09/03/2024 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
WORK SESSION
September 3, 2024 Tuesday 2:00 PM
Council meetings are held in a hybrid meeting format. Hybrid meetings allow people to join online or in
person at the City & County Building. Learn more at www.slc.gov/council/agendas.
Council Work Room
451 South State Street, Room 326
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
SLCCouncil.com
7:00 pm Formal Meeting
Room 315
(See separate agenda)
Welcome and public meeting rules
In accordance with State Statute and City Ordinance, the meeting may be held electronically. After 5:00 p.m., please enter the
City & County Building through the main east entrance.
The Work Session is a discussion among Council Members and select presenters. The public is welcome to listen. Items
scheduled on the Work Session or Formal Meeting may be moved and / or discussed during a different portion of the Meeting
based on circumstance or availability of speakers.
The Website addresses listed on the agenda may not be available after the Council votes on the item. Not all agenda items will
have a webpage for additional information read associated agenda paperwork.
Generated: 08:38:14
Note: Dates not identified in the project timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. Item start
times and durations are approximate and are subject to change.
Work Session Items
1.Informational: Updates from the Administration ~ 2:00 p.m.
15 min.
The Council will receive information from the Administration on major items or projects
in progress. Topics may relate to major events or emergencies (if needed), services and
resources related to people experiencing homelessness, active public engagement efforts,
and projects or staffing updates from City Departments, or other items as appropriate.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Recurring Briefing
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
2.Ordinance: Northpoint Light Industrial Zoning Text
Amendment ~ 2:15 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend various sections of
Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code creating a new section 21A.28.040 Northpoint Light
Industrial (M-1A) Zoning District that aligns with the goals, policies and future land use
recommendations established in the Northpoint Small Area Plan. The proposal would
include providing an environment for light industrial, office, and research uses, while
reducing the impact on adjacent agricultural and residential properties and native
habitats. This is a City Council-initiated petition. Other sections of Title 21A – Zoning
may also be amended as part of this petition. This project is within Council District 1.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, September 3, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, September 3, 2024
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 1, 2024 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 15, 2024
3.Ordinance: City-wide Text Amendment for Gas Station
Standards ~ 2:45 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 minimum distances that any gas
station can be from a river, stream, or other water body, a park, or open space area over a
certain size. The proposal would establish more stringent zoning standards for any gas
station that is located in the secondary groundwater recharge area of the City and
prohibit new gas stations that do not meet the proposed standards regardless of whether
they are permitted or conditioned land use in an allowable zoning district.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, September 3, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, September 3, 2024
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, September 17, 2024 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 1, 2024
4.Ordinance: Zoning Map Amendment at Approximately 450
East 700 South ~ 3:05 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the zoning of the
property at approximately 450 East 700 South from RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi
Family Residential) to RMF-30 (Low Density Multi Family Residential). The proposal
would enable the construction of two new houses on the property in a configuration
similar to how properties in the area would have been historically divided. There is a
private easement intended to preserve an existing house on the property. As it is a private
easement, the City does not have a legal interest in it. The project is located within
Council District 4. Petitioner: Trevor Cell, property owner.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, September 3, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, September 17, 2024
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 1, 2024 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 15, 2024
5.Resolution: Updating Salt Lake City’s Collective Bargaining and
Employee Representation Processes ~ 3:25 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about a resolution that would update the City’s
longstanding practice of recognizing the representation of eligible employee groups by
labor organizations for the purpose of collective bargaining. It would authorize the
continuation of this practice and make several adjustments including creating a process
to determine whether a group of eligible employees should be represented by a different
labor union or exclusive representative.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, September 3, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 17, 2024
6.Tentative Break ~ 3:45 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 -
7.Informational: Initial Discussion of Legislative Intents for
Fiscal Year 2024-25 ~ 4:05 p.m.
40 min.
The Council will hold the first of three planned briefings on its Legislative Intent
statements for Fiscal Year 2024-25. Legislative Intents are formal requests the Council
makes of the Administration that are adopted along with the annual budget. This briefing
will consist of conversations with the Administration designed to exchange any
preliminary information and feedback needed to clarify each Intent. In addition, the
Council will review and consider any staff recommendations for closing some previous
years’ intents.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, September 3, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
8.Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.1 for Fiscal Year 2024-25
Follow-up ~ 4:45 p.m.
45 min.
The Council will receive a follow-up 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 and Tuesday, September 3, 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
Standing Items
9.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair -
-
Report of Chair and Vice Chair.
10.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director -
-
Report of the Executive Director, including a review of Council information items and
announcements. The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to
City Council business, including but not limited to scheduling items.
11.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 29, 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.
COUNCIL STAFF
REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Nick Tarbet, Policy Analyst
DATE: September 3, 2024
RE:Text Amendment: Northpoint Light Industrial
(M-1A) Zoning District
Petition PLMPCM2024- 00333
PROJECT TIMELINE:
Briefing: Sept 3, 2024
Set Date: Sept 3, 2024
Public Hearing: Oct 1, 2024
Potential Action: October 17, 2024
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend various sections of the Salt Lake City
Code creating a new section 21A.28.040 Northpoint Light Industrial (M-1A) Zoning District. This Council
initiated petition would create a new zoning district that would help implement the vision and goals of the
Northpoint Small Area plan adopted by the Council in November 2023.
The new zoning district would provide an environment for light industrial, office, and research uses, while
reducing the impact on adjacent agricultural and residential properties and native habitats.
The Planning Commission reviewed the petition and forwarded a positive recommendation. In the motion,
the Planning Commission requested that any land use involving hazardous waste or medical waste be
prohibited. As noted in the Transmittal letter, Planning Staff reviewed the land use tables and confirmed
that such uses are not proposed in the current draft ordinance.
Page | 3
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Purpose Statement - The purpose of the Northpoint District is to protect sensitive lands and wildlife
habitat surrounding the Great Salt Lake shore lands and the Jordan River while providing an environment
for light industrial, office, and research uses that produce minimal impact on adjacent residential and
agricultural properties. This district is appropriate within the Northpoint Small Area Plan boundaries. The
district promotes a high standard of building design quality, open space preservation, and protection of
sensitive lands and waterways
Land Uses
The following summary of uses is outlined on page 4 of the Planning Commission staff report.
The land use table is significantly pared down from the M-1 Light Industrial Zoning District, excluding
many uses that would be inappropriate for the area. Prohibited uses include kennels/pounds,
raising of furbearing animals, bottling plants, check/payday loan businesses, community correctional
facilities, commercial laundry facilities, outdoor recycling processing centers, rock and gravel storage
and distribution, and vehicle auctions, package delivery service and distribution centers.
Allowed Uses include primarily agriculture, light industrial, office, manufacturing uses, and some retail
services.
Development and Design Standards
The following table outlines the Development and Design standards as well as Modification standards
outlined on pages 4-7 of the Planning Commission staff report
Summary of Development Standards
Max lot size
Maximum lot size is 10 acres, but larger lots may be approved if 20% of
the area of the lot to be modified is preserved as natural open space on
the development site. See the section below titled Allowed Modifications
for more information on modifications to
the standards.
Max Height Buildings cannot exceed 40 feet in height.
Building Size Limitations
Maximum building footprint is 100,000 square feet, with potential
for increased size if the property owner incorporates sustainability
measures such as additional open space preservation, a green roof, or
electric vehicle parking. See the section below titled Allowed
Modifications for more information on modifications to the
standards.
Page | 3
Setbacks and Buffers
Additional Setback:
Jordan River Buffer
Building setback requirements for the front and corner side yard is 20’,
and the rear and interior side yards is 15’, with additional setbacks from
residential structures and specific buffer requirements along the Jordan
River.
New development must be 65’ from principal residential structures on
neighboring properties, and vehicle laneways used to access a
development site must be setback 30’ from principal residential
structures on neighboring properties.
The Jordan River has a 300’ buffer from the annual highwater line. The
first 100’ is a strict no-disturbance buffer and no construction or
development activities will be permitted in this area. The remaining 200’
of the buffer area (the area between 100’ and 300’) is designated as the
Transitional Buffer Area. This allows the buffer width to be reduced in
some areas if a greater buffer is provided elsewhere. The modified buffer
must maintain the total required buffer area, foot for foot, and must be
contiguous with the No-Disturbance Buffer.
Landscaping Requirements include water wise landscaping and prevention of noxious
weeds to protect adjacent sensitive lands.
Trees
Trees are required along all property lines at a rate of 1 tree per 30 feet
of property line, however, due to concerns with the unique drainage
conditions in the area, trees can be spaced irregularly or clustered. When
abutting a residential use, the amount of trees required is increased to 1
tree for every 15 feet of property line and must be placed every 15 feet for
the length of the residential use and within 30 feet of the residential use.
Design Standards
Building Façade Length Limiting building facade length along 2200 West to 250 feet.
Maximum Length of Blank
Walls
The maximum length of any blank wall uninterrupted by windows,
doors, art, or architectural detailing along any ground level street facing
facade is 25’.
Building Materials
Specifying building materials to ensure they are compatible with the
natural environment. Brick, natural stone, wood, and tinted/textured
concrete are appropriate materials. Stucco, including EIFS, is limited to
architectural detailing surfaces and articulation. Exterior plastic vinyl
siding or any reflective or polished materials are prohibited.
Roofs
Implementing roof specifications to mitigate the heat island effect. Light
reflective roofing material with a minimum solar reflective index (SRI)
of 82 is required for all roofs.
Page | 4
Bird-safe Glass Treatments
For any building elevation with more than 10% glass, a minimum of 90%
of all glass shall be treated with applied films, coatings, tints, exterior
screens, netting, fritting, frosted glass, or other means to reduce the
number of birds that may collide with the glazing. Any treatment must
create a grid pattern that is equal to or smaller than 2 inches wide by 4
inches tall. Mirrored or highly reflective glass is prohibited.
Dark Sky Lighting Standards
All lighting on the property, including lighting on the buildings, parking
areas, and for signs shall be shielded to direct light down and away from
the edges of the property to eliminate glare or light into adjacent
properties and have cutoffs so that no light is emitted and/or reflected
above the horizontal plane of the fixture.
Fence Guidelines
To minimize impacts on wildlife, fences shall have a visually open design
with at least 50% of the fence open for the continuous length of the
fence.
Stormwater Retention
Retention of the 80th percentile storm is required for all new and
redevelopment projects greater than 1 acre. Detention shall be provided
to ensure stormwater discharge does not exceed 0.2 cfs per acre, or less,
to match pre-development flows, as identified in the area stormwater
master plan.
Modification of Standards
Maximum Lot Area
Approval for lots larger than 10 acres may be granted, provided the
buildings and structures are grouped and a minimum of 20% of the area
to be modified is designated as natural open spaced on the development
site. Required setback yards and disconnected small areas of open space
scattered throughout the site do not count toward the 20%, but any
required wetland, canal, or other riparian buffers may be included.
Maximum Building Façade
Length
The maximum building façade length of 250 feet along
2200 West may be increased if more natural open space is provided on
the development site. The maximum building façade length may
increase at a ratio of 20 feet per 5% of the total site dedicated as natural
open space. The natural open space dedicated and permanently
protected on site shall be no less than 7,000 SF, and to the greatest
extent possible, shall be contiguous.
Maximum Building Footprint The maximum footprint of a new building (100,000 SF)
may be increased by complying with one or more of the options below.
No more than an
additional 100,000 square feet in building footprint will be permitted for
an overall
Page | 5
Electric Vehicle
Parking
Sustainable Roof
Designation of
Natural Open Space
Public Amenities:
Stormwater
All electric property
maximum building size of 200,000 SF.
Provide a minimum of 10 electric vehicle parking spaces
with a rate of 10,000 SF of additional footprint per 10 EV stalls.
At least 30% of the roof area shall be devoted to either solar
panels or a green roof, or a combination of the two in exchange for
40,000 SF of
additional footprint.
Additional open space designation on the
development site at a rate of 1 square foot of building square footage for
1 square
foot of open space preserved.
Inclusion of a privately-owned public pathway, trail, or
greenway connecting to or through natural open space areas with a rate
of 10,000
SF per 1,000 SF of linear feet of trail, or 25,000 SF per trailhead.
Providing full retention of stormwater with no release to the public
storm drain system for 50,000 SF of additional footprint, or providing
stormwater
detention to the effect that no more than 0.1 cfs/acre is discharged from
the 100-
year 3-hour storm for 35,000 SF of additional footprint.
The site is developed as an all-electric property for an
additional 50,000 SF of additional footprint.
Key Considerations
Planning staff discusses in depth two key considerations on pages 7 -10 of the planning commission staff
report. Below is a short summary of the discussion, Please see those pages for full analysis.
1. How the Proposal Helps Implement City Goals & Policies Identified in Adopted Plans
Staff found the text amendment was consistent with the goals and policies outlined in Plan
Salt Lake such as Economy, Natural Environment and Growth. Additionally, they found
text amendment aligns with the goals and vision of the newly adopted Northpoint Small
Area plan.
2. Public Input and Code Changes
Staff made many substantive changes to the draft ordinance based on feedback from the
public. These include changes to the land use table, maximum lot size, vehicle laneways and
location of trees.
Potential Amendments
Page | 7
After the Planning Commission forwarded their recommendation, some stakeholders reached out to
Council Member Petro and staff to raise concerns and questions they have about the proposed ordinance.
Staff was able to review and respond to some of the questions. For the others which do not yet have a
response, staff is asking if the Council supports working with the constituent and planning staff to come up
with potential changes that would address their concerns.
Questions with Responses
1.Max height 40 feet. Concern this wouldn't allow for the parapet/screening.
o Response: Current city code (21A.36.020.C) already gives an allowance to do 5' parapet
walls for screening mechanical equipment.
2.Painted vs Tinted concrete. Is it possible to add painted in addition to tinted/textured concrete.
o Response: Planning staff confirmed they would be ok with adding painted.
3.Blank Wall Standard – change to 8’ instead of 12’.
o The maximum length of any blank wall uninterrupted by windows, doors, art, or
architectural detailing along any ground level street facing facade is 25’. Changes in plane,
texture, materials, scale of materials, patterns, art, or other architectural detailing are
acceptable methods to comply with this standard. The architectural feature shall be either
recessed a minimum of twelve inches (12") or projected a minimum of twelve inches (12").
o Response: 12" is the City standard that is used in all other districts no matter the building
size. As of now, Planning staff would prefer to keeping it at 12" for consistency in applying
the code for our building services and zoning reviewers, and because 12" will better break
up the wall than 8".
Questions for further discussion
1.Exclude dock areas from maximum building height since they go below grade.
o The Constituent is concerned that without this accommodation, the buildings will not
match standard market buildings for interested tenants.
o Response: If the Council is supportive, staff will work with the constituent and planning
staff to develop recommendations for the Council to consider that would address this
concern.
2.Amend the wetland buffers in this ordinance to be consistent with language that applies to the
Jordan River buffer: “Land within the Jordan River Transitional Buffer Area may count as natural
open space.”
o Response: Planning staff recommends that request is better addressed in the Riparian
Corridor overlay amendments Public Utilities will bring forward.
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:September 3, 2024
RE: City-wide Text Amendment for Gas Station Standards
PLNPCM2023-00260
The Council will be briefed about a proposal from the Administration to amend the zoning ordinance to
require a minimum 350-foot distance that new gas stations must be from rivers, streams or other water
bodies, parks or open space areas one acre or larger throughout the city. Council Members may recall a
conditional use application that proposed locating a gas station on the corner of 2100 South and 1300 East,
adjacent to Sugar House Park. The Administration reviewed that application and ultimately denied the
request. That was the impetus for this proposed text amendment.
The Planning Commission reviewed this proposed text amendment at its January 10, 2024 meeting and
held a public hearing at which four people from the gas station industry spoke in opposition. The
Commission voted to table the application so Planning staff could work with those from the gas station
community that submitted comments, review electric vehicle (EV) requirements, and consider where the
amendment would apply in the city.
Following the meeting, Planning staff modified the proposed text amendment to eliminate specific
required locations where EV chargers would be placed. They also reviewed all zoning districts where gas
stations are allowed and determined prohibiting gas stations near or adjacent to schools, residential
neighborhoods, and other public areas would both eliminate large areas where these stations could be
located and conflict with station owners’ rights. As noted above, the subject text amendment was initiated
from a conditional use application that would have allowed a gas station adjacent to a public park. The
focus of this text amendment is to preserve and protect water sources and open space areas.
This proposal was reviewed by the Planning Commission again at its April 10, 2024 meeting
and the Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City
Council.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: September 3, 2024
Set Date: September 3, 2024
Public Hearing: September 17, 2024
Potential Action: October 1, 2024
Page | 3
Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed text amendment and determine if the Council supports
moving forward with the proposal.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration their reasoning for recommending fuel
tanks be at least 30-feet from property line vs. the requested 10-foot minimum from Maverik.
2. The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration what impact, if any, the proposed zoning
district consolidation will have on this text amendment.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Planning staff notified all gas station owners in the city of the proposed text amendment and requested
comments. A second notice was sent to station owners following the January 10, 2024 Planning
Commission meeting and included revisions based on the Commission’s requests.
Maverik, Inc. was the only company to respond to the notices. They expressed concern about the proposed
requirement to locate fuel storage tanks and gas vents in new gas stations a minimum of 30 feet from
property lines. Maverik believes this is “impractical, unnecessary and potentially dangerous to customers.”
They noted the tanks would need to be very close to the fuel canopy where there is a lot of vehicle traffic.
Current technology can detect any leaks from the tanks which would allow quick remediation. Maverik
proposes a 10-foot minimum from property lines. The draft ordinance retains the 30-foot minimum
distance from property lines for fuel tanks in new gas stations. It is worth noting that fuel tanks being
replaced at existing stations may be in substantially the same location as the old tanks.
The following are some key changes included in the draft ordinance:
Underground and above-ground fuel storage tanks and vents must be located a minimum of 350
feet from water bodies (pond, river, stream, canal, etc.), water resources, public parks or open
spaces one acre or larger.
For new gas stations, underground and above-ground fuel storage tanks must be located a
minimum of 30 feet from the property line.
Pump islands must be a minimum of 25 feet from property lines and buildings for new gas stations.
Fuel vents must be located at the top of a provided gas pump canopy for new gas stations.
At least one EV parking space with a standard charger is required for every 10 required parking
spaces for new gas stations.
New and replacement underground fuel storage tanks must be constructed of non-corrodible
material or designed to prevent the release or threatened release of any stored fuel to ensure
greater durability and lifespan.
If a leak or surface runoff contamination occurs the property owner is accountable for cleanup and
remediation.
Fuel tanks and pumps that are unused or out of service for one year or more will be considered
willfully abandoned and ineligible for nonconforming status. Their use cannot be restored unless
they comply with updated standards.
Replacement and updated tanks at existing stations may be in substantially the same location and
not have to comply with the updated requirements. The Zoning Administrator may modify the tank
locations if federal or state requirements prevent locating tanks in a substantially similar location,
or if the applicant demonstrates a different location is more appropriate.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
Page | 4
Planning staff identified five key considerations related to the proposal, found on pages 4-24 of the January
10, 2024 Planning Commission staff report, and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see
the Planning Commission staff report.
Consideration 1 – Compatibility with Master Plan Policies and Initiatives
Planning found that the proposed ordinance will help implement goals of the Salt Lake City Open Space
Plan (1992), and Plan Salt Lake (2015) to protect the natural environment from fuel leaks and surface
water contamination.
Consideration 2 – The Importance of Standards for Gas Stations and Accessory & Primary
Facilities with Above and Underground Storage Fuel Tanks
Planning noted the proposed ordinance is intended to promote the public’s health and safety by reducing
potential air, water, and soil contamination from gas station leaks and vapors. They cited a 2022 Utah State
Department of Environmental Quality report that showed approximately one in four underground fuel
storage tanks tested throughout the state were not in compliance with regulations, and leaks were detected
at approximately seven percent of tested facilities. It stands to reason that tanks found to be out of
compliance when inspected create environmental issues, and leaking tanks unquestionably cause these
issues.
Additionally, overfilling storage tanks from fuel delivery trucks, and water runoff from gas stations have
the potential to contaminate soil and water.
Planning staff stated:
Any failure of best management practices would cause a risk of contamination to water sources and
open space in the city through the storm drain connection. There are no best management plans
that can mitigate the negative impact since spills are caused by human error, and that could lead to
a potential failure.
Consideration 3 – Impacts of the Proposed Text Amendment on New and Existing Uses
The proposed text amendment would apply to newly constructed gas stations. Existing stations with above
or underground fuel storage tanks would become legal nonconforming uses and allowed to continue.
Consideration 4 – Zoning Districts That Allow Gas Stations & Accessory/Primary Facilities
with Above or Underground Fuel Storage Tanks – Use Analysis
Gas stations are allowed in 14 zoning districts in the city as shown in the list below. They are a permitted
use in 13 of the districts and a conditional use in the CB (Community Business) zone. Gas stations are
prohibited in many zoning districts including all residential districts and restricted in the Groundwater
Source Protection Overlay District, which is primarily in the eastern part of the city.
There are no existing specific City zoning standards that must be met for building a station in areas where
they are allowed, other than fire and building codes. (The State of Utah Department of Environmental
Quality has requirements gas stations must comply with.)
Zoning districts where gas stations are allowed:
M-1 (Heavy Manufacturing) -permitted use
M-2 (Light Manufacturing) -permitted use
BP (Business Park) -permitted use
CB (Community Business) -conditional use
CS (Community Shopping) -permitted use
Page | 5
CC (Corridor Commercial) -permitted use
CG (General Commercial) -permitted use
CHSBD1/2 (Sugar House Business District) -permitted use
D-2 (Downtown Support District) -permitted use
D-3 (Downtown Warehouse/Residential District) -permitted use
D-4 (Downtown Secondary Central Business District) -permitted use
TSA-MUEC-T (Transit Station Area Mixed Use Employment Center Station-Transition)
-permitted use
TSA-SP-T (Transit Station Area Special Purpose Station-Transition) -permitted use
Staff note: pages 10-19 of the January 10, 2024 Planning Commission staff report includes several maps
illustrating sections of the city where gas stations are located in relation to green spaces, streams, and
open spaces.
Consideration 5 – Secondary Recharge Area and the Groundwater Source Protection
Overlay District and Ordinance
More than 10% of the state’s drinking water comes from groundwater, much of which is filtered through
recharge areas, primarily along the east bench and eastern parts of the city including the foothills and
front-facing mountain ranges. These include primary and secondary recharge areas.
Primary recharge areas are comprised of rocks and boulders but do not have layers of clay. Water and other
liquids spilled in these areas can end up in the groundwater without filtration through the soil that would
otherwise help clean them. The unfiltered and cleaned liquids can flow into the water supply.
Secondary recharge areas are similar to primary recharge areas but have layers of clay that can help
minimally contain contaminants that may spill on the surface of these areas. As the name implies,
secondary recharge areas are a secondary drinking water source to replenish groundwater and can be up to
10% of the city’s water supply.
Gas stations are not allowed in primary recharge areas. Underground fuel storage tanks are restricted in
secondary recharge areas, meaning with best management practices they can be permitted in those areas.
ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS
Attachment B (pages 32-33) of the January 10, 2024 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.
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
Page | 6
The extent to which a proposed text amendment
implements best current, professional practices of urban
planning and design.
Complies
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
• April11, 2023 – Petition received by Salt Lake City Planning Division.
• April 12, 2023 – Petition assigned to Diana Martinez, Senior Planner.
• July 10, 2023 – Information about the proposal was sent to all community council chairs to solicit
public comments and begin the 45-day recognized community organization comment period.
• August 21, 2023 – 45-day recognized community organization public comment period ends.
• November 9, 2023 – Notice of the proposed text amendment sent to all gas station owners in Salt
Lake City.
• December 29, 2023 – Planning Commission public hearing notice posted at the following city
libraries: SLC Main, Chapman, Sprague, Day-Riverside, Glendale, and Anderson-Foothill.
• January 5, 2024 – Public notice posted on City and State websites and sent via the Planning
Division listserv for the January 10, 2024 Planning Commission meeting. Public hearing notice
mailed.
• January 10, 2024 – Planning Commission briefing and public hearing. The Commission voted to
table the proposed text amendment for Planning staff to go back and make changes.
• April 5, 2024 – Public notice posted on City and State websites and sent via the Planning Division
listserv for the April 10, 2024 Planning Commission meeting. Public hearing notice mailed.
• April 10, 2024 – The Planning Commission was briefed on changes to the proposed ordinance.
The Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council.
• April 15, 2024 – Ordinance requested from the Attorney’s Office.
• May 4, 2024 – Ordinance from Attorney’s Office received by Planning Division.
• May 23, 2024 – Transmittal received in City Council Office.
________________
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
Jill Love
Jill Love (May 23, 2024 16:31 MDT)Date Received: 05/23/2024
Jill Love, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: 05/23/2024
TO:Salt Lake City Council DATE: 05/23/24
Victoria Petro, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods
_
SUBJECT:Petition PLNPCM2023-00260 City-wide Text Amendment for Gas Station Standards
STAFF CONTACT:Diana Martinez, Senior Planner
(801) 535-7215 or diana.martinez@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should follow the Planning Commission's recommendations
and approve the petitions for a zoning text amendment.
BUDGET IMPACT:None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Mayor Erin Mendenhall has initiated a petition to amend the zoning ordinance to require minimum
distances that new gas stations can be from a river, stream, or other water body, a park, or open space area
over a certain size and establish more stringent zoning standards for any gas station that is located in the
secondary groundwater recharge area of the city.
The proposed text amendment would prohibit new gas stations that do not meet the proposed standards
regardless of whether they are permitted or conditioned land use in an allowable zoning district.
Existing gas stations could replace and/or upgrade fuel equipment and tanks without complying with
these new regulations as long as the new equipment is in the same location as the original
equipment/tank(s). Section D of the proposed ordinance addresses replacement, reconstruction, and any
modifications existing gas stations may request.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
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
●Notification–
o Early notification of the proposal was sent to all City Community Councils on July 10,
2023.
o November 9, 2023- Notice of the proposed text amendment was sent to every owner of a
gas station in Salt Lake City.
o December 29, 2023- Notice of the public hearing for the Planning Commission meeting
of January 10, 2024- notice signs posted at six city libraries: SLC Main Library,
Chapman Branch Library, Sprague Branch Library, Day-Riverside Branch Library,
Glendale Branch Library, and Anderson-Foothill Branch Library.
●Planning Commission Meeting –
On January 10, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the proposed text
amendment. The Commission tabled the item so that the Planning staff could work with the
stakeholders from the gas station industry, who had given comments on the amendment, review
the EV requirement section again, and consider where this ordinance would be most applicable
and appropriate within the city.
Notification for the April 10, 2024 Meeting-
o Public notice posted on City and State websites and Planning Division list serve – April
5, 2024.
Planning Commission Meeting-
On April 10, 2024, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the proposed text
amendment. The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to send a favorable recommendation for the
petition to the City Council.
PLANNING RECORDS:
a) PC Agenda of January 10, 2023, meeting (Click Here)
b) PC Minutes of January 10, 2023, meeting (Click Here)
c) PC Staff Report of January 10, 2023, meeting (Click Here)
d) PC YouTube Video of the January 10, 2023, meeting (Click Here)
e) PC Agenda of April 10, 2024, meeting (Click Here)
f) PC Minutes of April 10, 2024, meeting (Click Here)
g) PC Staff Report/Memo of April 10, 2024, meeting (Click Here)
h) PC YouTube Video of April 10, 2024, meeting (Click Here)
EXHIBITS:
1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
3. ORIGINAL PETITION
4. ORDINANCE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
3. ORIGINAL PETITION
4. ORDINANCE
1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
Petition: PLNPCM2023-00260 City-wide text amendment
April 11, 2023, Petition for the text amendment was received by the Salt Lake City
Planning Division.
April 12, 2023 Petition assigned to Diana Martinez, Senior Planner, for staff
analysis and processing.
July 10, 2023 Information about the proposal was sent to the all-City Community
Council Chairs to solicit public comments and start the 45-day
Recognized Organization input and comment period.
August 21, 2023 The 45-day public comment period for Recognized Organizations
ended.
November 9, 2023 Notice to sent to all gas station owners within Salt Lake City, regarding
the proposed text amendment.
December 29, 2023 Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the
Planning Commission public hearing physically posted at six city
libraries: SLC Main Library, Chapman Branch Library, Sprague
Branch Library, Day-Riverside Branch Library, Glendale Branch
Library, and Anderson-Foothill Branch Library.
January 5, 2024 Public notice posted on City and State websites and sent via the
Planning list serve for the Planning Commission meeting of
January 10, 2023. Public hearing notice mailed.
January 10, 2024 The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing January 10, 2023.
By a vote of 7-1, the Planning Commission voted to table the proposed
Text Amendment for planning staff to go back and make changes.
April 5, 2024 Public notice posted on City and State websites and sent via the
Planning list serve for the Planning Commission meeting of
April 10, 2023. Public hearing notice mailed.
April 10, 2024 The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on April 10, 2024.
By a vote of 6-0, the Planning Commission voted to send a favorable
recommendation for the zoning map amendment petition to the City Council.
2. NOTICE OF CITY
COUNCIL HEARING
NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petitions PLNPCM2023-00260:
Mayor Erin Mendenhall has initiated a petition to amend the zoning ordinance to propose
minimum distances that any gas station can be from a river, stream, or other water body, a
park, or open space area over a certain size and establish more stringent zoning standards
for any gas station that is located in the secondary groundwater recharge area of the city.
The proposed text amendment would prohibit gas stations that do not meet the proposed
standards regardless of whether they are permitted or conditioned land use in an allowable
zoning district. The Ordinance under section 21A.36.120 will list the proposed standards,
“Standards for Gas Stations and Facilities with Underground and Above-Ground Fuel
Storage Tanks.”
As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive
comments regarding the petition. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City
Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may
consider adopting the ordinance the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be
held:
DATE:
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 Diana
Martinez at 801-535-7215 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
or via e-mail at diana.martinez@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at
https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “planning” tab and entering the petition
number PLNPCM2023-00260.
People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include
aids and services. Please make requests at least advance. To make a request, please contact the
City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, 801-535-7600, or relay service 711.
3.ORIGINAL PETITION
MEMORANDUM
PL,\.11/NING DIVISION
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
To:
Cc:
From:
Date:
Re:
Mayor Erin Mendenhall
LisaShaffer, ChiefAdministrativeOfficer; Blake TI1omas, Department of Conununityand
Neighborhoods Director; Michaela Oktay, DeputyPlanning Director
Nick Nonis, Plaiming Director
April10, 2023
Amendments related to gasstations located nearwater sow-ces andsensitive lands
The Planning Division is requesting that you initiate a zoning text amendment to analyze the zoning
districts where gas stations are allowed in the city and prohibit the use when in close proximity to
water bodies, water resources, ground water recharge areas, and public parks. TI1is action is
necessa1y to fmther the legitimate government interest in protecting rivers, creeks, streams and
other water bodies in the cityand increasing the protection of the ground water protection areas. TI1is
action will also fmther the role that parks and open spaces provide in creating large areas where
ground water can be recharged.
TI1is proposal will propose minimum distances that any gas station can be from a river, stream, or
other water body, a park or open space area over a certain size, and establish more sttingent zoning
standards for any gas station that is located in the seconda1y ground water recharge area of the city.
Determining the minimum separation and standards will be coordinated with Public Utilities to
ensure that best practices for managing water impacts from gas stations can be included in the city's
zoning code.
The public process will include a minimum 45-day public input period before the Planning
Commission holds a public heating. All registered recognized organizations will be notified of the
proposal.
TI1is memo includes a signature block to initiate the petition if that is the decided course of action. If
the decided course of action is to not initiate the application, the signature block can remain blank.
Please notifythe Planning Division when the memo is signed or if the decision is made to not initiate
the petition.
Please contact me at ext. 6173 or nick.nonis@slcgov.com if you have ai1yquestions. Tiiank you.
Concurrence to initiate the zoning text amendment petition as noted above.
04/11/2023
Erin Mendenhall, Mayor Date
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTHSTATE SlREET, ROOM406
PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKECITY, UT 84114-5400
WWWSLCGOV
TEL 801-535-7757 FAX 801-535-0174
4. ORDINANCE
________________________
Katherine D. Pasker, Senior Cit
Project Title: Gas Stations Located Near Water Sources
And Sensitive Lands Text Amendment
Petition No.: PLNPCM2023-00260
Version: 1
Date Prepared: May 4, 2024
Planning Commission Action: Recommended 4/10/2024
This proposed ordinance makes the following amendments to Title 21A. Zoning:
Deletes the current gas station standards (Section 21A.40.070);
Adopts new gas station standards to impose a distance requirement between gas stations
and bodies of water as well as new standards related to lot size, vehicle stacking, electric
vehicle parking, screening, and the location of aboveground and underground storage
tanks.
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 1. Adopts a new Section 21A.36.120 as follows:
2 21A.36.120: RESERVED: REGULATIONS FOR GAS STATIONS AND FUEL
3 DISPENSING FACILITIES WITH UNDERGROUND AND/OR ABOVE-GROUND
4 FUELD STORAGE TANKS
5 Gas Stations and Accessory Uses that have fuel tanks on-site, such as Truck Stops, Fuel
6 Distributors, and Storage uses, as defined in Chapter 21A.62 of this title, shall be allowed in
7 zoning districts provided in Chapter 21A.33 “Land Use Tables”, and are subject to the
8 provisions of this section.
9 A. General Standards:
10 1. All fuel dispensers and fuel storage tanks (above or underground) shall comply
11 with the requirements of this section and all other applicable regulations, including
12 the applicable reference standards and any other applicable regulations of the State of
13 Utah and Federal regulators. In case of conflicting provisions in any of the above-
14 listed rules, the strictest restrictions shall apply.
15 2. Distance from water bodies: All underground and above-ground fuel storage tanks
16 and gas vents shall be a minimum of 350 feet from any existing water bodies (pond,
17 river, stream, canal, etc.), water resources, public parks or open space -that are one
18 acre and greater in size.
1
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date: May 4, 2024
By: _
y Attorney
19 3. Distance from property lines: All underground and above-ground fuel storage
20 tanks and gas vents shall be a minimum of 30 feet from any property line.
21 4. Associated pump islands shall be a minimum of 25 feet from any property line
22 and adjacent buildings.
23 5. Fuel vents: When a canopy is provided, gas vents shall be located at the top of the
24 gas pump canopy.
25 6. New underground fuel storage tanks: All new and replacement fuel storage tanks
26 put underground shall be constructed of non-corrodible material or designed to
27 prevent the release or threatened release of any stored fuel to ensure greater durability
28 and lifespan.
29 7. Leak or surface-runoff contamination: If contamination occurs, the property
30 owner shall be accountable for any cleanup and remediation of the subject property,
31 any City property, and any downstream water or soil contamination.
32 8. Nonconforming status: Fuel tanks and pumps that are unused or out of service for
33 one year or more shall be considered willfully abandoned and will not be eligible for
34 nonconforming status. The use shall not be restored unless it is restored to comply
35 with the standards of this section and all other applicable sections in this title.
36 B. Additional Standards for Gas Stations:
37 1. Minimum Lot size: 30,000 square feet. A gas station may be located on a lot with
38 another principal use when the lot complies with the minimum lot size. For the
39 purposes of this regulation, a lot shall include a site that consists of multiple lots or
40 parcels within a single development when the parking lot and circulation elements are
41 shared across the boundaries of the lots or parcels
42 2. Minimum Lot Frontage: 150 feet along all public streets. For sites described in
43 21A.36.120.C.1, the lot frontage shall be measured for all lots or parcels involved.
44 3. Stacking Lane Standards: These standards ensure adequate on-site maneuvering
45 and circulation areas, ensure that stacking vehicles do not impede traffic on abutting
46 streets, and that stacking lanes will not have nuisance impacts on abutting residential
47 lots.
48 a. Stacking lanes shall be arranged to avoid conflicts with site access points,
49 access to parking or loading spaces, and internal circulation routes to the
50 maximum extent practicable.
51 b. A minimum of 36 feet of stacking lane is required between a curb cut and the
52 nearest gasoline pump.
53 4. Fuel Pump Standards:
2
54 a. Fuel pumps shall be located on the site in a manner that does not interfere
55 with easy access into or egress from the site at established driveway entrances.
56 b. Fuel Pumps shall be located and oriented so all cars in line for motor fuel can
57 be accommodated on-site and not block the sidewalk, the street, or any other
58 portion of the public right of way.
59 5. Electric Vehicle Parking: Gas stations shall provide at least one (1) parking space
60 dedicated to electric vehicles for every ten (10) required on-site parking spaces.
61 Electric vehicle parking spaces shall count toward the minimum required number of
62 parking spaces. The electric vehicle parking space shall be:
63 a. Located in the same lot as the principal use.
64 b. Signed clearly and conspicuously, such as special pavement marking or
65 signage, indicating exclusive availability to electric vehicles; and
66 c. Outfitted with a standard electric vehicle charging station.
67 C. Additional Standards for Fuel Dispensing Facilities:
68 1. Above-ground fuel storage tanks shall:
69 a. Provide a 25-foot clear radius from combustible materials, storage areas,
70 parking/backing areas, and all buildings on the same lot.
71 b. Have a maximum height of 20 feet from the finished grade.
72 2. An obscuring sight fence of six feet in height shall be required surrounding the
73 fuel storage tanks and associated vehicle fueling areas. All required fencing shall be
74 prewoven chain-link with slats, wood, brick, tilt-up concrete, masonry block, stone,
75 metal, composite/recycled materials, or other manufactured materials or combination
76 of materials commonly used for fencing. In addition, the fenced area must be paved
77 with a nonpermeable surface.
78 D. Upgrades to Nonconforming Gas Stations and Fuel Dispensing Facilities:
79 1. Replacing and Updating Tanks and Associated Equipment: An existing gas
80 station may replace existing tanks and associated equipment in substantially the same
81 location without having to comply with the provisions of this section.
82 2. Reconstruction: Existing gas stations that are noncomplying as to lot area, lot
83 frontage, or tank setbacks may be demolished and reconstructed, provided the
84 reconstructed use complies with the other applicable regulations of this section and
85 the tank location is substantially the same.
86 3. The zoning administrator may modify the location of the fuel tanks and associated
87 equipment if federal or state requirements or other legal requirements prevent
88 locating the replacement tanks in a substantially similar location.
3
89 4. The zoning administrator may approve an alternate location for fuel tanks and
90 associated equipment if the applicant can demonstrate that a more efficient and safe
91 location is more appropriate.
92
93 2. Deletes Section 21A.40.070:
94
95 21A.40.070: MOTOR FUEL PUMP REGULATONS RESERVED
96
97 When established pursuant to uses permitted or conditional within the applicable district
98 regulations, all motor fuel pumps shall conform to the requirements below:
99
100 A. Location: No motor fuel pumps or islands shall be erected closer than twelve feet
101 (12') to any lot line, required landscape yard, front or side yard or within any "sight
102 distance triangle" as defined in chapter 21A.62 of this title.
103
104 B. Safety Curbs Required: All uses for which motor fuel pumps or islands shall be
105 made a part, shall erect a safety curb around the perimeter of all paved areas. All such
106 curbs shall be of approved construction. The curbs shall be located so that no vehicle
107 overhangs any public right of way or adjoining property.
108
109 C. Gas Pumps At Convenience Food Stores: In addition to the requirements of
110 subsections A and B of this section, the location of motor fuel pumps at convenience food
111 stores shall be approved by the zoning administrator, where the location of such pumps
112 satisfies the following criteria:
113
114 1. Pumps should be visible to the motorist on the street;
115 2. Pumps should be visible from the store;
116 3. Pumps should be located on the site in a manner which does not interfere with
117 easy access into or egress from the site at established driveway entrances;
118 4. Pumps should be located and oriented so all cars in line for motor fuel can be
119 accommodated on site and not block the sidewalk, the street, or any other portion of
120 the public right of way;
121 5. Pumps should be so located to avoid conflict between cars going to motor fuel
122 pumps and those going to parking spaces. On site circulation should be clearly
123 marked and must reflect established design standards for moving aisles, parking
124 dimensions, and turning radii;
125 6. Pump location, and vehicular access to and exit from pumps, should not conflict
126 with established pedestrian or bicycle approaches to the store; and
127 7. Lighting shall be oriented so as not to cast direct light onto adjacent properties.
128
129 3. Amends the definition of “GAS STATION” in Section 21A.62.040 as follows:
130
131 GAS STATION: A principal building site and structures for selling the sale and dispensing
132 of motor fuels or other petroleum products and the sale of convenience retail.
4
133
134 4.Adopts a new definition “FUEL DISPENSING FACILTY” in Section 21A.62.040, as follows
135 (to be inserted alphabetically into the list of definitions in said section):
136
137 FUEL DISPENSING FACILITY: A stationary facility consisting of one or more fuel storage
138 tanks and associated equipment, which receive, store, and dispense fuel for private use and
139 not for sale to the public.
140
141
142 [END]
5
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:September 3, 2024
RE: Zoning Map Amendment at 450 East 700 South
PLNPCM2023-00452
The Council will be briefed about a proposal to amend the zoning map for the approximately 0.22-acre
parcel at 450 East 700 South in Council District Four from its current RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-
Family Residential) zoning to RMF-30 (Low Density Multi-Family Residential). The petitioner’s stated
objective is to develop unused portions of the property with two additional homes in a configuration it may
have been in historically. An existing home on the site is proposed to remain. An official development
application hasn’t been submitted, but the petitioner included a preliminary development plan submitted
with the application and can be found on page 3 of the Planning Commission staff report.
RMF-35 zoning requires lot sizes of at least 5,000 square feet and with a 50-foot minimum width. Lot sizes
within RMF-30 zoning may be as small as 2,000 square feet, and there is no minimum lot width.
An easement was purchased by Preservation Utah in 1993 and prohibits demolition or significant exterior
changes to the home without consent of the easement holder. Zoning of the property is not dictated by the
easement. It is worth noting that this is a private easement, and the City has no legal interest in it. In
addition to meeting City requirements, development on the site would need to be approved Preservation
Utah’s Historic Properties Committee.
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at its February 14, 2024 meeting and held a public
hearing at which two people spoke. One commenter recommended a development agreement recognizing
the responsibility of Preservation Utah regarding the property. The other commenter expressed general
support for the proposal. Planning staff recommended and the Commission voted unanimously
to forward a positive recommendation to the Council.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: September 3, 2024
Set Date: September 17, 2024
Public Hearing: October 1, 2024
Potential Action: October 15, 2024
Page | 2
Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning map amendments, determine if the Council supports
moving forward with the proposal.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. The Council may wish to ask the applicant if housing planned for the site is anticipated to be rental
or for sale and if they will be affordable units.
2. The Council may wish to ask the Administration how the Affordable Housing Incentives may
impact this petition or development potential on the property.
3. The Council may wish to ask the petitioner what sustainable features such as all electric homes,
solar panels, high efficiency HVAC systems, etc. are planned for the new homes.
As shown in the map below, area zoning is primarily RMF-35 fronting the south side of 700 South, with
some RMF-30 to the east and on the north side of 700 South. The surrounding neighborhood is primarily
residential with single-family homes, row houses, and apartment buildings. Two notable buildings in the
area include the Liberty Wells Community Center on the southeast corner of 400 East and 700 South, and
a church on the southwest corner of 500 East and 700 South.
Area zoning map with subject parcel highlighted in blue.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property. No formal site plan has been submitted
to the City nor is it within the scope of the Council’s authority to review the plans. Because zoning of a
Page | 3
property can outlast the life of a building, any rezoning application should be considered on the merits of
changing the zoning of that property, not simply based on a potential project.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
Planning staff identified three key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 5-7 of
the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the
staff report.
Consideration 1 – Master Plan Compatibility
Planning staff found that the proposed zoning map amendment supports several initiatives in Plan Salt
Lake (2015) including Neighborhood, Growth, Housing, and Beautiful City. In addition, the (2005) Central
Community Master Plan suggests 15-30 dwelling units per acre, which both the current RMF-35 and
proposed RMF-30 zoning districts meet. It is Planning staff’s opinion that rezoning the property would not
affect the property’s compatibility with the Central Community Master Plan’s future land use map. Finally,
Planning found that the requested zoning map amendment supports the spirit of Housing SLC (2023)
though few initiatives within the plan specifically apply to the proposal.
Consideration 2 – Housing Loss Mitigation
Petitions that change zoning allowing a nonresidential use of the land including residential units must have
an approved housing loss mitigation plan. The cost to replace the existing structure is greater than that
structure’s value, resulting in a negative number (though it would be very difficult to get approval to
demolish the existing home because of the preservation easement). Since it is a negative number, no
mitigation fee is required.
Consideration 3 – Preservation Easement
As discussed above, Preservation Utah holds a preservation easement on the subject property intended to
preserve the existing historic home. Some requirements of the easement include:
No construction, alteration, remodeling, demolition, or any other modification that would change
exterior materials or dimensions is allowed without Preservation Utah’s consent.
The property owner must keep the house in good repair.
Additions visible from the street are not allowed.
No new buildings shall be constructed without express permission from Preservation Utah.
Preservation Utah does not have a position on the proposed new homes since no official development plans
have been submitted.
As previously mentioned, the preservation easement does not prevent changes to the property’s zoning or
future land use designation.
A zoning district comparison is included on page 19 of the Planning Commission staff report. It is
replicated here for convenience.
RMF-35 (Existing)RMF-30 (Proposed)
Maximum Building
Height
35 feet Single- and two-family: 30 feet
Row houses: 30 feet.
Cottage development:
23 feet (pitched roof)
16 feet (flat roof).
Page | 4
Tiny house: 16 feet.
Nonresidential and multi-
family: 30 feet.
Front and Corner Side
Setback
Front yard: 20 feet
Corner side yard: 10 feet
Front yard:
20 feet or block face average.
Corner side yard: 10 feet.
Interior Side Setback Detached single-family:
4 feet and 10 feet.
Two-family (single lot):
4 feet and 10 feet.
Twin home (split lot): 10 feet.
Attached single-family:
4 feet (non-party wall).
Multi-family: 10 feet.
Single- and two family:
4 feet and 10 feet.
Row houses: 4 feet.
Sideways row houses:
6 feet and 10 feet.
Cottage development: 4 feet.
Tiny house: 4 feet.
Nonresidential: 30 feet.
Multi-family: 10 feet.
Rear Setback 25% of lot depth, 20 foot
minimum, 25 foot maximum.
Cottage development and tiny
house: 10 feet.
All others: 20% of lot depth, 25
foot maximum.
Minimum Lot Width Detached single-family:
50 feet.
Two-family: (single lot):
50 feet.
Twin home (split lot):
25 feet per lot.
Attached single-family:
22 feet (interior lots)
32 feet (corner lots).
Multi-family: 80 feet.
None
Maximum Lot Width None 110 feet, including combination
of multiple lots.
Minimum Lot Size Detached single-family:
5,000 square feet.
Two-family (single lot):
8,000 square feet.
Twin home (split lot):
4,000 square feet (per lot).
Attached single-family:
3,000 square feet.
Multi-family:
9,000 square feet (3 units)
2,000 square feet (per
additional unit up to 11)
26,000 square feet (12 units)
1,000 square feet (per unit
Cottage development and tiny
house:
1,500 square feet per unit.
Non-residential:
5,000 square feet per building.
All other uses:
2,000 square feet per unit.
Page | 5
over 12).
Building Coverage Detached single-family:
45% of lot area.
Two-family (single lot): 50%
Twin home (split lot): 50%
Attached single-family: 60%
Multi-family: 60%
50%
Open Space, Landscape
Yards, and Landscape
Buffers
10-foot landscape buffer if
abutting single- or two-family
zoning district.
Front and corner side yards
must include landscape yard
according to 21A.48.
10-foot landscape buffer if
abutting single- or two-family
zoning district.
Front and corner side yards
must include landscape yard
according to 21A.48.
New buildings in the RMF-30 zoning district are subject to additional design standards that are not required in
the RMF-35 district. These are outlined in a table on page 20 of the Planning Commission staff report and
replicated below.
Requirement Standard
Building materials, ground floor At least 50% of street-facing facades must be clad in durable
materials (excluding doors and windows).
Building materials, upper floors At least 50% of street-facing facades must be clad in durable
materials (excluding doors and windows).
Glass: ground floor 20% of street-facing facades must have transparent glass between 3
and 8 feet above grade.
Glass: upper floor 15% of street-facing facades must have transparent glass.
Building Entrances Required for each residential unit facing the street.
Blank Wall Maximum Length 15 feet
Entry Features Each entry required by the design standards must include a
permitted entry feature, as listed in 21A.37.050.O
Analysis of Standards
Attachment F (pages 24-25) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning map amendment standards
that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. The standards and findings are summarized
below. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for additional information.
Factor Finding
Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent
with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of
the city as stated through its various adopted
planning documents.
Complies
Page | 6
Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the
specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance.
Complies
The extent to which a proposed map amendment will
affect adjacent properties
Complies
Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent
with the purposes and provisions of any applicable
overlay zoning districts which may impose additional
standards.
N/A
The adequacy of public facilities and services
intended to serve the subject property, including, but
not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational
facilities, police and fire protection, schools,
stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and
wastewater and refuse collection.
Complies
City Department Review
During City review of the petitions, no responding departments or divisions expressed concerns with the
proposal but stated additional review and permits would be required if there is additional development on
the property.
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
• June 13, 2023 – Application submitted to Planning Division.
• June-September 2023 – Planning staff worked with applicant to remedy application deficiencies.
• October 9, 2023 –
o 45-day notice required for recognized community organizations sent to community
councils.
o Early notification provided to neighbors within 300 feet of the development.
• November 24, 2023 – 45-day public comment period for recognized community organizations
ended.
• July 3, 2023 –
o Notice sent to Granary District Alliance, Ballpark Community Council, and Downtown
Community Council.
o Early notification sent to residents and property owners within 300 feet of the project site.
• November 2023-January 2024 – Online open house hosted to solicit public comments on the
proposal.
• February 2, 2024 –
o Public hearing notice mailed. Public notice posted on Cit and State websites and Planning
Division listserv.
o Public hearing notice posted on the property.
• February 14, 2024 – Planning Commission public hearing. The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to
forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed zoning map amendment.
• March 13, 2024 – Ordinance requested from City Attorney’s Office.
Page | 8
o (Planning staff noted the City Attorney’s Office was limited due to a reduction in
available personnel and a number of pressing cases taking up available staff time.)
• June 20, 2024 – Planning received signed ordinance from the Attorney’s Office.
• July 16, 2024 – Transmittal received in City Council Office.
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF MEMO
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Allison Rowland
Budget & Policy Analyst
DATE:September 3, 2024
RE: INFORMATIONAL: INITIAL DISCUSSION OF LEGISLATIVE INTENTS FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2024-25
The Council will hold the first of three planned work session briefings on Legislative Intents, beginning with
new items for Fiscal Year 2024-25 (FY25). Legislative Intents are the Council’s formal requests to the
Administration, and they are adopted as part of the annual budget. This first discussion, which is typically held
in September (see Attachment C1), is envisioned as an informal “post-budget discussion” between the Council,
the Mayor’s Office, and relevant department heads. The briefing is designed as an opportunity for the Mayor’s
Office and department leaders to provide preliminary information and feedback on the intents, including how
any might be refined according to a department’s expertise and previous experience. Because the purpose of
this discussion is to clarify the Council’s requests, the Council also may make any desired editing changes to the
Legislative Intents for this purpose.
This briefing is not designed as a time to “resolve” an issue, or to engage in an in-depth discussion. The idea is
to provide feedback to the Administration, so that they can plan their work on the Legislative Intents most
efficiently. For example:
-A department may explain their ideas for how specific a legislative intent could be refined;
-A department may share relevant information about requested items; or
-If a particular item has been addressed in the months since the budget was adopted, the Council
could indicate that the intent has been completed and no further Administration action is needed.
The list of New FY25 Legislative Intents appears in Attachment C2. The goal of this briefing is to modify any of
new Legislative Intents as needed, now that the pressure of the budget season has passed. This will also
facilitate the Administration’s work on these requests before the next briefing, which is planned for
February/March. Council staff will follow up with the Administration and provide a response to Council
Members on anything that will require some time to research.
Page | 2
The second and third briefings will include discussion of both FY25 and previous years’ Legislative Intents.
They are more formal discussions, based on written descriptions of progress from relevant departments. The
responses for the second briefing are transmitted to the Council in January or February, and for the third
briefing they are transmitted as part of the Mayor’s Recommended Budget.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment C1. Annual Schedule for Review of Legislative Intents
Attachment C2. New FY25 Legislative Intents
Attachment C1. Annual Schedule for Review of Legislative Intents
Briefing #1: Post-budget discussion
Transmittal: n/a
Work Session: September
Purpose:
o Q & A with department representatives
o Workshop to refine the Legislative Intents
o Receive information from the departments: what’s been tried and/or whether they would
like to propose a better approach, etc.
o Early status information, first-round thoughts, feedback
Briefing #2: Mid-year status update – Timed to coincide with Budget Amendment 3 or 4
Transmittal: January - February
Work Session: March
Purpose:
o Briefing from department representatives
o Mid-year update on progress made, department response, impact to budget, if any, etc.
o This is not expected to be a 100% complete report or close-out, but rather a mid-term
update
Briefing #3: Combined with annual budget report
Transmittal: No separate transmittal; information and updates included in annual budget
information
Work Session: Intents would be discussed as part of department annual budget briefings
Purpose:
o Continue tracking legislative intents and close out as applicable
o Refine status and next steps for the coming fiscal year
Exceptions: Some items may have a separate timeline identified and those will be considered separately.
Attachment C2. New FY25 Legislative Intents Updated July 23, 2024
A. Attorney’s Office
Noise Enforcement (Vehicular and Non-vehicular). It is the intent of the Council to
request a briefing from the Administration about noise enforcement in the City and existing State
law. This would include but not be limited to:
a. noise enforcement for violations from both vehicle and non-vehicular sources;
b. identification of additional resources needed to improve enforcement;
c. policy regarding noise ordinance waivers;
d. semi-annual reports regarding noise enforcement;
e. consideration of increased fines as a deterrent;
f. proactive work with any mass gathering or event spaces (including institutions that
sponsor high-decibel events).
B. Community and Neighborhoods Department
Neighborhood District Signs. It is the intent of the Council to request a future policy
discussion with the Administration about establishing a standard process and broadening the
City’s ability to respond to requests for neighborhood-marking signs, including requests for
historic district street signs.
C. Finance Department
1. Policy Goals for Zero-Based Budgeting Exercise. It is the intent of the Council to use the
City’s Fiscal Year 2026 zero-based budgeting exercise as an opportunity to evaluate efficiencies
and staffing resources in specific policy areas including:
a.Balancing Resources in the Public Lands Department. Request the
Administration evaluate whether additional resources are needed in all areas of the
Public Lands Department, or if there are resources that can be shifted within the
Department to address the balance between new projects and ongoing responsibilities.
The Council is interested in understanding how resources are allocated between new
projects versus regular maintenance (like mowing and weeding) and deferred capital
maintenance projects (like restroom repair or roof replacement). As a part of this
evaluation, the Council requests Public Lands also evaluate whether deploying
autonomous maintenance vehicles would assist in a more efficient use of resources.
Alternatively, the Council could consider a stand-alone legislative intent on this topic.
b.Evaluating Alternative Response Programs. Request the Administration evaluate
the alternative response programs located across various departments and divisions
using a zero-based budgeting approach. This includes any alternative response model
funded by the City to address public safety, homelessness, and parks. Council Members
expressed a desire to better define what constitutes success for each program, use
performance measures to compare program outcomes, and determine the effectiveness
and efficiency of each of the programs. (Staff note: Removing the stand-alone intent
from previous years.)
c.Staffing Vacancy Analysis. Request the Administration evaluate all vacancies (for
full-time, part-time, and seasonal employees) as part of the zero-based budgeting
exercises planned for FY2026. This would include a more detailed analysis of the
number, duration, and unused portions of budget allocations resulting from vacancies,
as well as tracing positions and departments across multiple fiscal years. Positions with
higher vacancy durations or frequencies could be considered for reclassification,
adjustment, or elimination. Alternatively, the Council could consider a stand-alone
legislative intent on this topic.
2. Consolidated Fee Schedule. It is the intent of the Council to request that the Administration
evaluate the consolidated fee schedule in the following areas:
a. sidewalk closures, lane closures and sidewalk fees, including potential fines for
blocking sidewalks;
b. reducing business license fees for push carts and other mobile vendors;
c. providing 100% forgiveness of City playing-field fees for youth development teams
(not competitive teams) in return for “sweat equity” at these locations.
The Council further requests an annual report provided with the Mayor’s Recommended Budget
which shows the percentage of the fully-loaded potential fee that is proposed, so the Council can
consider adjusting on that basis.
D. Human Resources Department
Compensation Plan. It is the intent of the Council to request that the City Compensation Plan
include a policy change to make division directors appointed employees, like department deputy
directors and department directors. The Council may wish to consider exempting certain
positions like the City Comptroller, which has an independent fiduciary duty to the City beyond
any department or division arrangement. Some Council Members also expressed interest in
adjusting the Appointed Pay Plan pay range to recognize that employees in these positions have
less job protection than merit employees.
E.Public Services Department
Charging Stations for Electric Vehicles. It is the intent of the Council that the Public
Services Department, in coordination with the Sustainability Department, study the options for
eliminating free charging stations for electric vehicles, and shifting them to a paid service run by a
contractor.
F. Public Utilities Department
Jordan River Water Quality. It is the intent of the Council that the Public Utilities
Department facilitate discussions among City Departments (such as Sustainability and Public
Lands) and State and Federal agencies (such as the Department of Water Quality and
Environmental Protection Agency) to identify the best approaches to improving water quality in
the Jordan River. The Council may consider future funding requests based on these discussions.
G. Council-Led Intents
Council Member Compensation –The Council intends to evaluate the ordinance governing
elected official compensation and have this conversation before the end of 2024.
Item B2
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY25
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke and Sylvia Richards
DATE:September 3, 2024 UPDATED 6:12 PM
RE: Budget Amendment Number One of FY2025
MOTION 1 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT URGENT ITEMS
I move that the Council close the public hearing and adopt an ordinance amending the Fiscal Year 2025
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 the remaining
items at a future date.
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
$472,298 of the Existing Interlocal Agreement Budget to Lease Office Space, Utilities, Tenant
Improvements, Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment)
D-4: Annual Budget Cleanup; Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF) Operating Budget
($6,994,737 one-time for New Loans in FY2025 from the Housing & Loan Fund Balance)
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)
D-14: Claims Damage Reimbursement for Tennis Bubble ($23,634 one-time from the Risk Fund)
D-15: Accelerate 4 Parks Capital Projects (New Parks Impact Fees: $2 Million to Liberty Park All
Abilities Play Park & Playground, $1 Million of Folsom Trail Landscaping, Irrigation & Completing
the Trail, and $1 Million for Warm Springs & North Gateway Park; 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)
Note: the Council will consider the remaining projects proposed in this item at future meetings.
I-3: Rescope Coronavirus Pandemic Recovery Federal Funds (CDBG-CV) Grant Awards that
Applicant Declined to Use (Rescope $60,000 one-time from Switchpoint’s Awards to Restore $30,000
to Utah Legal Services, $12,827 to First Step House Peer Support Services, and $17,173 to Odyssey
House UTA Passes)
I-6: Consultant Services to Assist with City Prosecutor’s Office Transition ($95,000 one-time from
General Fund Balance)
MOTION 2 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
I move that the Council close the public hearing and refer the item to a future date for action.
MOTION 3 – CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING
I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future date.
MOTION 4 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND NOT ADOPT
I move that the Council close the public hearing and proceed to the next agenda item.
Page | 1
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: September 3, 2024
RE: Budget Amendment Number 1 of Fiscal Year (FY) 2025
NEW INFORMATION:
At the August 27 briefing, the Council approved straw polls for four urgent items listed below. The Council may
consider approving these items after the public hearing on September 3. The Council will review the remaining items
at briefings in September.
August 27 Four Straw Polls Unanimously Supported by the Council
- 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 $472,298 of the Existing Interlocal Agreement
Budget to Lease Office Space, Utilities, Tenant Improvements, Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment)
- D-4: Annual Budget Cleanup; Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF) Operating Budget ($6,994,737 one-
time for New Loans in FY2025 from the Housing & Loan Fund Balance)
- 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)
- D-14: Claims Damage Reimbursement for Tennis Bubble ($23,634 one-time from the Risk Fund)
New Straw Poll Request for $8.96 Million Going to Four Projects in Item D-15
The Public Lands Department has requested a straw poll to allow expediting contracts for four parks capital projects
as listed below. This funding would accelerate the projects and is slightly more than half of the total $17.3 million
proposed in item D-15. The Council may wish to discuss the overall proposal before straw polling the four projects.
The funding shifts are across three different funding sources with different eligibilities. The Council could consider
shifting funds between the projects. See the full write-up and summary table of proposed funding shifts for item D-15
starting on page 15 below.
The three projects below would use $4 million from parks impact fees:
- 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)
Pioneer Park would receive $4.96 Million of new funding from the 2022 Sales Tax Revenue Bond:
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
Page | 3
- Smith’s Ballpark and Pioneer Park: 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.
UPDATED Section I: Council-Added Items
Items I-1 through I-4 are updated to reflect new information and I-5 is a new placeholder raised at the August 27
briefing and pending more information.
I-1: Replacing Trees and Landscaping on North Temple ($505,000 one-time from Funding Our Future
Fund Balance Parks Maintenance Category)
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 Funding Our Future 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 but would be
modified to reach the new tree planters. The manufacturer recommends waiting until October 2026 (three years)
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 table of potential costs, interim plan, and
Attachment 1 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
“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 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.”
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.” This
would be approximately 438 trees. 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: Follow-up on Council’s Project-specific CIP Allocations (Recapture one-time $875,000 from a
Cancelled Project and one-time $1,012,153 from Projects Completed Under Budget)
This item is a follow up budgeting step to implement the Council’s adopted CIP budget from August 27. The Council
recaptured $875,000 from the cancelled Sorenson Center connecting corridor project (originally funded in 2019).
$807,000 of those funds were awarded to California Avenue pedestrian and safety improvements construction at
Concord Street and Glendale Drive (project #41 on the CIP funding log). This project will 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. The
remaining $68,0000 went to other projects. The Council also recaptured $1,012,153 from capital projects that were
completed under budget. These funds went to several new projects.
I-3: CDBG-CV (Coronavirus Pandemic Response Federal Funds) Grant Awards that Applicant
Declined to Use (Rescope $60,000 one-time from Switchpoint’s Award)
Page | 4
At the August 27 meeting, the Council discussed an announcement for how to handle $60,000 of CDBG-CV one-time
federal grant awards that the applicant Switchpoint declined to use. The Council’s direction was to (1) make sure the
organizations receiving the funds can actually spend them, and (2) choose the most expedited option to get the funds
out into the community.
This year, the City’s total CDBG award was less than anticipated. As a result, the funding for Utah Legal Services was
reduced to zero. Some Council Members have suggested restoring the $30,000 award to Utah Legal Services. Staff
checked in with the Housing Stability Division about this option and the next two highest scoring applicants (First Step
House’s Peer Support Services and Odyssey House’s UTA Passes) based on the resident advisory board’s
recommendations. The Division confirmed that Utah Legal Services’ and First Step Houses’ programs have a strong
multi-year track record of fully spending their HUD Grant awards and in a timely manner. Odyssey House’s UTA
Passes program was a new application to the City’s CDBG program this year so it does not have a history to check
performance. The Housing Stability Division is providing technical assistance to Odyssey House for the UTA Passes
program which is common for new applicants.
The Council may wish to consider two factors related to the program: (1) this is one of only two applications advancing
the City’s HUD grants transportation goal which has seen fewer applicants over the years than other goals, and (2) the
deadline to spend all CDBG-CV funding is December 3, 2026 (the one-time pandemic response funds have different
deadlines and regulations than the regular annual CDBG funds).
Potential Rescopes to Three Eligible Applicants:
- Restore Utah Legal Services' tentative award of $30,000 that was reduced to $0 because the City received less
CDBG funds than estimated, and
- Award the remaining $30,000 based on the resident advisory board's scoring as follows:
o $12,827 to fully fund First Step House Peer Support Services (total would be $80k)
o $17,173 to Odyssey House UTA Passes (total would be $64,173; request was $90k)
I-4: PLACEHOLDER Y2 Analytics Contract – Funding for Additional Surveys ($TBD one-time from
General Fund Balance)
This is a placeholder pending information about potential options for additional surveys of City residents and
possibly other stakeholders. Topics could be tailored to district specific issues.
I-5: PLACEHOLDER Police Noise Enforcement ($TBD one-time from General Fund Balance)
This is a placeholder pending additional information about potential options for noise enforcement by the Police
Department. At the time of publishing this staff report, the Administration was gathering information and
developing options. During annual budget deliberations, Council Members discussed community requests and needs
for greater noise enforcement and placed $50,000 in a non-departmental holding account to revisit how to address
the issue. Ideas raised included overtime for the civilian Police Community Response Team, additional equipment,
and/or more civilian FTEs. Council Members have heard constituent’s concerns about potential noise violations
related to loud parties, mass gathering events, and vehicle traffic such as modified mufflers that intentionally
increase noise levels. The Council could ask the Administration to consider this one-time funding as a pilot and
include ongoing funding for increased noise enforcement in the Mayor’s Recommended Budget for FY2026.
The Council adopted the below legislative intent on this issue as part of the FY2025 annual budget adoption:
Noise Enforcement (Vehicular and Non-vehicular). It is the intent of the Council to request a briefing from the
Administration about noise enforcement in the City and existing State law. This would include but not be limited to:
a. noise enforcement for violations from both vehicle and non-vehicular sources;
b. identification of additional resources needed to improve enforcement;
c. policy regarding noise ordinance waivers;
d. semi-annual reports regarding noise enforcement;
e. consideration of increased fines as a deterrent;
f. proactive work with any mass gathering or event spaces (including institutions that sponsor high-decibel
events).
Information below this line was provided previously for the first briefing.
Budget Amendment Number One includes 22 proposed amendments, ($421,029,704 in revenues and $443,720,223
Page | 5
in expenditures) of which $1,969,783 is from General Fund Balance, requesting changes to thirteen funds with four
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
Page | 5
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.
Page | 6
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%
Page | 7
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
Page | 8
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
Page | 9
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.
Page | 10
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.
Page | 11
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.
Page | 12
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.
Page | 13
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
Page | 14
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 taxable bond, these
funds have an September
2027 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
Page | 15
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
Page | 16
- 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
Page | 17
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 1 as a community flyer about the situation.
Page | 18
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
Page | 19
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
City Council Announcements
September 3, 2024
For Your Information
A. September 17th Westside Council Meeting
Council Members, the September 17th meeting will be off-site at the Sorensen
Center on the Westside. Also, please note that the meeting will be in-person only,
and no virtual option will be available.
Information Needed
B. Council sponsorship
There is an event at the Smith's Ballpark in October with Professional Baseball
teams from Mexico playing games. We also have an opportunity to sponsor a
kid's clinic on Saturday.
Is the Council supportive of sponsoring the clinics for $5,000?
Event Details:
Friday, October 4 - School Visits
Saturday, October 5 - Kids Clinics for 500 kids
Games are on Saturday & Sunday
Events & Parties throughout
C. October Council Meetings
There is a conflict for some Council Members on October 8.
Would the Council prefer to move the October 8th meeting to Tuesday,
October 22nd?
o Current October Meetings:
Tuesday, October 1
Council Work Session & Formal Meeting
Tuesday, October 8 Reschedule
RDA & Council Work Session
Tuesday, October 15
RDA & Council Work Session
Tuesday, October 22 New
Council Work Session & Formal Meeting
:
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
SWORN STATEMENT SUPPORTING CLOSURE OF MEETING
I, , acted as the presiding member of the Salt Lake Council, which met on
in an electronic meeting pursuant to Salt Lake City Proclamation.
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
electronic recording or detailed minutes is not required; and Pursuant to §52-4-206(1), a record by electronic 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: Electronic recording Detailed written minutes
I hereby swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the above information is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge.
Presiding Member Date of Signature
Victoria Petro September 3, 2024
Victoria Petro (Sep 17, 2024 14:42 MDT)Sep 17, 2024
Sworn Statement September 3, 2024 Work
Session
Final Audit Report 2024-09-17
Created:2024-09-13
By:STEPHANIE ELLIOTT (STEPHANIE.ELLIOTT@slc.gov)
Status:Signed
Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAA5beQtepVg2YYvkpHZTkCw-nXdjjBrass
"Sworn Statement September 3, 2024 Work Session" History
Document created by STEPHANIE ELLIOTT (STEPHANIE.ELLIOTT@slc.gov)
2024-09-13 - 8:07:58 PM GMT
Document emailed to victoria.petro@slcgov.com for signature
2024-09-13 - 8:08:40 PM GMT
Email viewed by victoria.petro@slcgov.com
2024-09-14 - 6:16:31 AM GMT
Email viewed by victoria.petro@slcgov.com
2024-09-17 - 5:05:40 AM GMT
Signer victoria.petro@slcgov.com entered name at signing as Victoria Petro
2024-09-17 - 8:42:23 PM GMT
Document e-signed by Victoria Petro (victoria.petro@slcgov.com)
Signature Date: 2024-09-17 - 8:42:25 PM GMT - Time Source: server
Agreement completed.
2024-09-17 - 8:42:25 PM GMT