment. In
addition to the $700,000, the Administration is proposing that up to $500,000 of the CIP Vacant/S urplus Maintenance
funding be allocated for the same purpose through the FY 2025 CIP budget, for a total of $1,200,000. Funding will be
utilized to prepare the property for redevelopment a nd to mitigate mounting security and safety issues.
It has become increasingly costly to secure the block, with the Administration contemplating security services of over
$250,000 per year to address daily break-ins. Rather than hiring security services, the Administration proposes to
address the security concerns. Specific approaches will be to terminate utility connections, surveying the property,
abating asbestos and other environmental contaminants within the buildings, and certain demolition activities. The CIP
Vacant/Surplus Maintenance funding to be rescoped for this project is broken down as follows:
FY 2023: $200,000
FY 2024: $500,000
FY 2025: $500,000
D-7: Economic
Development Loan
Fund – Interest
Forgiveness
GF One-time $5,263.52
Department:
Economic
Development
Prepared By: Roberta Reichgelt
For questions, please include Roberta Reichgelt, Jacob Maxwell and Lorena Riffo-Jenson
HUB Salt Lake, LLC, a borrower from the Economic Development Loan Fund, requested forgiveness from Salt Lake
City on accumulated interest from the period of 9/2021 – 4/2024, due to the unforeseen hardship and impacts from the
COVID pandemic and inability to access Salt Lake City’s small business relief programs. This request was not
recommended by the Department of Economic Development (DED) but was brought to City Council for consideration.
At the authorization and approval of City Council, the Department of Economic Development has submitted a budget
amendment request to allocate the requested funding to the Economic Development Loan Fund to be distributed to the
business/borrower. The loan, including accumulated interest, to Hub Salt Lake LLC was paid off in May of 2024, and as
such, the requested amount would be submitted to the borrower as a reimbursement.
D-8: Staff Position
for Capital Asset
Planning
GF Ongoing $143,258.00
Impact Fees Ongoing $140,258.00
IMS One-time $3,000.00
Salt Lake City FY 2024-25 Budget Amendment #1 - Retransmittal
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
5
Department:
Finance Prepared By: Mike Atkinson
For questions, please include Mike Atkinson and Mary Beth Thompson
The Capital Asset Planning Team is requesting a dedicated FTE to manage and report on Impact Fees. This position is
necessary to comply with the new level of detail required by the State Auditor for the annual Impact Fee Report. This
position was intended to be included in the Fina nce Department budget but was inadvertently left out prior to the final
adoption of the FY 2025 budget. Since the position is strictly dedicated to managing and reporting on impact fees, t he
associated cost of the position will be covered by impact fees.
D-9: Unfunded
Maintenance on
New Park
Properties
GF Ongoing $471,950.00
Trans Ongoing $329,150.00
Department:
Finance Prepared By: Mike Atkinson
For questions, please include Mike Atkinson, Kristin Riker and Gregg Evans
This budget amendment requests approval to fund unfunded maintenance for 9 new properties and the complaint -
based weed abatement. This funding will cover FY 2025 maintenance needs for these properties. The total one-time
funding of $471,950, will be funded by transferring $329,150 from Fund Balance of the Transportation Fund to the
General Fund, and an additional $142,800 from the General Fund. This is a one-time funding request. In the future,
these properties will be included the Capital Asset Planning Te am led assessment of all unfunded maintenance of
General Fund owned properties that will score, rank, and recommend a holistic approach to funding unfunded
maintenance going forward.
Breakout in cost:
$32,800 Seasonal Staff Hours
$439,150 Contracted Services
$471,950 Total BA Request
Salt Lake City FY 2024-25 Budget Amendment #1 - Retransmittal
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
6
Funds are to be transferred into Non-Departmental within the Public Lands Cost Center.
D-10: Public
Utilities Budget
Carry Forward
Storm Water One-time $1,047,200.00
Water One-time $659,624.00
Sewer One-time $575,000.00
Department:
Public Utilities Prepared By: Lisa Tarufelli
For questions, please include Lisa Tarufelli and Mark Christensen
The items included in this budget amendment are carryovers from FY 2024. These include equipment and project
procurements which were in process during the prior fiscal year but were not completed (final contracting or purchase
order) before June 30 2024. During the FY 2025 budget preparation process, it was anticipated these tasks would be
completed prior to year-end. As such, they were not budgeted for in FY 2025.
D-11: Attorney’s
Office Breakroom GF Ongoing $149,000
Department:
Attorney’s Office Prepared By: Cindy Lou Trishman
For question, please include Katie Lewis, Cindy Lou Trishman
The Department of the City Attorney’s office has engaged with the Engineering/Public Services team to complete the
work for the fifth-floor breakroom construction presented initially in FY 2024 and had been informed we will not be
able to secure work orders/contracts prior to the end of the fiscal year.
Improvements are all directed towards the 5th floor breakroom . The 5th floor currently houses the majority of the
Attorney’s department (civil, litigation, risk, legislative affairs).
Related, as noted in Item A-1, the Prosecutor's Office is returning to the leadership of the City Attorney's office in
December, which requires the hiring of a City Prosecutor and transitioning 31 employees from the District Attorney
Offices to a City-managed space and using City devices.
D-12: Waste &
Recycling Part-
time Equipment
Operator
Sustainability One-time ($75,000.00)
Sustainability One-time $75,000.00
Department:
Sustainability Prepared By: Sophia Nicholas / Angie Nielsen
For questions, please include Sophia Nicholas, Debbie Lyons and Angie Nielsen
The Waste & Recycling Division of Sustainability is requesting to transfer $75,000 from the Other Charges & Services
spend category used to pay a temporary staffing agency to provide seasonal and part-time personnel. The Division
typically hires 4-5 temporary employees at times throughout the year to support a variety of needs resulting from
increases in seasonal workloads. Rather than pay a temporary staffing agency their typical 30-40% wage loading rate,
the division can hire seasonal and/or part-time employees with more flexibility and more cost effectively. This, in turn,
also allows the Division to be more wage competitive in what remains a very tight labor market.
Salt Lake City FY 2024-25 Budget Amendment #1 - Retransmittal
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
7
D-13: Access
Control Systems
Upgrade - Security
GF One-time $400,000.00
CIP One-time $400,000.00
Department:
Public Services Prepared By: Kimberley Schmeling / Jorge Chamorro
For questions, please include Jorge Chamorro, Kimberley Schmeling and Nathan Kobs
This housekeeping requests approval to carryover funds awarded by Council in BA3, 2024 for Access Control System
Upgrades in Security into the FY 2025 budget. The funding was intended to replace outdated and vulnerable access
control systems and devices in 4 buildings -- including Plaza 349, Justice Court, and public safety buildings.
This phase of the larger security upgrade project was scheduled to begin immediately upon completion of similar
retrofits and upgrades at the City and County Building in the spring of 2024. The start date for this phase was
significantly delayed due to the CCB upgrades taking longer to complete than expected.
This request is budget neutral: $400,000 was approved for this project and is requested to be carried forward from the
FY 2024 to the FY 2025 Public Services budget to CIP.
D-14: Claims
Damage – Tennis
Bubble
Risk One-time $23,633.48
Department:
Attorney Prepared By: Lauree Roberts
For questions, please include Lauree Roberts
In March of 2024, the Dee Glen Tennis Bubble located at 1216 Wasatch Drive was damaged. This exposure caused the
Tennis Bubble to deflate causing significant damage to both the exterior and interior of the Tennis Bubble. Additionally,
some of the equipment and electrical inside the Tennis Bubble was damaged. The Tennis Bubble is owned and in sured
by Salt Lake City, but managed, maintained, and operated by a third-party contractor. The repairs have been paid for by
the third-party contractor and the City needs to process the awarded claim settlement and distribute it to the third-
party contractor in the amount of $23,633.48.
A straw poll is being requested to expedite receipt and payment of the reimbursement.
D-15: Public Lands
CIP Projects CIP One-time ($5,350,000.00)
CIP One-time $5,350,000.00
Impact Fee/CIP One-time $15,350,000.00
CIP One-time ($3,000,000.00)
CIP One-time $4,960,713.54
Department:
Public Lands Prepared By: Mike Atkinson / Tom Millar
For questions, please include Mike Atkinson, Tom Millar and Kristin Riker
This request accelerates project construction, builds more of the amenities the public has requested without creating
new projects, and improves the City’s ability to quickly spend funding from the 1st Tranche (Nov 2022; Oct 2023) of the
Parks GO Bond, Parks Impact Fees, and the Sales Tax Revenue Bond (Aug 2022).
Parks GO Bond 1st Tranche: Reallocate $5,350,000 (of $9,000,000) from Glendale Park Phase 1
Construction/Phase 2 Design. Allocate $5,350,000 to accelerate the construction of nine (9) existing Parks GO Bond
projects that would otherwise have to wait for the issuance of the Parks GO Bond’s 2nd Tranche (see bullet point list
Salt Lake City FY 2024-25 Budget Amendment #1 - Retransmittal
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
8
below). This saves the City and taxpayers money by delaying the issuance of the 2nd Tranche of the Parks GO Bond
until FY 2026 and allows those nine projects, which need $5,350,000 for bidding and contracting as soon as January
2025, to move forward without delay. The projects included are:
• Jordan River Corridor: $500,000 for 2025 design (Phase 1 projects prioritized by the City and the public in the
Emerald Ribbon Action Plan)
• Donner Trail Park: $675,000 for 2025 construction
• Taufer Park: $675,000 for 2025 or 2026 construction
• Richmond Park: $675,000 for 2025 or 2026 construction
• Steenblik Park: $675,000 for 2025 construction
• Ida Cotten Park: $675,000 for 2025 construction
• Madsen Park: $675,000 for 2025 construction
• Contingency: $500,000
• Art: $300,000 for anticipated 2025 artist and fabricator contracts
Parks Impact Fees: Allocate $5,350,000 in Parks Impact Fees to Glendale Park Phase 1 Construction/Phase 2 Design
(replacing the GO Bond’s 1st Tranche allocation of the same amount, described above). Allocate an additional
$6,000,000 in Parks Impact Fees for Glendale Phase 2 Construction, potentially reducing the size of the 2nd Tranche of
the Parks GO Bond, freeing up 2nd and 3rd Tranche funding for other Parks GO Bond projects, and/or increasing the
Phase 2 Design team’s ability to provide more of the amenities that the pub lic requested in the Glendale Regional Park
Vision Plan. (Note: Additional Parks Impact Fee requests for Glendale Park are very likely; they would occur after future
design phases are more fleshed out and cost estimated.) Also allocate an additional $4,000 ,000 in Parks Impact Fees to
three, fully impact fee-eligible, in-progress Parks GO Bond projects that could easily incorporate additional funding
without any delays to their established project schedules or to the public’s project delivery expectations . These projects
include:
• Liberty Park Rotary Play Park and Playground: $2,000,000 for 2025 construction (new, accessible features
requested by hundreds of children and parents involved in the project in 2023 and 2024)
• Folsom Trail Landscaping and Irrigation: $1,000,000 for 2025 construction (more robust landscaping,
irrigation, and amenities improvements in the Folsom Corridor between 1000 West and 500 West, beyond the
original construction estimate that focused only on improvements near intersections)
• Warm Springs and North Gateway Park: $1,000,000 for 2026 or 2027 construction (greater ability for the City
to deliver the vision that is being developed by the stakeholders involved in this project, including Native
American, Pacific Islander, and local communities)
Sales Tax Revenue Bond: Recapture and reallocate $3,000,000 (of $3,000,000 total) from the now-tentative
Smith’s Ballpark project and allocate an additional $1,960,713.54 (of $1,960,713.54 total) from the Revenue Bond’s
interest income to the Pioneer Park sales tax revenue bond-funded project.
D-16: Rowland
Hall Contribution
for Traffic
Calming
CIP One-time $100,000.00
Department: CAN
Transportation Prepared By: Lisa Hunt / Greg Cleary
For questions, please include Mary Beth Thompson, Greg Cleary, Lisa Hunt and Julianne Sabula
As part of a Development Agreement with Rowland Hall to develop a certain property on Sunnyside Avenue, Rowland
Hall has agreed to contribute $100,000 to the City to be used for traffic calming and pedestrian safety measures on
Sunnyside Avenue. The development is now in a phase where the funding has come due , and, as such, needs to be
appropriated.
Salt Lake City FY 2024-25 Budget Amendment #1 - Retransmittal
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
9
Section E: Grants Requiring No Staff Resources
E-1: Homeless
Shelter Cities
Mitigation Grant
FY 2025
Misc Grants One-time $2,945,958
Department: Finance Prepared By: Amy Dorsey
For questions, please include Amy Dorsey.
The grant funds 20.75 hourly positions. These positions are broken down as follows:
• 1.0 HEART Grant Specialist-50% of time is charged to the grant.
• 2.0 FTE HEART Coordinators-100% of time is charged to the grant.
• 1.0 Justice Court Intercept-100% of time is charged to the grant.
• 12.0 officers-100% of time is charged to the grant
• 3.0 Sergeants-100% of time is charged to the grant
• 3.0 officers - 6 months of time is charged to grant
• 1.0 Lieutenant - 9 months of time is charged to the grant
Note: All positions EXCEPT 3 officers and 1 Lieutenant are positions that have been previously paid for by the grant.
The 3 officers and Lieutenant are new to this grant for this funding year.
Section F: Donations
Section G: Consent Agenda
Consent Agenda
Consent Agenda
Section I: Council Added Items
This page has intentionally been left blank
UPDATED 8/ 13/ 24
Job Title: Deputy Director of Operations and Administration Job Code: FLSA: Exempt Pay Rate Type: Salary Comp Grade: Management Level: Supervisor Classification: 600 – (Professional 600) EEO Code: PROFESSIONALS - (EEO-4 Job Classification) Workers Comp Code: 3 – Clerical (United States of America) Job Family: Job Pro�ile Summary Under the general administrative direction of the City Attorney, incumbent
serves as a member of the department’s leadership team with broad responsibilities to manage the
support of the City Attorney’s function to both branches of government and manages multiple
divisions/teams. Incumbent is responsible for the general administration of the City Attorney’s
department/office including the annual budget, strategic plan, measurements and procedures for
requests to the department. Incumbent must be a dynamic, organized, and transformative leader with
proven ability to support alignment of services with organizational consistency.
This is an appointed, at-will position without tenure and exempt from the career service system. Job Description TYPICAL DUTIES:
• Manages multiple department workgroups or divisions which may include Legislative Affairs,
City Recorder, City Risk Manager, and support staff/administration for the Office of the City
Attorney
• Establishes guidelines, requirements, and procedures to ensure compliance with regulations
and conformance to best practices.
• Evaluates performance of supervised personnel and addresses personnel problems, complaints
and all work related issues. Manages and addresses personnel concerns for the managed
workgroups or divisions, while also establishing internal department procedures for
consistency in approach.
• Oversees onboarding of new employees. Manages staff member’s performance and
creates opportunities for staff to improve their skills and advance in their field. Creates
and implements a succession plan for the division.
• Consults with the City Attorney to formulate strategy and provide procedure to the
general operations of the office. Ensures appropriate use of staff, resources, timely
implementation of processes and ensures that key milestones are established,
understood, and realized.
• Participates in the development and implementation of goals, objectives, policies, and
priorities for assigned programs and recommends and administers policies and
procedures.
• Monitors and evaluates the efficiency and effectiveness of legal support methods and
procedures and program performance; recommends, within division and departmental
policy, appropriate service and staffing levels.
• Organizes and presents information for management review, including organizational
improvement recommendations to fulfill requests and responsibilities of the department.
• Participates in the development and administration of the departments and divisions
annual budget; participates in the forecast of funds needed for staffing, equipment,
UPDATED 8/ 13/ 24
materials, software, third-party contracts, and supplies; monitors and approves
expenditures; implements adjustments.
• Ensures the department’s safety and emergency programs are effectively implemented
throughout the department.
• Performs other duties as assigned. MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS:
• Bachelor’s degree in Public Administration, Business Administration or a JD or LLB, or closely
related field plus ten or more years of related experience including two or more years of
supervisory responsibility with direct reports and responsibility for personnel decisions. Except
for required supervisory responsibility, experience may be substituted for educational
requirements.
• Ability to manage projects, prepare and present project details using analysis skills, graphic
presentations development and technical reports to the Mayor, City Council, Division
Leadership and the public.
• Ability to establish and maintain effective professional and working relationships with
elected officials, department heads, public officials, and employees of other agencies,
members of the news media and the public.
• Ability to communicate effectively, both verbally and in writing.
• Ability to be creative in building an effective team and successfully manage team members.
• Ability to effectively supervise employees in the office of the City Attorney and effectuate
office policy.
• Maintain confidentiality related to complex legal matters.
DESIRED QUALIFICATIONS:
• Master’s degree in a related field or Master of Business Administration WORKING CONDITIONS:
• Light physical effort. Comfortable working positions. Handling light weights, intermittent
sitting, standing and walking.
• Considerable exposure to stress as a result of human behavior, frequent deadlines, and the
general demands of the position. 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.
• Additional Job Description
POSITION TYPE
Full-Time / Part -Time / Seasonal
POSITION SALARY RANGE
$ - $
DEPARTMENT
XX
This page has intentionally been left blank
UPDATED 8/ 13/ 24
Job Title: City Prosecutor Job Code: FLSA: Exempt Pay Rate Type: Salary Comp Grade: Management Level: Supervisor Classification: 600 – (Professional 600) EEO Code: PROFESSIONALS - (EEO-4 Job Classification) Workers Comp Code: 3 – Clerical (United States of America) Job Family: Senior City Attorney Job Pro�ile Summary Under the general administrative direction of the City Attorney, oversees and
directs activities of City Prosecutor's Office, including arraignment and prosecution of persons
violating ordinances of Salt Lake City.
This is an appointed, at-will position without tenure and exempt from the career service system. Job Description TYPICAL DUTIES:
• Oversees prosecution of cases, in all courts including appeals to district court, on behalf
of City, through supervision and assignment of Assistant City Prosecutors.
• Advises on investigation used to determine if prosecution is warranted. Initiates as well
as assists in negotiation of complaint settlements to save trial expense and expedite case
termination.
• Tries principal criminal cases, prepares pleadings and briefs, makes oral arguments on
behalf of City. Drafts, or has drafted, legal materials such as complaints, warrants, and
subpoenas and sees that they are properly prepared and served.
• In consultation with the City Attorney, consults and advises police department officials,
City department heads and employees, and the public on matters concerning criminal
law.
• Prepares operational budget for the Prosecutor's Office, including the evaluation of
staffing needs, coordinating with the City Attorney leadership team for inclusion in the
annual budget.
• Handles hiring and onboarding of staff in the City Prosecutor’s Office; recommends
candidates to the City Attorney for promotion; evaluates City Prosecutors and support
staff; resolves personnel problems within the Prosecutor's Office. Manages the City
Prosecutor’s Office and reports to the City Attorney.
• Prepare and respond impromptu, examine witnesses, and argue effectively, often under
hostile and stressful circumstances.
• Serve in a capacity to organize and retain familiarity with large numbers of court cases of
varying complexity and circumstances within short time periods.
• Acquire and retain current familiarity with rapidly changing principles of law, and to apply
principles to factual situations as presented in court.
• Maintain the ability to function under repeated verbal distractions.
• Performs other duties as assigned. MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS:
• Graduation from accredited college or university with JD or LLB Degree, and ten (10) years'
full-time employment in practice of law, including trial work, and two (2) years of experience
managing a team of lawyers and staff members.
UPDATED 8/ 13/ 24
• .
• Membership in good standing with Utah State Bar Association.
• Extensive knowledge of principles of criminal law, judicial procedures, and rules of evidence.
• Ability to direct and supervise a staff of assistant prosecutors and office support personnel and
effectuate office policy.
• Ability to communicate effectively.
• Ability to establish and maintain effective working relationships with elected officials,
department heads, employees, officials and employees of other jurisdictions, and the public.
• Ability to be creative in building an effective team and successfully manage team members.
• Maintain confidentiality related to complex legal matters. WORKING CONDITIONS:
• Light physical effort. Comfortable working positions. Handling light weights, intermittent
sitting, standing and walking.
• Considerable exposure to stress as a result of human behavior, frequent deadlines, and the
general demands of the position. 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.
• Additional Job Description
POSITION TYPE
Full-Time / Part -Time / Seasonal
POSITION SALARY RANGE
$ - $
DEPARTMENT
XX
This page has intentionally been left blank
911 BUREAU Job Title Grade
002626 911 Dispatch Director E41
002627 911 Communications Deputy Director E32
001989 Executive Assistant E26
AIRPORT
001551 Executive Director of Airports E41
002533 Airport Chief Operating Officer E40
000795 Director Airport Design & Construction Management E39
000794 Director of Airport Maintenance E39
000163 Director of Finance & Accounting - Airport E39
000162 Director of Real Estate & Commercial Develoment E39
001365 Director of Airport Information Technology E39
001654 Director of Airport Planning & Captial Programming E39
001011 Director of Operations - Airport E39
002349 Director of Communications and Marketing - Airport E38
001989 Executive Assistant E26
CITY ATTORNEY
001553 City Attorney E41
001577 Deputy City Attorney E40
Deputy Director of Operations and Administration E40
City Prosecutor E39
000314 City Recorder E38
002923 Legislative Affairs Division Director E38
CITY COUNCIL
NO PROFILE Council Member-Elect N/A*
000021 Executive Director - City Council Office E41
001459 Council Legal Director E39
000026 Deputy Director - City Council E39
001980 Associate Deputy Director - City Council E37
002637 Legislative & Policy Manager E37
001954 Senior Public Policy Analyst E33
001895 Communications Director - City Council E31
002636 Public Engagement & Communications Specialist III E31
002472 Operations Manager & Mentor - City Council E31
000344 Public Policy Analyst E31
002355 Policy Analyst / Public Engagement E28
002358 Public Engagement / Communications Specialist II E28
002357 Constituent Liaison / Policy Analyst E27
002354 Constituent Liaison E26
NO PROFILE?Public Engagement & Communications Specialist I E26
002353 Assistant to Council Executive Director E25
002351 Council Administrative Assistant E24
COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS
002060 Director of Community & Neighborhoods E41
002068 Deputy Director of Community & Neighborhoods E37
002562 Deputy Director of Community Services - Community & Neighborhoods E37
002899 Division Director of Transportation (Engineer)E37
004165 Planning Division Director E37
006440 Building Official E35
006401 Division Director of Housing & Neighborhood Development E35
002110 Division Director of Transportation (Planner)E35
002326 Youth & Family Division Director E35
001989 Executive Assistant E26
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
001992 Director of Economic Development E41
002096 Deputy Director Economic Development E37
002312 Arts Division Director E35
002545 Business Development Division Director E35
APPENDIX B – APPOINTED EMPLOYEES BY DEPARTMENT
Effective June 23, 2024 (Revised XX/XX/2024)
FINANCE
002091 Chief Financial Officer E41
002342 City Treasurer E39
002593 Deputy Chief Financial Officer E39
000504 Chief Procurement Officer E36
FIRE
008010 Fire Chief E41
001771 Assistant Fire Chief E38
001989 Executive Assistant E26
HUMAN RESOURCES
002475 Chief Human Resources Officer E41
002081 Deputy Chief Human Resources Officer E38
000337 Civilian Review Board Investigator E35
111001 Transition Chief of Staff N/A*
111002 Transition Communications Director N/A*
111003 Transition Executive Assistant N/A*
INFORMATION MGT SERVICES
001578 Chief Information Officer E41
002514 Chief Innovation Officer E40
002816 Deputy Chief Information Officer - Operations E40
JUSTICE COURT
001601 Justice Court Judge E39
000539 Justice Court Administrator E37
MAYOR
000249 Chief of Staff E41
002470 Chief Administrative Officer E41
000897 Communications Director E39
002671 Deputy Chief Administrative Officer E39
001823 Deputy Chief of Staff E39
000002 Senior Advisor E39
002115 Communications Deputy Director E30
002536 Communications & Content Manager - Mayor's Office E30
002206 Policy Advisor E29
REP Commision Policy Advisor E29
000898 Community Liaison E26
001989 Executive Assistant E26
001721 Office Manager - Mayor's Office E24
002526 Community Outreach Special Projects & Access Coordinator E24
001988 Administrative Assistant N19
002282 Consumer Protection Analyst N16
POLICE
007010 Chief of Police E41
001275 Deputy Chief of Police E38
002524 Communications Administative Director E37
002525 Internal Affairs Administrative Director E37
NEW PROFILE Police Commander E36
001989 Executive Assistant E26
PUBLIC LANDS
002581 Director of Public Lands E41
002548 Deputy Director of Public Lands E37
002178 Golf Division Director E35
002405 Parks Division Director E35
002853 Urban Forestry Division Director E35
3019 Planning & Design Division Director E35
002330 Trails & Natural Lands Division Director E32
PUBLIC SERVICES
000579 Director of Public Services E41
004031 City Engineer E39
002506 Deputy Director, Public Services E38
002894 Safety & Security Director E37
002176 Facilities Division Director E35
002177 Fleet Management Division Director E35
002189 Streets Division Director E35
002327 Compliance Division Director E35
001989 Executive Assistant E26
PUBLIC UTILITIES
001552 Director of Public Utilities E41
000036 Deputy Director - Public Utilities E39
000037 Finance Administrator - Public Utilities E39
002092 Chief Engineer - Public Utilities E37
000039 Water Quality & Treatment Administrator E37
001989 Executive Assistant E26
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
002511 Director - Redevelopment Agency E41
002512 Deputy Director - Redevelopment Agency E37
SUSTAINABILITY
002036 Sustainability Director E41
002404 Sustainability Deputy Director E37
002186 Waste & Recycling Division Director E35
Except for a change in job title or reassignment to a lower pay level, no appointed position on this pay plan may be added, removed or
modified without approval of the City Council.
* Compensation for transitional positions, including city council member‐elect, is set as provided under Chapter 2.03.030 of the
Salt Lake City Code. Benefits for transitional employees are equivalent to those provided to full‐time employees. Except for leave time, benefits for city council
members‐elect are also equivalent to those provided to full‐time employees.
This page has intentionally been left blank
911 BUREAU Job Title Grade
002626 911 Dispatch Director E41
002627 911 Communications Deputy Director E32
001989 Executive Assistant E26
AIRPORT
001551 Executive Director of Airports E41
002533 Airport Chief Operating Officer E40
000795 Director Airport Design & Construction Management E39
000794 Director of Airport Maintenance E39
000163 Director of Finance & Accounting - Airport E39
000162 Director of Real Estate & Commercial Develoment E39
001365 Director of Airport Information Technology E39
001654 Director of Airport Planning & Captial Programming E39
001011 Director of Operations - Airport E39
002349 Director of Communications and Marketing - Airport E38
001989 Executive Assistant E26
CITY ATTORNEY
001553 City Attorney E41
001577 Deputy City Attorney E40
Deputy Director of Operations and Administration E40
City Prosecutor E39
000314 City Recorder E35 E38
002923 Legislative Affairs Division Director E34 E38
CITY COUNCIL
NO PROFILE Council Member-Elect N/A*
000021 Executive Director - City Council Office E41
001459 Council Legal Director E39
000026 Deputy Director - City Council E39
001980 Associate Deputy Director - City Council E37
002637 Legislative & Policy Manager E37
001954 Senior Public Policy Analyst E33
001895 Communications Director - City Council E31
002636 Public Engagement & Communications Specialist III E31
002472 Operations Manager & Mentor - City Council E31
000344 Public Policy Analyst E31
002355 Policy Analyst / Public Engagement E28
002358 Public Engagement / Communications Specialist II E28
002357 Constituent Liaison / Policy Analyst E27
002354 Constituent Liaison E26
NO PROFILE?Public Engagement & Communications Specialist I E26
002353 Assistant to Council Executive Director E25
002351 Council Administrative Assistant E24
COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS
002060 Director of Community & Neighborhoods E41
002068 Deputy Director of Community & Neighborhoods E37
002562 Deputy Director of Community Services - Community & Neighborhoods E37
002899 Division Director of Transportation (Engineer) E37
004165 Planning Division Director E37
006440 Building Official E35
006401 Division Director of Housing & Neighborhood Development E35
002110 Division Director of Transportation (Planner) E35
002326 Youth & Family Division Director E35
001989 Executive Assistant E26
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
001992 Director of Economic Development E41
002096 Deputy Director Economic Development E37
002312 Arts Division Director E35
002545 Business Development Division Director E35
APPENDIX B – APPOINTED EMPLOYEES BY DEPARTMENT
Effective June 23, 2024 (Revised XX/XX/2024)
FINANCE
002091 Chief Financial Officer E41
002342 City Treasurer E39
002593 Deputy Chief Financial Officer E39
000504 Chief Procurement Officer E36
FIRE
008010 Fire Chief E41
001771 Assistant Fire Chief E38
001989 Executive Assistant E26
HUMAN RESOURCES
002475 Chief Human Resources Officer E41
002081 Deputy Chief Human Resources Officer E38
000337 Civilian Review Board Investigator E35
111001 Transition Chief of Staff N/A*
111002 Transition Communications Director N/A*
111003 Transition Executive Assistant N/A*
INFORMATION MGT SERVICES
001578 Chief Information Officer E41
002514 Chief Innovation Officer E40
002816 Deputy Chief Information Officer - Operations E40
JUSTICE COURT
001601 Justice Court Judge E39
000539 Justice Court Administrator E37
MAYOR
000249 Chief of Staff E41
002470 Chief Administrative Officer E41
000897 Communications Director E39
002671 Deputy Chief Administrative Officer E39
001823 Deputy Chief of Staff E39
000002 Senior Advisor E39
002115 Communications Deputy Director E30
002536 Communications & Content Manager - Mayor's Office E30
002206 Policy Advisor E29
REP Commision Policy Advisor E29
000898 Community Liaison E26
001989 Executive Assistant E26
001721 Office Manager - Mayor's Office E24
002526 Community Outreach Special Projects & Access Coordinator E24
001988 Administrative Assistant N19
002282 Consumer Protection Analyst N16
POLICE
007010 Chief of Police E41
001275 Deputy Chief of Police E38
002524 Communications Administative Director E37
002525 Internal Affairs Administrative Director E37
NEW PROFILE Police Commander E36
001989 Executive Assistant E26
PUBLIC LANDS
002581 Director of Public Lands E41
002548 Deputy Director of Public Lands E37
002178 Golf Division Director E35
002405 Parks Division Director E35
002853 Urban Forestry Division Director E35
3019 Planning & Design Division Director E35
002330 Trails & Natural Lands Division Director E32
PUBLIC SERVICES
000579 Director of Public Services E41
004031 City Engineer E39
002506 Deputy Director, Public Services E38
002894 Safety & Security Director E37
002176 Facilities Division Director E35
002177 Fleet Management Division Director E35
002189 Streets Division Director E35
002327 Compliance Division Director E35
001989 Executive Assistant E26
PUBLIC UTILITIES
001552 Director of Public Utilities E41
000036 Deputy Director - Public Utilities E39
000037 Finance Administrator - Public Utilities E39
002092 Chief Engineer - Public Utilities E37
000039 Water Quality & Treatment Administrator E37
001989 Executive Assistant E26
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
002511 Director - Redevelopment Agency E41
002512 Deputy Director - Redevelopment Agency E37
SUSTAINABILITY
002036 Sustainability Director E41
002404 Sustainability Deputy Director E37
002186 Waste & Recycling Division Director E35
Except for a change in job title or reassignment to a lower pay level, no appointed position on this pay plan may be added, removed or
modified without approval of the City Council.
* Compensation for transitional positions, including city council member‐elect, is set as provided under Chapter 2.03.030 of the
Salt Lake City Code. Benefits for transitional employees are equivalent to those provided to full‐time employees. Except for leave time, benefits for city council
members‐elect are also equivalent to those provided to full‐time employees.
This page has intentionally been left blank
Impact Fees ‐ Summary Confidential
Data pulled 5/1/2024
Unallocated Budget Amounts: by Major Area
Area Cost Center UnAllocated
Cash Notes:
Impact fee - Police 8484001 1,600,841$ A
Impact fee - Fire 8484002 578,695$ B
Impact fee - Parks 8484003 20,931,089$ C
Impact fee - Streets 8484005 1,259,376$ D
24,370,001$
Expiring Amounts: by Major Area, by Month
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 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202512 (Dec2025)2026Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202601 (Jan2026)2026Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202602 (Feb2026)2026Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202603 (Mar2026)2026Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202604 (Apr2026)2026Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202605 (May2026)2026Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202606 (Jun2026)2026Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202607 (Jul2026)2027Q1 -$ -$ -$ 67,778$ 67,778$
202608 (Aug2026)2027Q1 -$ -$ 438,459$ 55,570$ 494,029$
202609 (Sep2026)2027Q1 -$ -$ 2,425,851$ 479,672$ 2,905,523$
202610 (Oct2026)2027Q2 -$ -$ 155,012$ 79,974$ 234,986$
202611 (Nov2026)2027Q2 -$ -$ 144,844$ 205,487$ 350,331$
202612 (Dec2026)2027Q2 -$ -$ 19,580$ 86,806$ 106,386$
202701 (Jan2027)2027Q3 -$ -$ 678,272$ 670,917$ 1,349,189$
202702 (Feb2027)2027Q3 -$ -$ 710,680$ 558,063$ 1,268,743$
202703 (Mar2027)2027Q3 -$ -$ 94,306$ 53,166$ 147,472$
202704 (Apr2027)2027Q4 -$ -$ 1,381,039$ 367,759$ 1,748,798$
202705 (May2027)2027Q4 -$ -$ 448,405$ 162,432$ 610,837$
202706 (Jun2027)2027Q4 -$ -$ 397,320$ 9,447$ 406,767$
Total, Currently Expiring through Jun 2027 -$ -$ 6,893,768$ 2,797,072$ 9,690,840$
Fiscal
Quarter
E = A + B + C + D
Police Fire Parks Streets
TotalCalendar
Month
FY
2
0
2
5
FY
2
0
2
6
FY
2
0
2
7
Impact Fees Confidential
Data pulled 5/1/2024 AAA BBB CCC DDD = AAA - BBB - CCC
Police
Allocation Budget
Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Description Appropriation
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 Appropriation
Sum of Fire Allocation
Budget Amended
Sum of Fire Allocation
Encumbrances
Sum of Fire Allocation
YTD Expenditures
Sum of Fire Allocation
Remaining Appropriation
Fire'sConsultant'sContract 8419202 3,079$ 3,021$ -$ 58.00
IFFP Contract - Fire 8423004 9,000$ -$ -$ 9,000$
Grand Total 12,079$ 3,021$ -$ 9,058.00 B
Parks
Allocation Budget
Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Description Appropriation
Sum of Parks Allocation
Budget Amended
Sum of Parks Allocation
Encumbrances Sum of Parks Allocation
YTD Expenditures
Sum of Parks Allocation
Remaining Appropriation
Cnty #1 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420424 240,239$ 133,125$ 133,125$ (26,011)$
Fisher House Exploration Ctr 8421401 132,208$ 50,308$ 97,016$ (15,116)$
9Line Orchard 8420136 149,953$ 8,756$ 148,345$ (7,147)$
9line park 8416005 1,733$ 2,588$ -$ (855)$
Waterpark Redevelopment Plan 8421402 1,705$ 1,705$ -$ -$
RAC Parcel Acquisition 8423454 0.30$ -$ -$ 0.30$
Park'sConsultant'sContract 8419204 2,638$ 2,596$ -$ 42$
Marmalade Park Block Phase II 8417011 274,870$ -$ 274,763$ 107$
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$
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$
Trailhead Prop Acquisition 8421403 21,830$ -$ -$ 21,830$
Green loop 200 E Design 8422408 513,788$ 167,772$ 318,322$ 27,694$
IF Prop Acquisition 3 Creeks 8420406 54,808$ -$ -$ 54,808$
Lighting NE Baseball Field 8423409 299,269$ -$ 220,000$ 79,269$ C
FY20 Bridge to Backman 8420430 125,740$ 240$ 30,367$ 95,133$
RAC Playground with ShadeSails 8422415 178,298$ 74,998$ -$ 103,300$
UTGov Ph2 Foothill Trails 8420420 120,893$ -$ -$ 120,893$
Three Creeks West Bank NewPark 8422403 150,736$ -$ -$ 150,736$
Rose Park Neighborhood Center 8423403 157,280$ -$ -$ 157,280$
Historic Renovation AllenParK 8422410 315,770$ 31,410$ 124,737$ 159,624$
Bridge to Backman 8418005 262,043$ 10,285$ -$ 251,758$
Poplar Grove Park Full Court Basketball Expansion FY24CIP-3037-Poplar 253,500$ -$ -$ 253,500$
900 S River Park Soccer Field 8423406 287,848$ 1,940$ 8,420$ 277,488$
Open Space Prop Acq-Trails 8423453 300,000$ -$ -$ 300,000$
SLC Foothills Land Acquisition 8422413 319,139$ -$ 4,375$ 314,764$
Parley's Trail Design & Constr 8417012 327,678$ -$ -$ 327,678$
Parks Billingual Signage Installation FY24CIP-3037-Signs 331,200$ -$ -$ 331,200$
Jordan Prk Event Grounds 8420134 404,139$ 17,131$ 7,774$ 379,234$
Wasatch Hollow Improvements 8420142 431,860$ 23,402$ 10,461$ 397,996$
Fire Station No 7 Tennis and Pickleball Court RestoratFY24CIP-3037-Fire 7 416,150$ -$ -$ 416,150$
Open Space Prop Acq-City Parks 8423452 450,000$ -$ -$ 450,000$
Jordan Park Pedestrian Pathway 8422414 475,079$ 5,014$ 4,426$ 465,638$
Gateway Triangle Property Park 8423408 499,457$ -$ -$ 499,457$
RAC Playground Phase II 8423405 521,564$ -$ -$ 521,564$
Jefferson Park Improvements FY24CIP-3037-Jefferson 530,000$ -$ -$ 530,000$
337 Park Development FY24CIP-3037-337 550,000$ -$ -$ 550,000$
Cottonwood Park Trailhead and Parklet FY24CIP-3037-Cotton 648,000$ -$ -$ 648,000$
Marmalade Plaza Project 8423451 996,905$ 96,800$ 213,753$ 686,352$
Mem. Tree Grove Design & Infra 8423407 864,449$ -$ -$ 864,449$
SLCFoothillsTrailheadDevelpmnt 8422412 1,241,318$ 25,689$ 28,030$ 1,187,599$
Pioneer Park 8419150 3,052,938$ 1,292,205$ 232,189$ 1,528,543$
GlendaleWtrprk MstrPln&Rehab 8422406 2,246,982$ 205,843$ 421,239$ 1,619,899$
Glendale Regional Park Phase 1 8423450 4,350,000$ 881,963$ 320,344$ 3,147,692$
Grand Total 22,568,020$ 3,061,100$ 2,597,686$ 16,909,234$
Streets
Allocation Budget
Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Description Appropriation
Sum of Street Allocation
Budget Amended
Sum of Street Allocation
Encumbrances Sum of Street Allocation
YTD Expenditures
Sum of Street Allocation
Remaining Appropriation
Corridor Transformations IF 8422608 25,398$ -$ 25,398$ -$
200S TransitCmpltStrtSuppl IF 8422602 37,422$ 37,422$ -$ -$
900 South 9Line RR Cross IF 8422604 28,000$ 28,000$ -$ -$
500/700 S Street Reconstructio 8412001 11,703$ 11,703$ -$ -$
200 S Recon Trans Corridor IF 8423602 252,000$ -$ 252,000$ -$
Gladiola Street 8406001 15,169$ 12,925$ -$ 2,244$
Transportatn Safety Imprvmt IF 8422620 6,316$ -$ -$ 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 18,699$ -$ -$ 18,699$
500 to 700 S 8418016 22,744$ -$ -$ 22,744$
Transp Safety Improvements 8420110 46,883$ 17,300$ -$ 29,583$
1700S Corridor Transfrmtn IF 8422622 35,300$ -$ -$ 35,300$
75-Year-Old Traffic Signal Replacement FY24CIP-3038-75 40,000$ -$ -$ 40,000$ D
300 N Complete Street Recons I 8423606 40,000$ -$ -$ 40,000$
1300 S Bicycle Bypass (pedestr 8416004 42,833$ -$ -$ 42,833$
Bikeway Urban Trails 8418003 181,303$ -$ 116,620$ 64,683$
400 South Viaduct Trail IF 8422611 90,000$ -$ -$ 90,000$
Safer Crossings: Main, Glendale Park, Citywide FY24CIP-3038-Safer 90,000$ -$ -$ 90,000$
Neighborhood Byways IF 8422614 104,500$ -$ -$ 104,500$
Transit Cap-Freq Trans Routes 8423608 110,000$ -$ -$ 110,000$
Transit Capital for Frequent Transit Routes / OperatioFY24CIP-3038-Transit 110,000$ -$ -$ 110,000$
TransportationSafetyImprov IF 8421500 241,135$ 114,292$ 9,775$ 117,067$
Indiana Ave/900 S Rehab Design 8412002 124,593$ -$ -$ 124,593$
Street Improve Reconstruc 20 8420125 386,298$ 3,360$ 43,652$ 339,286$
IF Complete Street Enhancement 8421502 625,000$ -$ -$ 625,000$
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8421501 790,236$ 55,846$ -$ 734,390$
1300 East Reconstruction 8423625 2,886,778$ 1,870,931$ 123,761$ 892,086$
700 South Phase 7 IF 8423305 1,119,834$ -$ -$ 1,119,834$
Streets Impact Fee Funding for 2100 South ReconstruFY24B3A5-3038-2100 3,323,590$ 2,062,317$ 104,960$ 1,156,313$
Streets Impact Fee Funding for 600/700 North Recon FY24B3A5-3038-600 3,204,371$ -$ -$ 3,204,371$
Grand Total 14,046,422$ 4,231,539$ 676,166$ 9,138,717$
Total 36,635,521$ 7,295,660$ 3,273,852$ 26,066,009$
E = A + B + C + D
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
578,695.27$
8484001
1,600,841$
UnAllocated Budget
Amount
8484002
8484003
8484005
20,931,089$
1,259,376$
24,370,001$
This page has intentionally been left blank
SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL
To:
Salt Lake City Council Chair
Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency Chair
Start Date:
07/25/2024
Date Sent to Council:
07/26/2024
From:
Employee Name:
Hillier, Randy
E-mail
Randy.Hillier@slc.gov
Department
Finance
Department Director Signature Chief Administrator Officer's Signature *
Director Signed Date
07/25/2024
Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date
07/26/2024
Subject:
FY25 Budget Amendment #1
Additional Staff Contact:
Greg Cleary, Mary Beth Thompson
Presenters/Staff Table
Greg Cleary: greg.cleary@slc.govMary Beth Thompson: marybeth.thompson@slc.gov
Document Type *
Ordinance
Budget Impact *
Yes
No
Budget Impact:
The Administration is requesting a budget amendment totaling $421,434,704 in revenues and $423,833,636 in expenses across all funds.
Recommendation:*
The Administration recommends that subsequent to a public hearing, the City Council adopt the following amendments to the FY 2025 adopted budget.
Background/Discussion (?)
With the complete adoption of Budget Amendment #1, the available fund balance will adjust to 15.31 percent of the FY 2025 Adopted
Budget. Please note that year end activity will be finalized in the coming months, which may impact fund balance percentage.
The Administration is requesting a budget amendment totaling $421,434,704 in revenues and $423,833,636 in expenses across all funds.
The amendment proposes changes in 11 funds, with three (3) general fund positions being proposed, and three (3) grant funded positions.
The proposal includes two (2) new initiatives for Council review and additional housekeeping and grant related items.
A summary spreadsheet outlining proposed budget changes is attached. The Administration requests this document be modified based on
the decisions of the Council.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Revenue
Expense
General Fund
469,408.00
1,793,932.52
Airport Fund
400,000,000.00
400,000,000.00
Housing & Loan Fund
6,994,736.48
6,994,736.48
CIP Fund
10,883,608.82
10,883,608.82
Impact Fees Fund
0.00
140,258.00
IMS Fund
105,000.00
105,000.00
Transportation Fund
0.00
329,150.00
Storm Water Fund
0.00
575,000.00
Sustainability Fund
0.00
30,000.00
Risk Management Fund
23,633.48
23,633.48
Miscellaneous Grants Fund
2,958,317.00
2,958,317.00
TOTAL
421,434,703.78
423,833,636.30
Will the City Council need to hold a public hearing for this item?*
Yes
No
Public Process
Public Hearing
Chief Administrator Officer's Comments
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: _______________
Jill Love, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: __________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: July 25, 2024
Victoria Petro, Chair
FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT: FY25 Budget Amendment #1
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 2025 adopted budget.
BUDGET IMPACT:
REVENUE EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND 469,408.00 1,793,932.52
AIRPORT FUND 400,000,000.00 400,000,000.00
HOUSING & LOAN FUND 6,994,736.48 6,994,736.48
CIP FUND 10,883,608.82 10,883,608.82
IMPACT FEES FUND 0.00 140,258.00
IMS FUND 105,000.00 105,000.00
TRANSPORTATION FUND 0.00 329,150.00
STORM WATER FUND 0.00 575,000.00
SUSTAINABILITY FUND 0.00 30,000.00
RISK MANAGEMENT FUND 23,633.48 23,633.48
MISCELLANEOUS GRANTS FUND 2,958,317.00 2,958,317.00
TOTAL 421,434,703.78 423,833,636.30
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Revenue for FY 2025 Budget Adjustments
The chart below presents General Fund Projected Revenues for FY 2025. Because this budget
amendment is being transmitted within the first month of the Fiscal Year, no adjustments to the
revenue budget are anticipated at this time.
The table below presents updated Fund Balance numbers and percentages, based on the proposed changes
included in Budget Amendment #1.
With the complete adoption of Budget Amendment #1, the available fund balance will adjust to 15.31 percent
of the FY 2025 Adopted Budget. Please note that year end activity will be finalized in the coming months,
which may impact fund balance percentage.
FOF GF Only TOTAL FOF GF On ly TOTAL
Begin n ing Fund Balance 24,309,089 178 ,266,652 202 ,575,741 1 8 ,112,496 9 5 ,271 ,568 1 1 3 ,384 ,064
Budget ed Ch an ge in Fu nd Balan ce (3,657,641) (29 ,211,158) (32 ,868,799) (662,906 ) (3 8 ,615 ,774 ) (3 9 ,278 ,680 )
Pr ior Year En cu mb r an ces (2,538,952) (18 ,618,979) (21 ,157,931)
Es t im at ed Beginning Fu n d Balan ce 18,112,496 130 ,436,515 148 ,549,011 1 7 ,449,590$ 5 6 ,655 ,794$ 7 4 ,105 ,384$
Beginning Fund Balance Percent 34.61%33.26%33.42%30.14%13.45%15.59%
Year End ACFR Ad ju s t ment s
Rev en u e Ch an ges - - -
Expen s e Changes (Prepaids, Rece iva ble , Et c .) (2 ,484,423) (2 ,484,423)
Fu nd Balan ce w / ACFR Ch an ges 18,112,496 127 ,952,092 146 ,064,588 1 7 ,449,590 5 6 ,655 ,794 7 4 ,105 ,384
Final Fund Balance Percent 34.61%32.63%32.86%
Budget Amen d men t Us e o f Fund Balan ce
BA#1 Revenu e Adjus t men t - - - 469 ,408
BA#1 Expens e Adju s t ment - (204,200) (204,200) (1 ,793 ,933 )
BA#2 Revenu e Adjus t men t - - -
BA#2 Expens e Adju s t ment - 763,950 763,950
BA#3 Revenu e Adjus t men t - - -
BA#3 Expens e Adju s t ment - (3 ,046,220) (3 ,046,220)
BA#4 Revenu e Adjus t men t - - -
BA#4 Expens e Adju s t ment - (2 ,890,480) (2 ,890,480)
BA#5 Revenu e Adjus t men t - 5 ,513,148 5 ,513,148
BA#5 Expens e Adju s t ment - (32 ,816,722) (32 ,816,722)
BA#6 Revenu e Adjus t men t - - -
BA#6 Expens e Adju s t ment - - -
Change in Rev en u e - -
Change in Expens e -
Fun d Balance Bu dget ed Incr eas e - -
- - Adjusted Fund Balance 18,1 12 ,4 9 6 9 5,2 71 ,5 68 11 3,3 84 ,0 64 1 7,449 ,5 90 5 6,655 ,7 94 7 2,780,8 59
Adjusted Fund Balance Percent 34.61%24.29%25.51%30.14%13.45%15.31%
Projected Revenue 52,338,120 392 ,166,803 444 ,504,923 5 7 ,891,384 42 1 ,343 ,716 4 7 5 ,245 ,078
Sal t Lake City
General Fund
TOTAL
Fund Balance Projections
FY2025 BudgetFY2024 Budget
The Administration is requesting a budget amendment totaling $421,434,704 in revenues and
$423,833,636 in expenses across all funds. The amendment proposes changes in 11 funds, with
three (3) general fund positions being proposed, and three (3) grant funded positions. The
proposal includes two (2) new initiatives for Council review and additional housekeeping and
grant related items.
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
This page has intentionally been left blank
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. ______ of 2024
(First amendment to the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, including
the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2024-2025)
An Ordinance Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 46 of 2024 which adopted the
Final Budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2024, and Ending
June 30, 2025.
In June of 2024, 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,
2024, and ending June 30, 2025, 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. 46 of 2024.
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, 2024 and ending June 30, 2025, 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:
_______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. _________ of 2024.
Published: ___________________.
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Approved As To Form
___ _______
Jaysen Oldroyd
This page has intentionally been left blank
Initiative Number/Name Fund Revenue Amount Expenditure
Amount Revenue Amount Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
1 Attorney's Office Organizational Structure Change GF 0.00 522,461.00 Ongoing 3.00
1 Attorney's Office Organizational Structure Change GF 0.00 102,000.00 One-time -
1 Attorney's Office Organizational Structure Change IMS 102,000.00 102,000.00 One-time -
2 Indoor Air Quality Incentives Sustainability 0.00 30,000.00 One-time -
1 Airport Interim Financing Airport 400,000,000.00 400,000,000.00 One-time -
2 Interest on General Obligation Series 2020 thru 2023
and Sales and Excise Tax Bond Series 2022 B&C CIP 10,483,608.82 10,483,608.82 One-time -
3 Community-based Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
Training (CREP Holding Account)GF 0.00 (240,950.00)One-time -
3 Community-based Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
Training (CREP Holding Account)GF 0.00 240,950.00 One-time -
4 Economic Development Loan Fund Budget Housing & Loan 6,994,736.48 6,994,736.48 One-time -
5 Increased HOPWA Awards FY 25 Misc Grants 12,359.00 12,359.00 One-time -
6 Fleet Block Demolition Rescope - FY 2023 (Surplus
Maintenance Fund)CIP 0.00 (200,000.00)One-time -
6 Fleet Block Demolition Rescope - FY 2023 (Surplus
Maintenance Fund)CIP 0.00 (500,000.00)One-time -
6 Fleet Block Demolition Rescope - FY 2023 (Surplus
Maintenance Fund)CIP 0.00 (500,000.00)One-time -
6 Fleet Block Demolition Project - New Project CIP 0.00 1,200,000.00 One-time -
7 EDLF Interest GF 0.00 5,263.52 One-time -
8 Position for Capital Asset Planning GF 140,258.00 143,258.00 One-time -
8 Position for Capital Asset Planning Impact Fees 0.00 140,258.00 One-time -
8 Position for Capital Asset Planning IMS 3,000.00 3,000.00 One-time -
9 Unfunded Maintenance on New Park Properties GF 329,150.00 471,950.00 Ongoing -
9 Unfunded Maintenance on New Park Properties Trans 0.00 329,150.00 Ongoing -
10 Public Utilities Budget Carry Forward Storm Water 0.00 575,000.00 One-time -
11 Attorney's Office Breakroom GF 0.00 149,000.00 One-time -
12 Waste & Recycling Part-time Equipment Operator Sustainability 0.00 (75,000.00)One-time -
12 Waste & Recycling Part-time Equipment Operator Sustainability 0.00 75,000.00 One-time -
13 Access Control Systems Upgrade - Security GF 0.00 400,000.00 One-time -
13 Access Control Systems Upgrade - Security CIP 400,000.00 400,000.00 One-time -
14 Risk Adminsitration - Tennis Bubble Claim Risk 23,633.48 23,633.48 One-time -
Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
1 Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Grant FY 25 Misc Grants 2,945,958.00 2,945,958.00 One-time 4.00
-
Consent Agenda #
Total of Budget Amendment
Items 421,434,703.78 423,833,636.30 - - 7.00
Fiscal Year 2024-25 Budget Amendment #1
Council ApprovedAdministration Proposed
Section I: Council Added Items
Section A: New Items
Section D: Housekeeping
Section F: Donations
Section G: Council Consent Agenda -- Grant Awards
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources
1
Fiscal Year 2024-25 Budget Amendment #1
Initiative Number/Name Fund Revenue Amount Expenditure
Amount Revenue Amount Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
Total by Fund, Budget Amendment #1:
General Fund GF 469,408.00 1,793,932.52 - - 3.00
Airport Fund Airport 400,000,000.00 400,000,000.00 - - -
Housing & Loan Fund Housing & Loan 6,994,736.48 6,994,736.48 - -
CIP Fund CIP 10,883,608.82 10,883,608.82 - - -
Impact Fees Fund Impact Fees 0.00 140,258.00 - -
IMS Fund IMS 105,000.00 105,000.00 - -
Transportation Fund Trans 0.00 329,150.00 - -
Storm Water Fund Storm Water 0.00 575,000.00 - -
Sustainability Fund Sustainability 0.00 30,000.00 - -
Risk Management Fund Risk 23,633.48 23,633.48 - -
Miscellaneous Grants Fund Misc Grants 2,958,317.00 2,958,317.00 - - 4.00
Total of Budget Amendment Items421,434,703.78 423,833,636.30 - - 7.00
Current Year Budget Summary, provided for information only
FY 2024-25 Budget, Including Budget Amendments
FY 2024-25 Adopted Budget BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total Total Revenue
General Fund (FC 100)437,777,040 469,408.00 438,246,448.00
Debt Service Fund (FC 101)31,051,086 31,051,086.00
Other Improvement Fund (FC 150)3,000 3,000.00
Capital Improvement Fund (FC 300)37,572,843 10,883,608.82 48,456,451.82
Water Utility Fund (FC 400)268,411,698 268,411,698.00
Sewer Utility Fund (FC 410)331,758,784 331,758,784.00
Stormwater Utility Fund (FC 420)23,017,198 23,017,198.00
Street Lighting Utility Fund (FC 430)5,113,968 5,113,968.00
Department of Airports Fund (FC 540)585,303,900 400,000,000.00 985,303,900.00
Fleet Management Fund (FC 610)26,262,291 26,262,291.00
Risk Management Fund (FC 620)65,149,109 23,633.48 65,172,742.48
Governmental Immunity Fund (FC 630)4,200,545 4,200,545.00
Information Mgt Serv Fund (FC 650)40,526,281 105,000.00 40,631,281.00
Local Building Authority Fund (FC 660)1,176,125 1,176,125.00
Refuse Collection Fund (FC670)22,662,393 22,662,393.00
Golf Fund (FC 680)13,618,816 13,618,816.00
Housing and Loan Fund (FC 690)5,419,000 6,994,736.48 12,413,736.48
CDBG Fund (FC 710)5,485,515 5,485,515.00
Miscellaneous Grants Fund (FC 720)6,644,210 2,958,317.00 9,602,527.00
Demolition Weed and Forfeiture (FC 730)400,000 400,000.00
Emergency 911 Dispatch (FC 750)3,925,000 3,925,000.00
Downtown Alliance Fund (FC 760)1,700,000 1,700,000.00
Donations Fund (FC 770)500,000 500,000.00
Funding Our Future Fund (FC 780)18,798 18,798.00
Transportation Fund (FC 785)9,700,000 9,700,000.00
Administration Proposed Council Approved
2
Fiscal Year 2024-25 Budget Amendment #1
DEA Taskforce (FC 901)1,074,233 1,074,233.00
Redevelopment Agency Fund (FC 920)84,658,884 84,658,884.00
GUCOA (FC 990)- -
Total of Budget Amendment Items 2,013,130,717 421,434,703.78 - - - - 2,434,565,420.78
Total Expense BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total Total Expense
General Fund (FC 100)480,404,359 1,793,932.52 482,198,291.52
Debt Service Fund (FC 101)29,531,934 .29,531,934.00
Other Improvement Fund (FC 150)3,000 3,000.00
Capital Improvement Fund (FC 300)37,572,843 11,023,866.82 48,596,709.82
Water Utility Fund (FC 400)206,304,772 206,304,772.08
Sewer Utility Fund (FC 410)312,791,857 312,791,856.79
Stormwater Utility Fund (FC 420)28,249,581 575,000.00 28,824,581.03
Street Lighting Utility Fund (FC 430)6,776,763 6,776,763.28
Department of Airports Fund (FC 540)576,395,100 400,000,000.00 976,395,100.05
Fleet Management Fund (FC 610)27,947,665 27,947,665.00
Risk Management Fund (FC 620)65,169,109 23,633.48 65,192,742.11
Governmental Immunity Fund (FC 630)3,894,763 3,894,763.43
Information Mgt Serv Fund (FC 650)41,031,482 105,000.00 41,136,481.81
Local Building Authority Fund (FC 660)1,176,125 1,176,125.00
Refuse Collection Fund (FC670)26,037,892 30,000.00 26,067,892.48
Golf Fund (FC 680)20,461,398 20,461,397.50
Housing and Loan Fund (FC 690)5,419,000 6,994,736.48 12,413,736.48
CDBG Fund (FC 710)5,485,515 5,485,515.00
Miscellaneous Grants Fund (FC 720)6,644,210 2,958,317.00 9,602,527.00
Demolition Weed and Forfeiture (FC 730)400,000 400,000.00
Emergency 911 Dispatch (FC 750)3,913,585 3,913,585.00
Downtown Alliance Fund (FC 760)1,700,000 1,700,000.00
Donations Fund (FC 770)500,000 500,000.00
Funding Our Future Fund (FC 780)49,547,429 49,547,429.35
Transportation Fund (FC 785)11,758,312 329,150.00 12,087,462.00
DEA Taskforce (FC 901)1,074,253 1,074,252.57
Redevelopment Agency Fund (FC 920)84,931,213 84,931,213.21
GUCOA (FC 990)1307115.76 1,307,115.76
-
Total of Budget Amendment Items 2,036,429,276 423,833,636.30 - - - - 2,460,262,912.27
3
Fiscal Year 2024-25 Budget Amendment #1
Budget Manager
Analyst, City Council
Contingent Appropriation
4
This page has intentionally been left blank
Salt Lake City FY 2024-25 Budget Amendment #1
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
1
Section A: New Items
A-1: Attorney’s
Office
Organizational
Structure Change
GF Ongoing $522,461.00
GF One-time $102,000.00
IMS One-time $102,000.00
Department: Attorney’s Office Prepared By: Cindy Lou Trishman
For question, please include Katie Lewis, Cindy Lou Trishman
On June 28, 2024, the District Attorney’s Office provided the City Attorney’s Office notice of intent to terminate the
interlocal agreement between the City and County under which District Attorney Gil serves as the City Prosecutor. The
notice of termination requires the City to vacate the approximately 31.0 City employees from the District Attorney’s
Office building by December 31, 2024, to move these employees under the City Attorney’s Office’s management, and to
hire a new City Prosecutor.
By ending the agreement on December 31, 2024, it is estimated there will be a remaining budget of approximately
$500,000 to account for leased office space and operational costs. The C ity Attorney’s office will work to stay within this
budget through the remainder of FY25 or will return to council later in the year if necessary.
As a result of the notice provided by the District Attorney’s Office to discontinue the interlocal agreement for the
services of the City Prosecutor’s team, the City Attorney’s office has re -evaluated the leadership structure and is
requesting (3) full time positions to accommodate the growth and management considerations.
The positions requested include:
(1) City Prosecutor position – Class 39 (New position). The anticipated cost for 9 months is $178,278;
(1) Senior City Attorney – Class 39. The anticipated cost for 8 months is $157,635.74, and;
(1) Deputy Director of Administration - City Attorney’s Office – Class 40 (New position). The anticipated cost for 8
months is $157,636.
IMS costs for hardware and software for all incoming/new staff of $102,000.
Job descriptions for the City Prosecutor and Deputy Director of Administration positions are included as attachments.
A-2: Indoor Air
Quality Incentives Sustainability One-time $30,000.00
Department: Sustainability Prepared By: Sophia Nicholas / Angie Nielsen
For questions, please include Sophia Nicholas, Debbie Lyons and Angie Nielsen
Funding is being requested for the Indoor Air Quality initiative in the amount of $30,000. The Department of
Sustainability will work with the City's Housing Stability Division’s Handyman and Home Repair Programs to distribute
high-efficiency HVAC filters, air purifiers, and single burner induction cooktops to homeowners served by these
programs. The effort is anticipated to reach 60 homes. This program will also include an educational component to help
residents understand how to improve indoor air quality in their homes, such as brochures and in -person consultations.
Air quality monitors may also be included as a tool to help res idents become aware of how routine activities impact
indoor air quality. Additional distribution through community-based organizations may also be considered if full uptake
is not exhausted through Housing Stability.
Salt Lake City FY 2024-25 Budget Amendment #1
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
2
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources
Section D: Housekeeping
D-1: Airport
Interim Financing Airport One-time $400,000,000
Department: Airport Prepared By: Brian Butler
For questions, please include Brian Butler
Salt Lake City Department of Airports (SLCDA) plans to issue interim financing up to $400 million for a Line of Credit
directly with a bank. We are currently in the procurement process and are negotiating the terms of the agreement
which we deem to be favorable, especially considering the low interest rate environment. These funds will ultimately be
refunded with long-term debt, but we will maintain the facility for upwards of three years to help with financial
flexibility on the Airport Redevelopment Project. These funds can be used for operating and maintenance expenses or
to fund construction costs as determined by the Airport Finance division.
D-2: Interest on
General
Obligation Series
2020 thru 2023
and Sales and
Excise Tax Bond
Series 2022 B&C
CIP One-time $10,483,608.82
Department: Finance-Treasurer Prepared By: Gaby Ewell / Jou Ying Su
For questions, please include Marina Scott, Samantha Kinney, Gaby Ewell and Jou Ying Su
General Obligation Bond Series 2020 was issued in September 2020 to fund reconstruction of City streets. Par
value of the issued bonds was $17,745,000. At the time the bonds were issued the proceeds were deposited with the
Trustee. Since then, unspent bond proceeds have earned interest. Thi s amendment will adjust the budget to reflect
actual proceeds available including interest earned from December 2022 through June 2024. The interest related to this
issuance amounts to $571,672.02.
General Obligation Bonds Series 2021 was issued in November 2021 to fund reconstruction of City streets. Par
value of the issued bonds was $20,600,000. At the time the bonds were issued the proceeds were deposited with the
Trustee. Since then, unspent bond proceeds have earned interest. This amendment will adjust the budget to reflect
actual proceeds available including accumulated interest from December 2022 through June 2024. The interest related
to this issuance amounts to $1,463,994.53.
General Obligation Bonds Series 2022 was issued in September 2022 to fund reconstruction of City streets. Par
value of the issued bonds was $21,785,000. At the time the bonds were issued the proceeds were deposited with the
Trustee. Since then, unspent bond proceeds have earned interest. Th is amendment will adjust the budget to reflect
actual proceeds available including accumulated interest from October 2022 through June 2024. The interest related to
this issuance amounts to $1,966,209.86.
Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2022 B&C were issued in October 2022 for the purpose of financing several
capital projects throughout the City. The bonds were issued at a par amount of $64,225.000. This amendment will
adjust the budget to reflect actual proceeds available including accumulated interest from November 2022 through
June 2024. The interest related to this issuance amounts to $3,462,304.21 and $1,960,713.54 respectively.
Salt Lake City FY 2024-25 Budget Amendment #1
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
3
General Obligation Bonds Series 2023 was issued in August 2023 to fund improvements of City parks and trails.
Par value of the issued bonds was $24,765,000. At the time the bonds were issued the proceeds were deposited with
the Trustee. Since then, unspent bond proceeds have earned interest . This amendment will adjust the budget to reflect
actual proceeds available including accumulated interest from September 2023 through June 2024. The interest related
to this issuance amounts to $1,058,714.66.
D-3: Community-
based Diversity,
Equity and
Inclusion Training
GF One-time ($240,950.00)
GF One-time $240,950.00
Department: Police Prepared By: Shellie Dietrich
For questions, please include Shellie Dietrich
The Police Department is requesting budget in the amount of $240,950 to be appropriated from the Commission of
Racial Equity in Policing (CREP) non-departmental holding account for the CREP to the Police Training account to
fund three community-based, diversity, equity and inclusion trainings that have been recommended and are supported
by the Racial Equity in Policing Commission.
• Equality Utah - $15,000
• Legal Equity Advocates - $77,450
• True Empowering - $148,500
D-4: Economic
Development Loan
Fund Budget
Housing & Loan One-time $6,994,736.48
Department: Economic Development Prepared By: Suzanne Swanson
For questions, please include Suzanne Swanson, Jacob Maxwell, Jolynn Walz
A budget for the Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF) was inadvertently left out of the FY 2025 budget adoption.
This budget amendment will provide an operating budget for the EDLF for FY 2025. A plan and mechanism are being
put into place to avoid such an oversight in the future. The primary use for the EDLF is to be the vehicle for the City to
provide small business loans. The EDLF Fund Balance will be recognized as the FY 2025 Annual Budget.
D-5: Increased
HOPWA Awards
FY 25
Misc Grants One-time $12,359.00
Department: CAN Prepared By: Brent Beck / Tony Milner
For questions, please include Suzanne Swanson, Brent Beck and Tony Milner
This item is to recognize the increased HUD HOPWA award in the amount of $12,359 for FY 2025.
The Council approved and allocated the City's anticipated HUD HOPWA award in the total amount of $932,841 on
April 16, 2024. On June 11, 2024, the City was notified of the City's final HOPWA award in the total amount of
$945,200. The additional funds, the difference between the two amounts, are being allocated as per the Council
approved contingencies.
D-6: Fleet Block
Demolition
Rescope
CIP One-time ($200,000.00)
Salt Lake City FY 2024-25 Budget Amendment #1
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
4
CIP One-time ($500,000.00)
CIP One-time ($500,000.00)
CIP One-time $1,200,000.00
Department: CAN Prepared By: Brent Beck / Tammy Hunsaker
For questions, please include Tammy Hunsaker , Brent Beck and Blake Thomas
The Administration is requesting that $700,000 of FY 2023 and FY 2024 CIP Vacant/Surplus Maintenance funding be
rescoped to prepare the Fleet Block property, located at 300 – 400 West and 800 – 900 South for redevelopment. In
addition to the $700,000, the Administration is proposing that up to $500,000 of the CIP Vacant/S urplus Maintenance
funding be allocated for the same purpose through the FY 2025 CIP budget, for a total of $1,200,000. Funding will be
utilized to prepare the property for redevelopment and to mitigate mounting security and safety issues.
It has become increasingly costly to secure the block, with the Administration contemplating security services of over
$250,000 per year to address daily break-ins. Rather than hiring security services, the Administration proposes to
address the security concerns. Specific approaches will be to terminate utility connections, surveying the property,
abating asbestos and other environmental contaminants within the buildings, and certain demolition activities. The CIP
Vacant/Surplus Maintenance funding to be rescoped for this project is broken down as follows:
FY 2023: $200,000
FY 2024: $500,000
FY 2025: $500,000
D-7: Economic
Development Loan
Fund – Interest
Forgiveness
GF One-time $5,263.52
Department:
Economic
Development
Prepared By: Roberta Reichgelt
For questions, please include Roberta Reichgelt, Jacob Maxwell and Lorena Riffo-Jenson
HUB Salt Lake, LLC, a borrower from the Economic Development Loan Fund, requested forgiveness from Salt Lake
City on accumulated interest from the period of 9/2021 – 4/2024, due to the unforeseen hardship and impacts from the
COVID pandemic and inability to access Salt Lake City’s small business relief programs. This request was not
recommended by the Department of Economic Development (DED) but was brought to City Council for consideration.
At the authorization and approval of City Council, the Department of Economic Development has submitted a budget
amendment request to allocate the requested funding to the Economic Development Loan Fund to be distributed to the
business/borrower. The loan, including accumulated interest, to Hub Salt Lake LL C was paid off in May of 2024, and as
such, the requested amount would be submitted to the borrower as a reimbursement.
D-8: Staff Position
for Capital Asset
Planning
GF Ongoing $143,258.00
Impact Fees Ongoing $140,258.00
IMS One-time $3,000.00
Department:
Finance Prepared By: Mike Atkinson
For questions, please include Mike Atkinson and Mary Beth Thompson
Salt Lake City FY 2024-25 Budget Amendment #1
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
5
The Capital Asset Planning Team is requesting a dedicated FTE to manage and report on Impact Fees. This position is
necessary to comply with the new level of detail required by the State Auditor for the annual Impact Fee Report. This
position was intended to be included in the Finance Department budget but was inadvertently left out prior to the final
adoption of the FY 2025 budget. Since the position is strictly dedicated to managing and reporting on impact fees, the
associated cost of the position will be covered by impact fees.
D-9: Unfunded
Maintenance on
New Park
Properties
GF Ongoing $471,950.00
Trans Ongoing $329,150.00
Department:
Finance Prepared By: Mike Atkinson
For questions, please include Mike Atkinson, Kristin Riker and Gregg Evans
This budget amendment requests approval to fund unfunded maintenance for 9 new properties and the complaint -
based weed abatement. This funding will cover FY 2025 maintenance needs for these properties. The total one-time
funding of $471,950, will be funded by transferring $329,150 from Fund Balance of the Transportation Fund to the
General Fund, and an additional $142,800 from the General Fund. This is a one-time funding request. In the future,
these properties will be included the Capital Asset Planning Team led assessment of all unfunded maintenance of
General Fund owned properties that will score, rank, and recommend a holistic approach to funding unfunded
maintenance going forward.
Breakout in cost:
$32,800 Seasonal Staff Hours
$439,150 Contracted Services
$471,950 Total BA Request
Salt Lake City FY 2024-25 Budget Amendment #1
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
6
Funds are to be transferred into Non-Departmental within the Public Lands Cost Center.
D-10: Public
Utilities Budget
Carry Forward
Storm Water One-time $575,000.00
Department:
Public Utilities Prepared By: Lisa Tarufelli
For questions, please include Lisa Tarufelli and Mark Christensen
The items included in this budget amendment are carryovers from FY 2024. These include equipment and project
procurements which were in process during the prior fiscal year but were not completed (final contracting or purchase
order) before June 30 2024. During the FY 2025 budget preparation process, it was anticipated these tasks would be
completed prior to year-end. As such, they were not budgeted for in FY 2025.
D-11: Attorney’s
Office Breakroom GF Ongoing $149,000
Department:
Attorney’s Office Prepared By: Cindy Lou Trishman
For question, please include Katie Lewis, Cindy Lou Trishman
The Department of the City Attorney’s office has engaged with the Engineering/Public Services team to complete the
work for the fifth-floor breakroom construction presented initially in FY 2024, and had been informed we will not be
able to secure work orders/contracts prior to the end of the fiscal year.
Improvements are all directed towards the 5th floor breakroom . The 5th floor currently houses the majority of the
Attorney’s department (civil, litigation, risk, legislative affairs).
Related, as noted in Item A-1, the Prosecutor's Office is returning to the leadership of the City Attorney's office in
December, which requires the hiring of a City Prosecutor and transitioning 31 employees from the District Attorney
Offices to a City-managed space and using City devices.
D-12: Waste &
Recycling Part-
time Equipment
Operator
Sustainability One-time ($75,000.00)
Sustainability One-time $75,000.00
Department:
Sustainability Prepared By: Sophia Nicholas / Angie Nielsen
For questions, please include Sophia Nicholas, Debbie Lyons and Angie Nielsen
The Waste & Recycling Division of Sustainability is requesting to transfer $75,000 from the Other Charges & Services
spend category used to pay a temporary staffing agency to provide seasonal and part-time personnel. The Division
typically hires 4-5 temporary employees at times throughout the year to support a variety of needs resulting from
increases in seasonal workloads. Rather than pay a temporary staffing agency their typical 30-40% wage loading rate,
the division can hire seasonal and/or part-time employees with more flexibility and more cost effectively. This, in turn,
also allows the Division to be more wage competitive in what remains a very tight labor market.
Salt Lake City FY 2024-25 Budget Amendment #1
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
7
D-13: Access
Control Systems
Upgrade - Security
GF One-time $400,000.00
CIP One-time $400,000.00
Department:
Public Services Prepared By: Kimberley Schmeling / Jorge Chamorro
For questions, please include Jorge Chamorro, Kimberley Schmeling and Nathan Kobs
This housekeeping requests approval to carryover funds awarded by Council in BA3, 2024 for Access Control System
Upgrades in Security into the FY 2025 budget. The funding was intended to replace outdated and vulnerable access
control systems and devices in 4 buildings -- including Plaza 349, Justice Court, and public safety buildings.
This phase of the larger security upgrade project was scheduled to begin immediately upon completion of similar
retrofits and upgrades at the City and County Building in the spring of 2024. The start date for this phase was
significantly delayed due to the CCB upgrades taking longer to complete than expected.
This request is budget neutral: $400,000 was approved for this project and is requested to be carried forward from the
FY 2024 to the FY 2025 Public Services budget to CIP.
D-14: Claims
Damage – Tennis
Bubble
Risk One-time $23,633.48
Department:
Attorney Prepared By: Lauree Roberts
For questions, please include Lauree Roberts
In March of 2024, the Dee Glen Tennis Bubble located at 1216 Wasatch Drive was damaged. This exposure caused the
Tennis Bubble to deflate causing significant damage to both the exterior and interior of the Tennis Bubble. Additionally,
some of the equipment and electrical inside the Tennis Bubble was damaged. The Tennis Bubble is owned and insured
by Salt Lake City, but managed, maintained, and operated by a third-party contractor. The repairs have been paid for by
the third-party contractor and the City needs to process the awarded claim settlement and distribute it to the third-
party contractor in the amount of $23,633.48.
A straw poll is being requested to expedite receipt and payment of the reimbursement.
Section E: Grants Requiring No Staff Resources
E-1: Homeless
Shelter Cities
Mitigation Grant
FY 2025
Misc Grants One-time $2,945,958
Department: Finance Prepared By: Amy Dorsey
For questions, please include Amy Dorsey.
The grant funds 20.75 hourly positions. These positions are broken down as follows:
• 1.0 HEART Grant Specialist-50% of time is charged to the grant.
• 2.0 FTE HEART Coordinators-100% of time is charged to the grant.
• 1.0 Justice Court Intercept-100% of time is charged to the grant.
Salt Lake City FY 2024-25 Budget Amendment #1
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
8
• 12.0 officers-100% of time is charged to the grant
• 3.0 Sergeants-100% of time is charged to the grant
• 3.0 officiers - 6 months of time is charged to grant
• 1.0 Lieutenant - 9 months of time is charged to the grant
Note: All positions EXCEPT 3 officers and 1 Lieutenant are positions that have been previously paid for by the grant.
The 3 officers and Lieutenant are new to this grant for this funding year.
Section F: Donations
Section G: Consent Agenda
Consent Agenda
Consent Agenda
Section I: Council Added Items
This page has intentionally been left blank
DRAFT - CITY PROSECUTOR
Job Profile Name City Prosecutor
Job Profile Summary Under the general administrative direction of the City Attorney, oversees and
directs activities of City Prosecutor's Office, including arraignment and prosecution of persons
violating ordinances of Salt Lake City.
This is an appointed, at-will position without tenure and exempt from the career service system.
Job Description
TYPICAL DUTIES:
• Oversees prosecution of cases, in all courts including appeals to district court, on behalf
of City, through supervision and assignment of Assistant City Prosecutors.
• Advises on investigation used to determine if prosecution is warranted. Initiates as well
as assists in negotiation of complaint settlements to save trial expense and expedite case
termination.
• Tries principal criminal cases, prepares pleadings and briefs, makes oral arguments on
behalf of City. Drafts, or has drafted, legal materials such as complaints, warrants, and
subpoenas and sees that they are properly prepared and served.
• In consultation with the City Attorney, consults and advises police department officials,
City department heads and employees, and general public on matters concerning
criminal law.
• Prepares operational budget for the Prosecutor's Office, including the evaluation of
staffing needs, coordinating with the City Attorney leadership team for inclusion in the
annual budget.
• Handles hiring and onboarding of staff in the City Prosecutor’s Office; recommends
candidates to the City Attorney for promotion; evaluates Assistant City Prosecutors and
support staff; resolves personnel problems within the Prosecutor's Office. Manages the
City Prosecutor’s Office and reports to the City Attorney.
• Prepare and respond impromptu, examine witnesses, and argue effectively, often under
hostile and stressful circumstances.
• Serve in a capacity to organize and retain familiarity with large numbers of court cases of
varying complexity and circumstances within short time periods.
• Acquire and retain current familiarity with rapidly changing principles of law, and to
apply principles to factual situations as presented in court.
• Maintain the ability to function under repeated verbal distractions.
• Performs related duties as assigned.
MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS:
• Graduation from accredited college or university with JD or LLB Degree, and ten (10) years'
full-time employment in practice of law, including trial work.
• Membership in good standing with Utah State Bar Association.
• Extensive knowledge of principles of criminal law, judicial procedures, and rules of evidence.
• Ability to direct and supervise a staff of assistant prosecutors and office support personnel and
effectuate office policy.
• Ability to communicate effectively, orally and in writing.
• Ability to establish and maintain effective working relationships with elected officials,
department heads, employees, officials and employees of other jurisdictions, and the general
public.
• Ability to be creative in building an effective team and successfully manage team members.
• Experience managing a team of lawyers and staff members.
• Maintain confidentiality related to complex legal matters.
WORKING CONDITIONS:
• Light physical effort. Comfortable working positions. Handling light weights, intermittent
sitting, standing and walking.
• Considerable exposure to stress as a result of human behavior, frequent deadlines, and the
general demands of the position.
POSITION TYPE
Full-Time / Part-Time / Seasonal
POSITION SALARY RANGE
$ - $
DEPARTMENT ATTORNEY
A TEN YEAR PERSONAL, CRIMINAL AND EMPLOYMENT BACKGROUND CHECK IS REQUIRED
FOR THIS POSITION.
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.
DRAFT – Deputy Director of Administration of City Attorney’s Office
Job Profile Name Deputy Director of Administration of City Attorney’s Office
Job Profile Summary Under the general administrative direction of the City Attorney, incumbent
serves as a member of the department’s leadership team with broad responsibilities to manage the
support of the City Attorney’s function of support to both branches of government. Manages multiple
divisions/teams. Incumbent is responsible for the general administration of the City Attorney’s
department/office including the annual budget, strategic plan, measurements and procedures for
requests to the department. Incumbent must be a dynamic, organized, and transformative leader with
proven ability to support alignment of services with organizational consistency.
This is an appointed, at-will position without tenure and exempt from the career service system.
Job Description
TYPICAL DUTIES:
• Manages multiple department workgroups or divisions which may include Legislative Affairs,
City Recorder, City Risk Manager, and support staff/administration for the Office of the City
Attorney
• Establishes guidelines, requirements, and procedures to ensure compliance with regulations
and conformance to best practices.
• Evaluates performance of supervised personnel and handles personnel problems, complaints
and other issues of said employees. Manages and addresses personnel concerns for the
managed workgroups or divisions, while also establishing internal department procedures for
consistency in approach.
• Handles onboarding of new employees. Manages staff member’s performance and
creates opportunities for staff to improve their skills and advance in their field. Creates
and implements a succession plan for the division.
• Consults with the City Attorney to formulate strategy and provide procedure to the
general operations of the office. Ensures appropriate use of staff, resources, timely
implementation of processes and ensures that key milestones are established,
understood, and realized.
• Participates in the development and implementation of goals, objectives, policies, and
priorities for assigned programs and recommends and administers policies and
procedures.
• Monitors and evaluates the efficiency and effectiveness of legal support methods and
procedures and program performance; recommends, within division and departmental
policy, appropriate service and staffing levels.
• Organizes and presents information for management review, including organizational
improvement recommendations to fulfill requests and responsibilities of the department.
• Participates in the development and administration of the departments and divisions
annual budget; participates in the forecast of funds needed for staffing, equipment,
materials, software, third-party contracts, and supplies; monitors and approves
expenditures; implements adjustments.
• Ensures the department’s safety and emergency programs are effectively implemented
throughout the department.
• Performs related duties as assigned.
MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS:
• Bachelor’s degree in Public Administration, Business Administration or a JD or LLB, or closely
related field plus ten or more years of related experience including two or more years of
supervisory responsibility with direct reports and responsibility for personnel decisions. Except
for required supervisory responsibility, experience may be substituted for educational
requirements.
• Ability to manage projects, prepare and present project details using analysis skills, graphic
presentations development and technical reports to the Mayor, City Council, Division
Leadership and the general public.
• Ability to establish and maintain effective professional and working relationships with
elected officials, department heads, public officials, and employees of other agencies,
members of the news media and the general public.
• Ability to effectively communicate effectively, both verbally and in writing.
• Ability to be creative in building an effective team and successfully manage team members.
• Ability to effectively supervise employees in the office of the City Attorney and effectuate
office policy.
• Maintain confidentiality related to complex legal matters.
DESIRED QUALIFICATIONS:
• Master’s degree in a related field or Master of Business Administration
WORKING CONDITIONS:
• Light physical effort. Comfortable working positions. Handling light weights, intermittent
sitting, standing and walking.
• Considerable exposure to stress as a result of human behavior, frequent deadlines, and the
general demands of the position.
POSITION TYPE
Full-Time / Part-Time / Seasonal
POSITION SALARY RANGE
$ - $
DEPARTMENT ATTORNEY
This page has intentionally been left blank
911 BUREAU Job Title Grade
002626 911 Dispatch Director E41
002627 911 Communications Deputy Director E32
001989 Executive Assistant E26
AIRPORT
001551 Executive Director of Airports E41
002533 Airport Chief Operating Officer E40
000795 Director Airport Design & Construction Management E39
000794 Director of Airport Maintenance E39
000163 Director of Finance & Accounting - Airport E39
000162 Director of Real Estate & Commercial Develoment E39
001365 Director of Airport Information Technology E39
001654 Director of Airport Planning & Captial Programming E39
001011 Director of Operations - Airport E39
002349 Director of Communications and Marketing - Airport E38
001989 Executive Assistant E26
CITY ATTORNEY
001553 City Attorney E41
001577 Deputy City Attorney E40
Deputy Director of Operations and Administration E40
City Prosecutor E39
000314 City Recorder E38
002923 Legislative Affairs Division Director E38
CITY COUNCIL
NO PROFILE Council Member-Elect N/A*
000021 Executive Director - City Council Office E41
001459 Council Legal Director E39
000026 Deputy Director - City Council E39
001980 Associate Deputy Director - City Council E37
002637 Legislative & Policy Manager E37
001954 Senior Public Policy Analyst E33
001895 Communications Director - City Council E31
002636 Public Engagement & Communications Specialist III E31
002472 Operations Manager & Mentor - City Council E31
000344 Public Policy Analyst E31
002355 Policy Analyst / Public Engagement E28
002358 Public Engagement / Communications Specialist II E28
002357 Constituent Liaison / Policy Analyst E27
002354 Constituent Liaison E26
NO PROFILE?Public Engagement & Communications Specialist I E26
002353 Assistant to Council Executive Director E25
002351 Council Administrative Assistant E24
COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS
002060 Director of Community & Neighborhoods E41
002068 Deputy Director of Community & Neighborhoods E37
002562 Deputy Director of Community Services - Community & Neighborhoods E37
002899 Division Director of Transportation (Engineer)E37
004165 Planning Division Director E37
006440 Building Official E35
006401 Division Director of Housing & Neighborhood Development E35
002110 Division Director of Transportation (Planner)E35
002326 Youth & Family Division Director E35
001989 Executive Assistant E26
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
001992 Director of Economic Development E41
002096 Deputy Director Economic Development E37
002312 Arts Division Director E35
002545 Business Development Division Director E35
APPENDIX B – APPOINTED EMPLOYEES BY DEPARTMENT
Effective June 23, 2024 (Revised XX/XX/2024)
FINANCE
002091 Chief Financial Officer E41
002342 City Treasurer E39
002593 Deputy Chief Financial Officer E39
000504 Chief Procurement Officer E36
FIRE
008010 Fire Chief E41
001771 Assistant Fire Chief E38
001989 Executive Assistant E26
HUMAN RESOURCES
002475 Chief Human Resources Officer E41
002081 Deputy Chief Human Resources Officer E38
000337 Civilian Review Board Investigator E35
111001 Transition Chief of Staff N/A*
111002 Transition Communications Director N/A*
111003 Transition Executive Assistant N/A*
INFORMATION MGT SERVICES
001578 Chief Information Officer E41
002514 Chief Innovation Officer E40
002816 Deputy Chief Information Officer - Operations E40
JUSTICE COURT
001601 Justice Court Judge E39
000539 Justice Court Administrator E37
MAYOR
000249 Chief of Staff E41
002470 Chief Administrative Officer E41
000897 Communications Director E39
002671 Deputy Chief Administrative Officer E39
001823 Deputy Chief of Staff E39
000002 Senior Advisor E39
002115 Communications Deputy Director E30
002536 Communications & Content Manager - Mayor's Office E30
002206 Policy Advisor E29
REP Commision Policy Advisor E29
000898 Community Liaison E26
001989 Executive Assistant E26
001721 Office Manager - Mayor's Office E24
002526 Community Outreach Special Projects & Access Coordinator E24
001988 Administrative Assistant N19
002282 Consumer Protection Analyst N16
POLICE
007010 Chief of Police E41
001275 Deputy Chief of Police E38
002524 Communications Administative Director E37
002525 Internal Affairs Administrative Director E37
NEW PROFILE Police Commander E36
001989 Executive Assistant E26
PUBLIC LANDS
002581 Director of Public Lands E41
002548 Deputy Director of Public Lands E37
002178 Golf Division Director E35
002405 Parks Division Director E35
002853 Urban Forestry Division Director E35
3019 Planning & Design Division Director E35
002330 Trails & Natural Lands Division Director E32
PUBLIC SERVICES
000579 Director of Public Services E41
004031 City Engineer E39
002506 Deputy Director, Public Services E38
002894 Safety & Security Director E37
002176 Facilities Division Director E35
002177 Fleet Management Division Director E35
002189 Streets Division Director E35
002327 Compliance Division Director E35
001989 Executive Assistant E26
PUBLIC UTILITIES
001552 Director of Public Utilities E41
000036 Deputy Director - Public Utilities E39
000037 Finance Administrator - Public Utilities E39
002092 Chief Engineer - Public Utilities E37
000039 Water Quality & Treatment Administrator E37
001989 Executive Assistant E26
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
002511 Director - Redevelopment Agency E41
002512 Deputy Director - Redevelopment Agency E37
SUSTAINABILITY
002036 Sustainability Director E41
002404 Sustainability Deputy Director E37
002186 Waste & Recycling Division Director E35
Except for a change in job title or reassignment to a lower pay level, no appointed position on this pay plan may be added, removed or
modified without approval of the City Council.
* Compensation for transitional positions, including city council member‐elect, is set as provided under Chapter 2.03.030 of the
Salt Lake City Code. Benefits for transitional employees are equivalent to those provided to full‐time employees. Except for leave time, benefits for city council
members‐elect are also equivalent to those provided to full‐time employees.
This page has intentionally been left blank
911 BUREAU Job Title Grade
002626 911 Dispatch Director E41
002627 911 Communications Deputy Director E32
001989 Executive Assistant E26
AIRPORT
001551 Executive Director of Airports E41
002533 Airport Chief Operating Officer E40
000795 Director Airport Design & Construction Management E39
000794 Director of Airport Maintenance E39
000163 Director of Finance & Accounting - Airport E39
000162 Director of Real Estate & Commercial Develoment E39
001365 Director of Airport Information Technology E39
001654 Director of Airport Planning & Captial Programming E39
001011 Director of Operations - Airport E39
002349 Director of Communications and Marketing - Airport E38
001989 Executive Assistant E26
CITY ATTORNEY
001553 City Attorney E41
001577 Deputy City Attorney E40
Deputy Director of Operations and Administration E40
City Prosecutor E39
000314 City Recorder E35 E38
002923 Legislative Affairs Division Director E34 E38
CITY COUNCIL
NO PROFILE Council Member-Elect N/A*
000021 Executive Director - City Council Office E41
001459 Council Legal Director E39
000026 Deputy Director - City Council E39
001980 Associate Deputy Director - City Council E37
002637 Legislative & Policy Manager E37
001954 Senior Public Policy Analyst E33
001895 Communications Director - City Council E31
002636 Public Engagement & Communications Specialist III E31
002472 Operations Manager & Mentor - City Council E31
000344 Public Policy Analyst E31
002355 Policy Analyst / Public Engagement E28
002358 Public Engagement / Communications Specialist II E28
002357 Constituent Liaison / Policy Analyst E27
002354 Constituent Liaison E26
NO PROFILE?Public Engagement & Communications Specialist I E26
002353 Assistant to Council Executive Director E25
002351 Council Administrative Assistant E24
COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS
002060 Director of Community & Neighborhoods E41
002068 Deputy Director of Community & Neighborhoods E37
002562 Deputy Director of Community Services - Community & Neighborhoods E37
002899 Division Director of Transportation (Engineer) E37
004165 Planning Division Director E37
006440 Building Official E35
006401 Division Director of Housing & Neighborhood Development E35
002110 Division Director of Transportation (Planner) E35
002326 Youth & Family Division Director E35
001989 Executive Assistant E26
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
001992 Director of Economic Development E41
002096 Deputy Director Economic Development E37
002312 Arts Division Director E35
002545 Business Development Division Director E35
APPENDIX B – APPOINTED EMPLOYEES BY DEPARTMENT
Effective June 23, 2024 (Revised XX/XX/2024)
FINANCE
002091 Chief Financial Officer E41
002342 City Treasurer E39
002593 Deputy Chief Financial Officer E39
000504 Chief Procurement Officer E36
FIRE
008010 Fire Chief E41
001771 Assistant Fire Chief E38
001989 Executive Assistant E26
HUMAN RESOURCES
002475 Chief Human Resources Officer E41
002081 Deputy Chief Human Resources Officer E38
000337 Civilian Review Board Investigator E35
111001 Transition Chief of Staff N/A*
111002 Transition Communications Director N/A*
111003 Transition Executive Assistant N/A*
INFORMATION MGT SERVICES
001578 Chief Information Officer E41
002514 Chief Innovation Officer E40
002816 Deputy Chief Information Officer - Operations E40
JUSTICE COURT
001601 Justice Court Judge E39
000539 Justice Court Administrator E37
MAYOR
000249 Chief of Staff E41
002470 Chief Administrative Officer E41
000897 Communications Director E39
002671 Deputy Chief Administrative Officer E39
001823 Deputy Chief of Staff E39
000002 Senior Advisor E39
002115 Communications Deputy Director E30
002536 Communications & Content Manager - Mayor's Office E30
002206 Policy Advisor E29
REP Commision Policy Advisor E29
000898 Community Liaison E26
001989 Executive Assistant E26
001721 Office Manager - Mayor's Office E24
002526 Community Outreach Special Projects & Access Coordinator E24
001988 Administrative Assistant N19
002282 Consumer Protection Analyst N16
POLICE
007010 Chief of Police E41
001275 Deputy Chief of Police E38
002524 Communications Administative Director E37
002525 Internal Affairs Administrative Director E37
NEW PROFILE Police Commander E36
001989 Executive Assistant E26
PUBLIC LANDS
002581 Director of Public Lands E41
002548 Deputy Director of Public Lands E37
002178 Golf Division Director E35
002405 Parks Division Director E35
002853 Urban Forestry Division Director E35
3019 Planning & Design Division Director E35
002330 Trails & Natural Lands Division Director E32
PUBLIC SERVICES
000579 Director of Public Services E41
004031 City Engineer E39
002506 Deputy Director, Public Services E38
002894 Safety & Security Director E37
002176 Facilities Division Director E35
002177 Fleet Management Division Director E35
002189 Streets Division Director E35
002327 Compliance Division Director E35
001989 Executive Assistant E26
PUBLIC UTILITIES
001552 Director of Public Utilities E41
000036 Deputy Director - Public Utilities E39
000037 Finance Administrator - Public Utilities E39
002092 Chief Engineer - Public Utilities E37
000039 Water Quality & Treatment Administrator E37
001989 Executive Assistant E26
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
002511 Director - Redevelopment Agency E41
002512 Deputy Director - Redevelopment Agency E37
SUSTAINABILITY
002036 Sustainability Director E41
002404 Sustainability Deputy Director E37
002186 Waste & Recycling Division Director E35
Except for a change in job title or reassignment to a lower pay level, no appointed position on this pay plan may be added, removed or
modified without approval of the City Council.
* Compensation for transitional positions, including city council member‐elect, is set as provided under Chapter 2.03.030 of the
Salt Lake City Code. Benefits for transitional employees are equivalent to those provided to full‐time employees. Except for leave time, benefits for city council
members‐elect are also equivalent to those provided to full‐time employees.
This page has intentionally been left blank
Impact Fees ‐ Summary Confidential
Data pulled 5/1/2024
Unallocated Budget Amounts: by Major Area
Area Cost Center UnAllocated
Cash Notes:
Impact fee - Police 8484001 1,600,841$ A
Impact fee - Fire 8484002 578,695$ B
Impact fee - Parks 8484003 20,931,089$ C
Impact fee - Streets 8484005 1,259,376$ D
24,370,001$
Expiring Amounts: by Major Area, by Month
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 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202512 (Dec2025)2026Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202601 (Jan2026)2026Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202602 (Feb2026)2026Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202603 (Mar2026)2026Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202604 (Apr2026)2026Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202605 (May2026)2026Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202606 (Jun2026)2026Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202607 (Jul2026)2027Q1 -$ -$ -$ 67,778$ 67,778$
202608 (Aug2026)2027Q1 -$ -$ 438,459$ 55,570$ 494,029$
202609 (Sep2026)2027Q1 -$ -$ 2,425,851$ 479,672$ 2,905,523$
202610 (Oct2026)2027Q2 -$ -$ 155,012$ 79,974$ 234,986$
202611 (Nov2026)2027Q2 -$ -$ 144,844$ 205,487$ 350,331$
202612 (Dec2026)2027Q2 -$ -$ 19,580$ 86,806$ 106,386$
202701 (Jan2027)2027Q3 -$ -$ 678,272$ 670,917$ 1,349,189$
202702 (Feb2027)2027Q3 -$ -$ 710,680$ 558,063$ 1,268,743$
202703 (Mar2027)2027Q3 -$ -$ 94,306$ 53,166$ 147,472$
202704 (Apr2027)2027Q4 -$ -$ 1,381,039$ 367,759$ 1,748,798$
202705 (May2027)2027Q4 -$ -$ 448,405$ 162,432$ 610,837$
202706 (Jun2027)2027Q4 -$ -$ 397,320$ 9,447$ 406,767$
Total, Currently Expiring through Jun 2027 -$ -$ 6,893,768$ 2,797,072$ 9,690,840$
Fiscal
Quarter
E = A + B + C + D
Police Fire Parks Streets
TotalCalendar
Month
FY
2
0
2
5
FY
2
0
2
6
FY
2
0
2
7
Impact Fees Confidential
Data pulled 5/1/2024 AAA BBB CCC DDD = AAA - BBB - CCC
Police
Allocation Budget
Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Description Appropriation
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 Appropriation
Sum of Fire Allocation
Budget Amended
Sum of Fire Allocation
Encumbrances
Sum of Fire Allocation
YTD Expenditures
Sum of Fire Allocation
Remaining Appropriation
Fire'sConsultant'sContract 8419202 3,079$ 3,021$ -$ 58.00
IFFP Contract - Fire 8423004 9,000$ -$ -$ 9,000$
Grand Total 12,079$ 3,021$ -$ 9,058.00 B
Parks
Allocation Budget
Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Description Appropriation
Sum of Parks Allocation
Budget Amended
Sum of Parks Allocation
Encumbrances Sum of Parks Allocation
YTD Expenditures
Sum of Parks Allocation
Remaining Appropriation
Cnty #1 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420424 240,239$ 133,125$ 133,125$ (26,011)$
Fisher House Exploration Ctr 8421401 132,208$ 50,308$ 97,016$ (15,116)$
9Line Orchard 8420136 149,953$ 8,756$ 148,345$ (7,147)$
9line park 8416005 1,733$ 2,588$ -$ (855)$
Waterpark Redevelopment Plan 8421402 1,705$ 1,705$ -$ -$
RAC Parcel Acquisition 8423454 0.30$ -$ -$ 0.30$
Park'sConsultant'sContract 8419204 2,638$ 2,596$ -$ 42$
Marmalade Park Block Phase II 8417011 274,870$ -$ 274,763$ 107$
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$
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$
Trailhead Prop Acquisition 8421403 21,830$ -$ -$ 21,830$
Green loop 200 E Design 8422408 513,788$ 167,772$ 318,322$ 27,694$
IF Prop Acquisition 3 Creeks 8420406 54,808$ -$ -$ 54,808$
Lighting NE Baseball Field 8423409 299,269$ -$ 220,000$ 79,269$ C
FY20 Bridge to Backman 8420430 125,740$ 240$ 30,367$ 95,133$
RAC Playground with ShadeSails 8422415 178,298$ 74,998$ -$ 103,300$
UTGov Ph2 Foothill Trails 8420420 120,893$ -$ -$ 120,893$
Three Creeks West Bank NewPark 8422403 150,736$ -$ -$ 150,736$
Rose Park Neighborhood Center 8423403 157,280$ -$ -$ 157,280$
Historic Renovation AllenParK 8422410 315,770$ 31,410$ 124,737$ 159,624$
Bridge to Backman 8418005 262,043$ 10,285$ -$ 251,758$
Poplar Grove Park Full Court Basketball Expansion FY24CIP-3037-Poplar 253,500$ -$ -$ 253,500$
900 S River Park Soccer Field 8423406 287,848$ 1,940$ 8,420$ 277,488$
Open Space Prop Acq-Trails 8423453 300,000$ -$ -$ 300,000$
SLC Foothills Land Acquisition 8422413 319,139$ -$ 4,375$ 314,764$
Parley's Trail Design & Constr 8417012 327,678$ -$ -$ 327,678$
Parks Billingual Signage Installation FY24CIP-3037-Signs 331,200$ -$ -$ 331,200$
Jordan Prk Event Grounds 8420134 404,139$ 17,131$ 7,774$ 379,234$
Wasatch Hollow Improvements 8420142 431,860$ 23,402$ 10,461$ 397,996$
Fire Station No 7 Tennis and Pickleball Court RestoratFY24CIP-3037-Fire 7 416,150$ -$ -$ 416,150$
Open Space Prop Acq-City Parks 8423452 450,000$ -$ -$ 450,000$
Jordan Park Pedestrian Pathway 8422414 475,079$ 5,014$ 4,426$ 465,638$
Gateway Triangle Property Park 8423408 499,457$ -$ -$ 499,457$
RAC Playground Phase II 8423405 521,564$ -$ -$ 521,564$
Jefferson Park Improvements FY24CIP-3037-Jefferson 530,000$ -$ -$ 530,000$
337 Park Development FY24CIP-3037-337 550,000$ -$ -$ 550,000$
Cottonwood Park Trailhead and Parklet FY24CIP-3037-Cotton 648,000$ -$ -$ 648,000$
Marmalade Plaza Project 8423451 996,905$ 96,800$ 213,753$ 686,352$
Mem. Tree Grove Design & Infra 8423407 864,449$ -$ -$ 864,449$
SLCFoothillsTrailheadDevelpmnt 8422412 1,241,318$ 25,689$ 28,030$ 1,187,599$
Pioneer Park 8419150 3,052,938$ 1,292,205$ 232,189$ 1,528,543$
GlendaleWtrprk MstrPln&Rehab 8422406 2,246,982$ 205,843$ 421,239$ 1,619,899$
Glendale Regional Park Phase 1 8423450 4,350,000$ 881,963$ 320,344$ 3,147,692$
Grand Total 22,568,020$ 3,061,100$ 2,597,686$ 16,909,234$
Streets
Allocation Budget
Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Description Appropriation
Sum of Street Allocation
Budget Amended
Sum of Street Allocation
Encumbrances Sum of Street Allocation
YTD Expenditures
Sum of Street Allocation
Remaining Appropriation
Corridor Transformations IF 8422608 25,398$ -$ 25,398$ -$
200S TransitCmpltStrtSuppl IF 8422602 37,422$ 37,422$ -$ -$
900 South 9Line RR Cross IF 8422604 28,000$ 28,000$ -$ -$
500/700 S Street Reconstructio 8412001 11,703$ 11,703$ -$ -$
200 S Recon Trans Corridor IF 8423602 252,000$ -$ 252,000$ -$
Gladiola Street 8406001 15,169$ 12,925$ -$ 2,244$
Transportatn Safety Imprvmt IF 8422620 6,316$ -$ -$ 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 18,699$ -$ -$ 18,699$
500 to 700 S 8418016 22,744$ -$ -$ 22,744$
Transp Safety Improvements 8420110 46,883$ 17,300$ -$ 29,583$
1700S Corridor Transfrmtn IF 8422622 35,300$ -$ -$ 35,300$
75-Year-Old Traffic Signal Replacement FY24CIP-3038-75 40,000$ -$ -$ 40,000$ D
300 N Complete Street Recons I 8423606 40,000$ -$ -$ 40,000$
1300 S Bicycle Bypass (pedestr 8416004 42,833$ -$ -$ 42,833$
Bikeway Urban Trails 8418003 181,303$ -$ 116,620$ 64,683$
400 South Viaduct Trail IF 8422611 90,000$ -$ -$ 90,000$
Safer Crossings: Main, Glendale Park, Citywide FY24CIP-3038-Safer 90,000$ -$ -$ 90,000$
Neighborhood Byways IF 8422614 104,500$ -$ -$ 104,500$
Transit Cap-Freq Trans Routes 8423608 110,000$ -$ -$ 110,000$
Transit Capital for Frequent Transit Routes / OperatioFY24CIP-3038-Transit 110,000$ -$ -$ 110,000$
TransportationSafetyImprov IF 8421500 241,135$ 114,292$ 9,775$ 117,067$
Indiana Ave/900 S Rehab Design 8412002 124,593$ -$ -$ 124,593$
Street Improve Reconstruc 20 8420125 386,298$ 3,360$ 43,652$ 339,286$
IF Complete Street Enhancement 8421502 625,000$ -$ -$ 625,000$
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8421501 790,236$ 55,846$ -$ 734,390$
1300 East Reconstruction 8423625 2,886,778$ 1,870,931$ 123,761$ 892,086$
700 South Phase 7 IF 8423305 1,119,834$ -$ -$ 1,119,834$
Streets Impact Fee Funding for 2100 South ReconstruFY24B3A5-3038-2100 3,323,590$ 2,062,317$ 104,960$ 1,156,313$
Streets Impact Fee Funding for 600/700 North Recon FY24B3A5-3038-600 3,204,371$ -$ -$ 3,204,371$
Grand Total 14,046,422$ 4,231,539$ 676,166$ 9,138,717$
Total 36,635,521$ 7,295,660$ 3,273,852$ 26,066,009$
E = A + B + C + D
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
578,695.27$
8484001
1,600,841$
UnAllocated Budget
Amount
8484002
8484003
8484005
20,931,089$
1,259,376$
24,370,001$
This page has intentionally been left blank
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
______________________________ Date Received: 8/5/2024
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 8/5/2024
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 8/5/2024
Victoria Petro, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Sister Cities Advisory Board
STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson
april.patterson@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment: Board Appointment Recommendation: Sister
Cities Advisory Board
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Jane Kim as a non-voting
member of the Board Appointment Recommendation: Sister Cities Advisory Board
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
August 5, 2024
Salt Lake City Council
451 S State Street Room 304
PO Box 145476
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
Dear Council Member Petro,
Listed below is my recommendation for the membership appointment for the Board
Appointment Recommendation: Sister Cities Advisory Board.
Jane Kim be appointed for a four year term starting from date of City Council advice and consent
and ending on Monday, July 3, 2028.
I respectfully ask for your consideration and support for this appointment.
Respectfully,
Erin Mendenhall, Mayor
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
______________________________ Date Received: 8/5/2024
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 8/5/2024
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 8/5/2024
Victoria Petro, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: City and County Building Conservation and
Use Committee
STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson
april.patterson@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment: Board Appointment Recommendation: City and
County Building Conservation and Use Committee
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Steven Burt as a member of the
Board Appointment Recommendation: City and County Building Conservation and Use Committee.
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
August 5, 2024
Salt Lake City Council
451 S State Street Room 304
PO Box 145476
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
Dear Council Member Petro,
Listed below is my recommendation for the membership appointment for the Board
Appointment Recommendation: City and County Building Conservation and Use Committee.
Steven Burt be appointed for a four year term starting from date of City Council advice and
consent and ending on Monday, July 17, 2028.
I respectfully ask for your consideration and support for this appointment.
Respectfully,
Erin Mendenhall, Mayor
Page | 1
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
August 27, 2024
Given the fact that legislative bodies are responsible to set and fund their own salaries, it is safe to say
that those salaries are highly influenced by the desire and duty to be fiscally responsible, and to meet the
taxpaying public’s expectations that elected officials are conscientious with the public’s money. In some
cases, the public expects not only fiscal responsibility but fiscal conservatism from those who are elected,
unlike other government employee salaries, which are usually based on objective market data, and are
not as heavily reviewed by the public. That said, there are policy considerations to weigh with the unique
positioning of Salt Lake City as the Capitol City, including rapid growth, and upcoming national and
international activities that are placing a greater burden on all elected officials in the City to fulfill their
duties to the taxpaying citizens of the City, and make sure to represent the City’s interest in all of those
conversations.
In the FY 2025 City Budget, the Mayor recommended, and the Council approved an increase in the
Mayor’s salary to $211,764. This set the Council salary at $52,941 given that the Council salary is
currently set by ordinance at 25 percent of the Mayor’s salary. That ratio was set in 2018. Until this
previous budget year, the Council and Mayor have received the same annual cost of living increases as
other City employees but there has been no extensive review of comparable City salaries for Councils or
time commitments. The Mayor’s salary for FY 25 was based on an extensive review of the Mayor with
respect to other City Managers in Utah, and other Mayors in cities with the same for of government as
Salt Lake City. The City’s HR department compared the Mayor’s salary to City Managers because under
the Salt Lake City’s form of government, the Mayor is the City’s full-time chief executive, which is
analogous to a City Manager in other forms of government. No such similar review was performed for
Council salaries in cities with the same form of government (full time Mayor; part time Council). Staff
has provided Attachment A to provide a sample list of other City Councils’ salaries, although it
should be noted that the same political pressure applies to those cities, and they may also be operating
in different forms of government with different expectations for the Council Members; hence the wide
range.
The Council expressed its intent during the budget process to schedule a time before the end of the
calendar year to more fully evaluate several of the factors related to the City Council Member salaries.
This memo provides information on various policy lenses to consider this issue that the Council
may wish to discuss:
1. Increased time commitment and community expectations for participation &
response
o Based on a staff analysis of scheduled meetings for Council Members, Council work
session and formal meetings, and time spent responding to constituent requests and
emails, Council Members spend between 90-150 hours each month on City business,
or 21-35 hours per week if averaged out over a year. The average among Council
Members is 27 hours per week and the median is 26 hours per week.
o While each Council Member serves a different number of hours each week based upon
particular policy issues before the Council at the time, needs of the district, service on
outside committees, personal approach, and other factors, the amount of time it takes
to be a member of the Salt Lake City Council effectively representing residents has
Page | 2
increased significantly since 1980 when this form of government was initially
established.
o Community organizations expect elected representatives to attend constituent
meetings, requiring a significant investment of time. Each City Council district
currently has 3-8 community councils with regularly scheduled, typically monthly,
public meetings. District 7 is the exception with only the Sugar House Community
Council which covers a population significantly larger than other community councils.
There are currently 27 community organizations registered with the city. When the
form of government was first established, and the salary ratios were set, the entire City
had only eight community councils.
2. Compensation Philosophy
o Equal Opportunity: In the 2018 adjustment to their compensation the Salt Lake
City Council specifically added the consideration of ‘equal opportunity to serve as a
City Council Member.’ The Council evaluated whether there were realities about the
structure and compensation for the position that unintentionally limited the likelihood
that people from all walks of life and all income levels were able to serve. It has been
several years since the Council made that adjustment, and this is the first
opportunity the Council has scheduled to determine whether the changes
made are adequate meet the concern identified by the Council in 2018.
Policy questions:
▪Is the compensation adequate to cover expenses associated with the time
demands of the position, including the cost of time off from full-time
employment, childcare expenses, out-of-pocket expenses, etc.?
▪Are there practical aspects of the elected office that limit who can serve in the
office of Salt Lake City Council Member? Examples might be timing of the
public meetings, expectations of attendance at small group briefings,
expectations of attendance at community council meetings and other public
functions, etc. Are there ways to address these challenges outside of the
compensation discussion without limiting effectiveness (electronic meetings for
example)?
o Policy Concept of a part time ‘Citizen Legislature,’ and ‘Citizen
Legislators:’
▪The form of government established in Salt Lake City, under State Statute, is
based in the same concept as the Utah State Legislature – informally it is
referred to as a ‘citizen legislature’ and the members of the body are informally
referred to as ‘citizen legislators.’ The 1979 ballot language approved by voters
said, “The Council shall be a part-time legislative body and shall meet at least
twice monthly. Compensation of the Council Members and employees of the
City shall be set by the Council.”
▪A fundamental basis of the citizen legislature concept is that the legislators do
not serve full-time. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures,
the model anticipates that the legislators have a profession and/or means of
support outside of legislative service. Serving as a legislator in a ‘citizen
legislative’ model typically means that the compensation for the legislative
work is a secondary source of income.
▪Citizen legislators are considered to be more representative of the public
because their primary work is not for the government. They are considered to
be “an outside set of eyes” to fulfill the oversight duty and other duties of the
legislative branch.
▪As part-time elected officials, theoretically they can be more directly engaged in
the communities in which they live. The model is recognized as “close to the
people” because the legislators are making decisions on behalf of the public
while being members of that public and experiencing similar day-to-day
circumstances in the community.
▪The Council may wish to consider the following policy questions relating to
Page | 3
this aspect of compensation philosophy:
•Council Members have not expressed an interest in changing the form
of government, but it may be helpful to get a good understanding of the
level of flexibility that the City has in operating within the Council-
Mayor form of government with regard to compensation philosophy.
Particularly how is part-time service defined/compensated?
•Is the concept of having a ‘citizen legislature’ essential to the form of
government?
•Where along the continuum of compensation does the Council want to
balance the policy concept of maintaining a ‘citizen legislature’ with the
concept of setting the compensation at a level that maximizes the
number of people who can serve?
•What are the downsides to the ‘citizen legislator’ concept? Does the
‘citizen legislator’ model imply that some portion of the time and
resources of the elected official are expected to be volunteered/donated
by the elected official? Does this inadvertently limit the pool of potential
candidates?
•If the donation of time and resources is an expectation of serving on the
City Council, might the position be inadvertently limited to those who
might have one of the following situations:
o Be retired
o Have significant free time
o Have personal financial means
o Have flexible work hours
o Have more than one income in the household
o Have a job or source of income that is not affected by time away
due to Council work, etc.
3. Increased complexity and profile of legislative issues, economic development
projects, and international events
o State Legislature - Each year since 2018, the Utah State Legislature has been
increasingly involved in development in the Capitol City, whether through the Inland
Port, the State Fairpark, or various high-profile economic development projects like
facilitating Major League Baseball, the National Basketball Association or National
Hockey League. This requires the investment of significant time and coordination on
the part of City Council Members to adequately represent their constituents in the
many discussions that happen to form legislation that ultimately impacts Salt Lake
City residents.
o Homelessness - Since the previous compensation discussion, the Council has joined
the Administration in elevating the homelessness crisis to the state level. Recognizing
that Salt Lake City resources are not sufficient to solve this issue alone, Council
Members are more regularly involved with advocacy and engagement, to ensure that
state leaders hear the on-the-ground experience of City residents as it relates to this
state-wide issue. This includes participating more regularly in Wasatch Front Regional
Council, Utah League of Cities and Towns, and State level organizations.
o Complex challenges of growth - The City is experiencing unprecedented growth
which brings new challenges that require focused attention of both the Executive
Branch and the Legislative Branch. This includes many more conversations and
constituent interactions about zoning reform, anti-displacement measures, and a focus
on the City’s role in providing affordable housing.
o Events and Economic Development - The City is preparing to welcome the world
in anticipation of the 2034 Olympics. In addition to that, Salt Lake City has proven to
be a successful host to many high profile events, including the NBA All-Star game in
2023. Hosting these events is an honor for the City, and also comes with increased
Page | 4
time commitments for elected officials.
4. Relationship between the salary for the Mayor and the salary for Council
Members:
o The current ordinance establishes a link between the Council Member and Mayoral
salaries, with Council Member salaries set at 25 percent of the Mayor’s salary. The
Council has the authority to change that ordinance.
o The 25 percent figure reflects the ratio that existed when the Council / Mayor form of
government was established. The salary of Council Members had lagged to be less
than 25 percent in the years between 1980 and 2018, and the Council re-established
that ratio with the 2018 salary discussion.
o Policy questions relating to this concept:
▪Is the percentage based upon an assumption that Council Members would
dedicate roughly 25 percent of the full-time position of Mayor?
▪Is it based upon an assumption that the pay of a council member is more of a
‘stipend’ provided to cover a portion of the elected officials’ efforts, with the
balance of the service to the public expected to be provided by the council
member as a public service?
▪Is it intended as a ‘salary’ that roughly relates to the number of hours worked?
If so, is it appropriate for the Council to consider adjusting the percentage
based on the increased demands of the position that are outlined elsewhere in
this report? The following chart illustrates various percentage levels for
discussion purposes only (it is provided again in the options section):
FY 25 Mayor’s Salary $ 211,764
(current) 25%$ 52,941
30%$ 63,529
33%$ 69,882
35% $ 74,117
40% $ 84,706
50%$ 105,882
5. The value and limitations of salary comparisons to other cities
o In 2018, salary surveys of Council Members in other municipalities showed significant
variation in annual salaries, regardless of whether the Council is part or full time. In
2018 there was no consensus from the data about what City is most
comparable/appropriate for Salt Lake City elected officials.
o Staff has conducted a similar review with more recent data and found similar results
(see Attachment A).
o In addition to the inconclusive survey data, some challenges arise when comparing
salaries for elected officials such as differences across forms of government, separation
of duties/powers, demographic and economic variations, actual hours worked, and
other factors. It is particularly difficult to identify comparable situations due to the
population of the City vs its role as the Capital City and its role as a regional hub.
o As a local point of reference, Salt Lake County Council Member compensation is
$48,222 for 2024.
6. Equality of compensation between Legislative and Administrative elected officials:
o In adopting the FY 2025 budget, the Council supported a new approach to set the
compensation of the Salt Lake City Mayor. Rather than limiting the comparison to the
salary of mayors in Utah or the salaries of mayors in what might traditionally be
considered comparable cities, the Council recognized the unique situation of Salt Lake
City and agreed to bring the salaries of city managers into the comparison, since the,
under the City’s form of government, the Mayor is the full-time chief executive of the
Page | 5
City.
o Is there an argument to be made that the position of Salt Lake City Council Member is
as unique as the Salt Lake City Mayor’s position?
o Recognizing that Salt Lake City’s form of government has a full-time Mayor and part-
time Council, should Council salaries be increased to address the added workload
experienced by all elected officials in the Capitol City? How would the Council define
part time? Is the 25 percent figure less relevant than in 2018? (see item 2 above – the
concept of Citizen Legislator, and item 4 above).
o There may be legal considerations relating to part-time vs. full-time status that the
Council may wish to discuss further with the City Attorney.
7. Other issues raised in relation to the compensation discussion:
o Comparison with Area Median Income (AMI), living wage, and other City
jobs – Some Council Members have requested to have information about the AMI for
Salt Lake City, along with a review of other jobs in the City in a similar range as is being
discussed for Council compensation, as context for the “what is the definition of part-
time” discussion.
▪AMI for SLC in 2024 is $92,000 per year.
▪Attachment B includes a sample of City jobs with FY 25 compensation
information. Note that these roles are full-time roles with different qualifications
and experience.
▪Living wage in SLC is $47,160 for a single person no children, and $110,946 for a
family of four with two adults working. Staff referenced this MIT analysis as it
includes information for a variety of family types:
livingwage.mit.edu/metros/41620. Staff note: the housing expenditure data in
this analysis appears to be significantly lower than other housing cost data
recently reviewed by staff. It is possible this analysis has not yet updated that
portion of the data. The Council may wish to engage with the Gardner Policy
Institute to create a more Salt Lake City-specific data set as it relates to
understanding a living wage.
o Regular review - Several Cities require a regular schedule of evaluation of elected
officials. Some Council Members expressed interest in requiring by ordinance a review
every 4 years.
o Additional compensation for leadership - Additional compensation for SLC
Council Members who serve as the City Council Chairperson and Vice Chairperson to
address the time necessary to fill these roles. If the Council is interested in this, the
Council staff could research amounts provided in other jurisdictions. If there is interest
in this concept, the Council could determine whether RDA leadership would be
compensated at the same level as the Council Chair and Vice Chair.
o Other reimbursements - Evaluate the benefits and reimbursements that are
established for Department Directors and other City employees, such as milage
reimbursements or use of City vehicles on City business, to determine whether some may
be appropriate to extent to Council Members as a matter of equity.
o Term Limits - The possibility of term limits, to mitigate concern about people serving
multiple terms and being considered ‘career politicians’ rather than ‘citizen legislators.’
The Council could ask the City Attorney to determine whether term limits could be put in
place by the City, or whether State legislation would be needed.
o Document policy considerations – The Council may wish to document the core
policy principles to inform any future compensation discussion.
o New form of government - Consideration of whether the demands of City Council
Members are such that a discussion of the impacts of full-time status may be worth
discussing in the future. The opinion of past City Attorneys has been that changing from
a part-time elected legislative branch to a full-time elected legislative branch would
Page | 6
necessitate a change in state law (to create that form of government as it does not
currently exist) followed by a vote of the public. If the Council is interested in a future
conversation on this topic, it may be helpful to determine whether there is appetite at the
state level to create a form of government that includes a full-time legislative body. Note
that this would also change the Mayor’s role in City government.
POLICY BALANCING
Value Statements – Many, sometimes conflicting, values exist when discussing compensation for
municipal elected officials. Some examples include:
1. Local elected office is a public service and should be compensated minimally.
OR
Absent reasonable compensation, the pool of potential candidates could be
inadvertently limited to persons of financial means, which is counter to the City’s
stated policy goals of equity and inclusivity.
2. Discussing elected official salaries can be a controversial topic, therefore it is easier to evaluate
them very infrequently.
OR
It is best for the public to be aware of the compensation level and have the opportunity to
comment on those salaries each year, or at some regular interval.
OPTIONS
The following are options that could be considered independently or combined, that have been raised
for consideration, based on all factors listed above as well as specific ideas raised by Council Members:
1. Make no change at this point. The Council could ask staff to conduct more research in a variety
of areas, with or without outside resources, to prepare for future discussions.
2. Change the ratio of pay in relation to the Mayor to reflect the increased time Council
Members spend on City business: this chart is provided for discussion purposes only
FY 25 Mayor’s Salary* $ 211,764
(current) 25%$ 52,941
30%$ 63,529
33%$ 69,882
35% $ 74,117
40% $ 84,706
50%$ 105,882
As noted above, based on a staff analysis of scheduled meetings for Council Members, Council work
session and formal meetings, and time spent responding to constituent requests and emails, Council
Members work 90-150 hours each month, or 21-35 hours per week if averaged out over a year. This
would require an ordinance change and depending on amount, budget adjustments.
3. Increase compensation based on comparison with other Cities. As noted above, it is
difficult to conclude an appropriate “peer” set of Cities, and as shown in Attachment A, salaries
for Councils vary widely whether or not those Councils serve full time and may be further influenced
by the form of government in those cities. This would require an ordinance change and depending
on amount, budget adjustments.
4. Increase compensation for leadership positions
Several Cities reviewed by staff compensate leadership positions with an additional stipend to
reflect the increased workload leadership positions often have in representing their respective
bodies and conducting official business. This extra compensation ranges from $1,000-$10,000
Page | 7
additional. This would require an ordinance change. It is likely the Council office budget could
absorb this increase if on par with other Cities.
5. Require by ordinance a time-certain evaluation of Council compensation
Several Cities reviewed by staff require that elected official compensation is re-evaluated every 4
years (time is usually separated from election years). The Council may wish to discuss this option.
This would require an ordinance change and no budget adjustment.
6. Delayed effective date
Some have raised the option that the Council could decide to make any potential ordinance changes
effective at some future date.
7. Other
If the Council is interested in pursuing any of the above changes Staff would work with the
Administration to determine if it would require an ordinance to amend the Elected Officials
component of the Compensation Plan and whether there would need to be any adjustment to the
Council Office budget (see notes above).
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Comparison of select Council compensation
Attachment B – Sample of City employee compensation
8/22/2024
Sample of Council Salaries
City Salary Population Council Size Full or part time
International
Airport?
Portland, OR 142,404$ 641,162
5:
the mayor and 4
commissioners, who
also oversee city
bureaus. *Starting in
2025, it will change to
a 12-member council full time Y
San Francisco, CA 140,148$ 815,201 11 full time Y
Austin, TX 116,688$ 964,177
11,
including the mayor full time Y
Denver, CO 110,596$ 711,463 13
full time "may have
other employment
while serving" Y
Kansas City, MO 81,538$ 508,394
13,
including the mayor part time Y
Baltimore, MD 76,660$ 576,498 15 part time
Y
Pittsburgh, PA 76,544$ 300,431 9
Can work in addition
to Council duties Y
Cincinnati, OH 65,000$ 308,935 9 part time Y/N
Houston, TX 62,983$ 2.3 million 16 part time Y
Phoenix, AZ 61,600$ 1.6 million
9,
including the mayor part time Y
Columbus, OH 57,738$ 906,528 9 part time Y
Charlotte, NC 52,000$ 879,709
12,
including the mayor part time
Raleigh, NC 37,428$ 469,124 8 part time Y
Memphis, TN 29,070$ 628,127 13 part time Y
Madison, WI 28,641$ 269,196 20 part time N
Boise, ID 27,498$ 237,446 6 part time N
Nashville, TN 25,615$ 692,587 40 part time Y
Sample of City Position Compensation
*not a complete list
Position Annual Amount
Airport
Airport Customer Service Representative 46,093$
Access Control Specialist 48,006$
Airport Operations Specialist - Ground Transportation 50,627$
Facilities Contracts Compliance Specialist 52,125$
Airport Lighting & Sign Technician 53,685$
Airport Engineering Records Program Specialist 54,226$
Project Coordinator II - Airport 54,226$
Attorney's Office
Judicial Assistant I 48,006$
Judicial Assistant II 51,043$
Judicial Assistant III 52,790$
Prosecutor Assistant 48,776$
Senior Prosecutor Assistant 50,752$
Community and Neighborhoods
Office Technician II 46,301$
Permit Processor II 51,043$
Traffic Technician 51,917$
Civil Enforcement Officer I 52,790$
Administrative Secretary I - Non-Union 53,955$
Finance
Business License Officer 52,790$
Business Licensing Processor II 51,043$
City Payments Processor 48,006$
Contracts Process Coordinator 52,790$
Hearing Officer / Referee Coordinator 54,808$
Fire
Fire Logistics Coordinator 51,189$
Police
Evidence Technician I 45,074$
Quartermaster Technician 48,006$
Crime Scene Technician I 46,613$
Records Technician 51,043$
Evidence Technician II 51,917$
Community Response Specialist I 52,125$
Crime Scene Technician II 54,226$
Police Services Coordinator 54,226$
Public Lands
Cemetery Equipment Operator 46,280$
Natural Resources Technician II 46,280$
Parks Maintenance Technician II 46,280$
Irrigation Operator II 47,653$
Landscape Restoration Lead Worker 47,653$
Maintenance Specialist I 47,653$
Regional Athletic Complex (RAC) Maintenance Worker 49,109$
Sprinkler Irrigation Technician II 49,109$
Arborist I 50,627$
General Maintenance Worker II 50,627$
Arborist II 52,125$
Park Ranger 52,125$
Senior Florist 52,125$
Central Control Irrigation Specialist 53,685$
Sprinkler Irrigation Technician III 53,685$
Public Services
Clean-up Equipment Operator II 46,280$
Equipment Operator 46,280$
Streets Response Team I 49,109$
Asphalt Equipment Operator II 50,627$
Compliance Enforcement Officer 50,627$
Concrete Saw & Grinder Operator 50,627$
Pumps Maintenance Technician 50,627$
Streets Equipment Operator II 50,627$
Traffic Maintenance Operator II 50,627$
Engineering Technician II 51,917$
Maintenance Specialist II 52,125$
Industrial Electrician II 53,435$
Lead Compliance Enforcement Officer 53,685$
Painter II 53,685$
Warehouse Specialist 53,955$
Engineering Information & Records Specialist 54,226$
City Council Announcements
August 27, 2024
For Your Consideration
A. Redondo Street Legislative Intent
Council Member Young has been working with the Administration to clear up confusion
about the legal ownership of Redondo street between 800 East and Windsor street. For
years, members of the public have helped to take care of this portion of Redondo. In
recent months, and after further investigation by the administration, it became clear that
it would be best for the City to take the necessary legal steps to make this portion of
Redondo either a dedicated public street or alley that the City is responsible for. In order
to start the process, Council Member Young is asking the Council to support the
following Legislative Intent.
➢I move the Council adopt a Legislative Intent that requests the Administration
review and come back to the Council with a recommendation for the best
method, either a street or alley dedication, for Redondo street located between
approximately 800 East and Windsor street in order to clear up the legal
confusion as to the ownership of this part of Redondo street.
If the Council supports this Legislative Intent, it will be placed on the agenda for a formal
vote at an upcoming Council Meeting.
B. How to handle $60,000 of CDBG-CV (coronavirus response funding) that
the applicant (Switchpoint) has declined to use?
•In April this year, the Council awarded $60,000 to Switchpoint for two separate
staff positions but the organization has stated they are unable to use the funds.
•This year, the City's total CDBG-CV award from HUD was slightly less than
estimated. As a result, and per the Council’s funding contingencies, Utah Legal
Services' tentative award of $30,000 was reduced to $0.
•Option A: Some Council Members have suggested restoring the $30,000 award
to Utah Legal Services. The remaining $30,000 could be added to the next cycle
of HUD Grants and return to the Council in the spring with new
recommendations from the resident advisory board.
•Option B: The full $60,000 could be added to the next cycle of HUD grants.
•Unlike ongoing annual CDBG funding, the one-time CDBG-CV funding not used
this year could still be awarded to applicants in the Public Services category next
year.
•A placeholder for a Council-added item is in Budget Amendment #1 to preserve
the opportunity for the Council to recapture some or all of these funds.
Information Needed
C.Urban Land Use Institution 2024 Fall Conference “Connect with the World
of Real Estate”
The Urban Land Use Institute Fall Conference will take place Monday, October 28th to
Wednesday, October 30th, 2024 in Las Vegas. However, this is not listed as a pre-
approved trip in the Policy Manual.
The ULI spring conference is an opportunity to meet colleagues and potential partners
during networking events, interactive sessions, roundtable discussions, and small group
tours. Council Members Mano and Lopez Chavez have expressed interest in attending.
➢Does the Council support funding travel for Council Members who want to attend
this conference?
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
SWORN STATEMENT SUPPORTING CLOSURE OF MEETING
I, ____________ , acted as the presiding member of the _______________________________in which met on _________
Appropriate notice was given of the Council's meeting as required by §52-4-202.
A quorum of the Council was present at the meeting and voted by at least a two-thirds vote, as detailed in the minutes of
the open meeting, to close a portion of the meeting to discuss the following:
§52-4-205(l)(a) discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an
individual;
§52 -4-205(1 )(b) strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining;
§52-4-205(l )(c) strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation;
§52-4-205( l )(d) strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property, including
any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the transaction would: (i) disclose the
appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (ii) prevent the public body from
completing the transaction on the best possible terms;
§52-4-205(l )(e) strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water right
or water shares if: (i) public discussion of the transaction would: ((A) disclose the appraisal or estimated
value of the property under consideration; or (B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction
on the best possible terms; (ii) if the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be
offered for sale; and (iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body approves the
sale;
§52-4-205(1)(f) discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and
§52-4-205(1)(g) investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct.
A Closed Meeting may also be held for Attorney-Client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah Code
§78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of the Utah Open and
Public Meetings Act.
Other, described as follows: ____________________________________________________________
The content of the closed portion of the Council meeting was restricted to a discussion of the matter(s) for which the
meeting was closed.
With regard to the closed meeting, the following was publicly announced and recorded, and entered on the minutes of the
open meeting at which the closed meeting was approved:
(a)the reason or reasons for holding the closed meeting;
(b)the location where the closed meeting will be held; and
(c)the vote of each member of the public body either for or against the motion to hold the closed meeting.
The recording and any minutes of the closed meeting will include:
(a)the date, time, and place of the meeting;
(b)the names of members Present and Absent; and
(c)the names of all others present except where such disclosure would infringe on the confidentiality
necessary to fulfill the original purpose of closing the meeting.
Pursuant to §52-4-206(6),a sworn statement is required to close a meeting under §52-4-205(1)(a) or (f), but a record by
tape recording or detailed minutes is not required; and Pursuant to §52-4-206(1), a record by tape recording and/or
detailed written minutes is required for a meeting closed under §52-4-205(1)(b),(c),(d),(e),and (g):
A record was not made.
A record was made by: : Tape recording Detailed written minutes
I hereby swear or affin11 under penalty of perjury that the above information is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge.
Presiding Member Date of Signature
Salt Lake City CouncilVictoria Petro August 27, 2024
4
4
4
44
Victoria Petro җSe+ р0, 2024 р4ѷ4р Ҙ Se+ р0, 2024
August 27, 2024 Work Session -Closed Session
- Sworn Statement
Final Audit Report 2024-09-10
Created:2024-08-27
By:Michelle Barney (michelle.barney@slcgov.com)
Status:Signed
Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAA3iy7KpDGeC0nMJJe0EKm8eyi_C0_XQej
"August 27, 2024 Work Session -Closed Session - Sworn State
ment" History
Document created by Michelle Barney (michelle.barney@slcgov.com)
2024-08-27 - 10:01:15 PM GMT
Document emailed to victoria.petro@slcgov.com for signature
2024-08-27 - 11:37:48 PM GMT
Email viewed by victoria.petro@slcgov.com
2024-08-28 - 5:17:25 AM GMT
Email viewed by victoria.petro@slcgov.com
2024-09-07 - 11:43:10 PM GMT
Email viewed by victoria.petro@slcgov.com
2024-09-09 - 4:43:08 AM GMT
Email viewed by victoria.petro@slcgov.com
2024-09-10 - 4:44:56 AM GMT
Signer victoria.petro@slcgov.com entered name at signing as Victoria Petro
2024-09-10 - 8:41:00 PM GMT
Document e-signed by Victoria Petro (victoria.petro@slcgov.com)
Signature Date: 2024-09-10 - 8:41:02 PM GMT - Time Source: server
Agreement completed.
2024-09-10 - 8:41:02 PM GMT