09/10/2024 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
WORK SESSION
September 10, 2024 Tuesday 3:00 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
3:00 PM Work Session
Or immediately following the 2:00 PM
Redevelopment Agency Meeting
No Formal Meeting
Please note: A general public comment period will not be held this day. This is the Council's monthly scheduled
briefing meeting.
Welcome and public meeting rules
In accordance with State Statute and City Ordinance, the meeting may be held electronically. After 5:00 p.m., please enter the
City & County Building through the main east entrance.
The Work Session is a discussion among Council Members and select presenters. The public is welcome to listen. Items
scheduled on the Work Session or Formal Meeting may be moved and / or discussed during a different portion of the Meeting
based on circumstance or availability of speakers.
The Website addresses listed on the agenda may not be available after the Council votes on the item. Not all agenda items will
have a webpage for additional information read associated agenda paperwork.
Generated: 09:28:24
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 ~ 3:00 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: Driveway and Loading Area Standards Text
Amendments ~ 3:15 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 driveway and loading area standards.
The proposal would correct the identified issues, adequately address vehicular needs and
support good urban design principles. Other sections of Title 21A may also be amended
as part of this petition.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, September 10, 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
3.Resolution: Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan ~ 3:35 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about the City’s Comprehensive Emergency
Management Plan (CEMP). The plan is intended to be used as a guide when executing
response or recovery operations during a disaster and to guide preparedness and
mitigation operations. The plan also addresses emergency operations with other
government entities including, but not limited to, Salt Lake County and the State of Utah.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, September 10, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 17, 2024
4.Informational: Draft Allen Park Adaptive Reuse and
Management Plan ~ 4:05 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive a briefing from the Public Lands Department about the draft
Allen Park Adaptive Reuse and Management Plan. The plan would determine the future
uses of this unique area, including the structures and the landscape, which aims to
integrate ecological improvements with the existing art, and historical preservation.
Extensive community engagement resulted in an overall concept for the park, “Arts and
Sciences in the Wild.” The property was acquired by Salt Lake City in March 2020.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, September 10, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
5.Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.1 for Fiscal Year 2024-25
Follow-up ~ 4:35 p.m.
20 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; Tuesday, September 3, 2024; and Tuesday,
September 10, 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
6.Board Appointment: Sister Cities Advisory Board – Jane Kim ~ 4:55 p.m.
5 min
The Council will interview Jane Kim prior to considering appointment to the Sister Cities
Board for a term ending July 3, 2028.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, September 10, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 17, 2024
7.Council Discussion on Compensation Follow-up ~ 5:00 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will hold a follow-up discussion on compensation for City Council Members.
For more information visit tinyurl.com/CouncilCompensation.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, August 27, 2024 and Tuesday, September 10, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
Standing Items
8.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair -
-
Report of Chair and Vice Chair.
9.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.
10.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, September 5, 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.
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 10, 2024
RE: Driveways and Loading Text Amendment
PLNPCM2023-00937
The Council will be briefed about a text amendment requested by Mayor Mendenhall regarding driveway
and loading area standards in the City code parking chapter. Planning staff found that some standards
created unintended consequences. They worked with the Transportation Division on elements of the
proposal that correct the issues, address vehicular needs, and support good urban design principles. The
Administration noted issues with the following driveway and loading standards which are summarized in
the additional information section below:
The maximum driveway width applies to the combined width of all driveways on a property.
Applicability of these standards.
The terms “driveway” versus “access.”
Required loading areas and design.
The draft ordinance includes the following amendments:
Eliminates the standard for maximum driveway width.
o Additional regulations for the maximum number of curb cuts and distance between these
cuts and street corners will help reduce sidewalk interruptions.
Adds the ability for curb cuts to be installed for every additional 250 feet of street frontage.
Distinguishes between “driveway” and “drive approach” and incorporates consistent use of the
terms to provide clarity.
Revises use of terms in City code such as “loading berth,” “dock,” and “area” to “loading facilities”
for clarity and consistency.
Planning staff initially recommended eliminating the requirement to provide off street loading facilities.
They believed for some uses there isn’t enough demand for loading areas to justify the required space that
Item Schedule:
Briefing: September 10, 2024
Set Date: September 17, 2024
Public Hearing: October 1, 2024
Potential Action: October 15, 2024
Page | 3
could potentially be used for other purposes. Planning’s opinion was that a loading area could be provided
if needed.
The Planning Commission first reviewed the proposal at its March 27, 2024 meeting and held a public
hearing at which no one spoke. Commissioners expressed concern that if there is not a requirement for
loading facilities at multi-family developments, they may not be provided, and the street would be used for
loading, resulting in blocked traffic. The Commission tabled the proposal to give Planning staff time to
address this concern.
The Commission reviewed the revised proposal at its May 8, 2024 meeting. Planning staff retained the
loading facilities requirement in the revision. In addition, Planning recommended reducing the required
vertical clearance for loading facilities in multi-family developments with 80 units or more from 14 feet to
nine feet. The reasoning provided is that it may result in taller than average parking garage ceiling height,
thereby taking space that could be utilized for other uses such as additional housing units. Commissioners
were concerned that a minimum nine-foot loading facility height for multi-family developments
recommended by Planning staff might not be sufficiently high to accommodate moving trucks.
A public hearing was held at which no one spoke. The Commission voted unanimously to forward a
positive recommendation to the Council with an additional recommendation that the 14-
foot vertical clearance for loading facilities at multi-family developments is retained. The
Commission also recommended the City Council “look at the standard of when the loading
dock is required based on number of dwelling units or configuration of units within the
building.”
The draft ordinance maintains a requirement for loading facilities and a minimum of 14 feet vertical
clearance for loading areas.
Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed text amendment and determine if the Council supports
moving forward with the proposal.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. Council Members may wish to discuss whether they support Planning staff’s updated
recommendations which received Planning Commission support.
2. The Council may wish to discuss whether to include loading facilities in multi-family and other
developments, and the criteria for when to include them.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Issues with Driveway Standards:
Maximum Combined Driveway Width. Maximum driveway width applies to the combined width of
all driveways on a property and varies depending on zoning district. In some districts such as
manufacturing, the maximum combined driveway with of 50 feet is insufficient to meet the needs
of large trucks that service the properties.
To address this the Administration proposes regulating individual driveway approach widths. It
would better align the number of driveways and widths of each with the property use and size while
regulating curb cuts.
Applicability of the Driveway Width Standards. Under the current code driveway width standards
apply to front and corner side yards. In zoning districts without a requirement for these yards to
Page | 4
apply the width to, unlimited driveway widths are possible, which is inconsistent with the
standard’s purpose.
The proposal applies the width standard to drive approaches and requires that driveways must
match the drive approach.
Driveway versus Access. The proposal also clarifies that driveways provide vehicle access on private
property, while a drive approach is in the public right of way and provides access from there to
private property. Proposed language will provide consistent use of the terms.
Issues with Loading Standards:
Consistency with Language. Various terms are found in City code that refer to loading including
area, berth, and dock. The proposal eliminates these and uses the term “loading facility” uniformly.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
Planning staff identified two key considerations related to the proposal, found on pages 4-5 of the March
27, 2024 Planning Commission staff report, and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see
the Planning staff report.
Consideration 1 – How the proposal helps implement city goals and policies identified in
adopted plans:
Planning staff found that the proposed amendment aligns with guiding principles and initiatives found in
Plan Salt Lake including Transportation and Mobility, Beautiful City, and Economy. Planning noted that
the changes are intended to align urban design goals while providing vehicle access to private property that
supports use of the property without negatively affecting transportation goals.
Consideration 2 – Impact created by proposed changes:
As discussed above, Planning staff found that combined maximum driveway widths of 50 feet on a property
is insufficient for developments in some areas, particularly in industrial zones. It is Planning staff’s opinion
that allowing a maximum driveway and approach width of up to 30 feet for each driveway will
accommodate the needs of large trucks and industrial uses.
Also noted above, Planning staff initially recommended removing the requirement for loading facilities for
certain uses. They also recommended reducing the minimum height for loading facilities from 14 feet to
nine feet. As a reminder, the Planning Commission expressed concerns with these changes. The draft
ordinance does not include these changes.
ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS
Attachment B (pages 14-15) of the March 27, 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
Page | 4
Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the
specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance.
Complies
Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with
the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay
zoning districts which may impose additional standards.
Complies
The extent to which a proposed text amendment
implements best current, professional practices of urban
planning and design.
Complies
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
• November 15, 2023 – Application accepted and assigned to Madison Blodgett, Principal Planner.
• November 2023-February 2024 – Petition reviewed internally, and staff drafted language to
support goals of the petition.
• November 16, 2023 –
o Notice to all recognized community councils.
o Application posted for the online open house.
• March 15, 2024 – Planning Commission agenda posted to website, emailed to the listserv, and
notice of public hearing posted at libraries.
• March 27, 2024 – Planning Commission meeting and public hearing. Item was tabled.
• April 26, 2024 – Planning Commission agenda posted to website and emailed to the listserv.
• May 8, 2024 – Planning Commission meeting and public hearing. Positive recommendation with
additional recommendations was forwarded.
• June 25, 2024 – Signed ordinance from Attorney’s Office received by Planning Division.
• July 19, 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 REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Allison Rowland
Senior Budget & Policy Analyst
DATE:September 10, 2024
RE: INFORMATIONAL: DRAFT ALLEN PARK ADAPTIVE REUSE AND MANAGEMENT
PLAN
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The draft Allen Park Adaptive Reuse and Management Plan is intended to determine the future uses of this
unique seven-acre area, including its art, structures, and landscapes. The goals and priority projects
recommended are drawn from a year-long community engagement process, and the resulting draft plan aims to
balance the competing preferences of nearby residents with those of the broader City. The overall concept for the
park, “Arts and Sciences in the Wild,” also aims to integrate ecological improvements with the preservation of
existing art and historical structures, to highlight “the natural elements and peaceful nature of this oasis in the
City.”
The draft Plan focuses on a Phase 1 of park improvements, with additional phases to be determined later (see
section C, below, for more detail on Phase 1 elements). Phase 1 work would be funded by the $4.5 million
allocated to Allen Park by the Salt Lake City Parks, Trails, and Open Space General Obligation Bond approved by
voters in 2022, along with an additional $500,000 provided by the City for stream restoration. The Plan’s high-
end cost estimates suggest the total of $5 million for one-time capital costs may fall short by over $1 million, but
the Department of Public Lands reports that it factored in “comfortable” contingency percentages and believes it
will be possible to “refine the scope and cost of improvements to remain within our current funding allocation”
while carrying out Phase 1 of the Plan.
The Department also intends to continue to explore relevant grant, donation, and partnership opportunities. It
provides guidance for implementation of future phases of capital and programming, as funding becomes
available, and partnerships are identified. The Department also reports that grant funds may be available for
Item Schedule:
Briefing: September 10, 2024
Public Hearing: n/a
Potential Action: m/a
building-related work based on the proposed listing of the site as a cultural landscape. Full realization of the
vision created for the park would cost $19 to $25 million according to “planning level” estimates.
At the completion of Phase 1, ongoing staffing and programming for the Park are estimated to cost $119,000 per
year. Currently, operations and maintenance are covered within the FY25 Department budget but as the Plan
proceeds, this additional ongoing funding will be needed.
Goal of the briefing: Review and provide feedback on the draft Allen Park Adaptive Reuse and Management
Plan.
ADDITIONAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A.Background
The property is located in the Sugar House neighborhood and was purchased from a private owner in March
2020. It includes 15 structures of varying historic significance, most of which are currently unusable due to
disrepair. Emigration Creek runs from east to west through the property, and crosses under Allen Park
Drive from south to north near the middle of the property. The park was officially opened to the public in
October 2020, with restrictions to public access for all structures and most of the landscape. Fencing and
private security services have been provided by the City to protect culturally, historically, and
environmentally significant resources.
The Department of Public Lands produced the Allen Park Cultural Landscape Report in November 2022 in
accordance with U.S. National Park Service, which oversees the National Register of Historic Places,
including cultural landscapes. The document provides an overview of the changes to the landscape over
time, identifying periods of historic significance, and recommending an approach to management and
treatment to integrate historic preservation into site development.
B.Allen Park as a Cultural Landscape
The Allen Park Adaptive Reuse and Management Plan recommends pursuing a listing for the park on the
National Register of Historic Places, based on the local historical importance of the “art environment”
created through the work of Ruth Allen, who owned and developed the property with her husband Dr.
George Allen. In this sense, Allen Park is considered significant for its “collection of artworks and
architectural resources that reflect vernacular styles and contributed to the formation of an intentional
community on the property.” Based on the significance and integrity of the park, “the most appropriate
treatment approach for the park as a whole is rehabilitation, which would include preservation of the
landscape resources which retain the most integrity. This would also allow for adaptive re-use of the
landscape, and historically sensitive additions to the park.”
All of the artwork within the park would be preserved, and opportunities are identified in the Plan to
preserve the stories of the site, protect its historic character, and facilitate future funding opportunities. The
Plan reviews best practices for similar properties nationwide, including Salt Lake City’s Gilgal Gardens,
which is characterized as a “precedent” for Allen Park, and is one of the cases outlined in the Plan’s
Appendix C – Best Practices. This approach was ratified in public engagement for the Plan (see section E,
below).
The Plan’s focus on the local historical importance of the art environment at Allen Park leads to the
following broad recommendations for the park:
1. Focus investments and programming on the importance of the combination of the natural and arts
elements of the park.
2. Identify partnerships with local, regional, and national organizations for investment and
programming in the park.
3. Include programming at the park and online that highlights the unique vision of the Allens in
combining artistic vision and nature.
4. Provide educational opportunities for students of all ages to engage with the art and nature at the
site.
5. Link the site’s past with the future through education, programs focused on local artists, and
scientific exploration.
The Council may wish to consider requesting an explicit acknowledgement of the work
of Ruth Allen in the text of the Plan, as the inspiration for its distinctive iconography.
Funding for the arts is notoriously scarce. Would the Council like to request the
Administration develop back-up plans for uses and maintenance of the Allen Park
buildings should arts and sciences funds not materialize? For example, would office
space for local nonprofit organizations be viable, or small-business commercial spaces?
C.Elements of the Draft Plan.
1.Project Vision and Goals. Working with City residents, volunteer specialists, and consultants,
the Administration defined the vision for Allen Park as “an island of calm in the city that provides
opportunities for relaxation, wildlife viewing, and enjoyment of Emigration Creek.” The goals of
the project include:
Preserving the stories and historic character of Allen Park as created
over 50 years by the namesake Allen family;
Enhancing forested area and restoring the natural habitat areas and
native vegetation;
Making improvements to Emigration Creek’s riparian corridor and
floodplain
Preserving, repairing, and adapting the key historically and
architecturally significant structures on the property;
Promoting pedestrian access and trail connectivity; and,
Preserving and protecting the unique artwork on site.
2.Structures. In keeping with the selected concept, “Arts and Sciences in the Wild,” the Plan would
focus on restoring the landscape and critical structures. Some structures would be removed because
of their especially poor physical condition, interference with floodplain function, incompatibility
with City code, and being lower-priority for funding. The Plan recommends that 9 of the 15 on-site
buildings be stabilized and restored as artist-and-science-in-residence studios, park and
maintenance offices, restroom facilities, an exhibit hall, and other types of community gathering
spaces. The specific buildings include Allen Lodge (which would be used as park offices, and for a
small historical display, and community meeting space), Roost, Mary Rose, Sally Anne, Ethylene,
Roberta, Thomas Boam House, Ye Olde George Albert, and 1384 Duplex (see maps in transmittal).
All art objects and other features of Allen Park are considered historic and would be preserved and
restored as necessary, using best practices and standards for nationally recognized historic and arts
landscapes.
Allen Park Drive would be narrowed and improved to serve as s a pedestrian and bike trail, that
could eventually connect to the regional trail system. A secondary pedestrian trail system would
provide opportunities to view more of the landscapes and unique artwork that will be conserved
and protected in its current locations.
3.Natural Features. The Plan also identifies adaptive reuse of the park as an opportunity to
improve the health of Emigration Creek, its floodplain, and riparian zone. The Department of Public
Utilities supports the Plan and will be involved with all Emigration Creek improvements.
Improvements also are recommended and funded for native vegetation, wildlife habitat, and legacy
ornamental plantings, which are high priorities of the public, and will be prioritized in Phase 1.
These include replacement of invasive species with native vegetation; increasing tree canopy
through a tree succession and maintenance plan; and bank stabilization and restoration along the
creek.
D.Overview of Planned Phase 1 Improvements (see maps included in the Plan)
1.Entrances. New or improved entrances to the park would include a primary park pedestrian
entrance to the north part of the 1300 East side of the property; ADA parking entrance, as well as
fire, maintenance, and studio tenant access on the south part of 1300 side; a future south side
pedestrian and bicycle entrance at 1400 East; a future east side pedestrian and bicycle entrance at
the future trail connecting the City’s trail system to the Park.
2.Visitor experiences. New and improved visitor features would include: picnic spaces, small
group gathering spaces, and opportunities to sit and enjoy the area; restroom facilities at the middle
of the park at the repurposed 1384 Duplex; opportunities to observe artists and scientists at work;
uniform and consistent signage; one ADA accessible parking stall; pedestrian lighting compatible
with Dark Skies and wildlife; bicycle parking at all entrances and trailheads; park history display in
the Allen Lodge; gradual removal of the black protective fencing to allow visitor access to more of
the park.
3.Emigration Creek Improvements. Creek improvements would include: a new bridge to replace
the existing culvert, which would improve creek flows and reduce undercutting; installation of weirs
and other infrastructure to reduce; laying-back creek banks to reduce erosion.
4.Ecological Projects. The site’s ecology would be improved through: enhancement of the tree
canopy in areas reclaimed through demolition of existing buildings and removal of paving;
replacement of invasive species with native species; replacement of non-native and invasive species
in the riparian zone replacement of non-native and invasive species in the mountain brush, hillside
zone; improvement of the ornamental planting areas for plant health.
5.Art and Mosaics. All art objects would be conserved on-site, in their current locations, to the
extent possible; Water features would be conserved as art objects or adapted to not use water.
3.Paving and Walls. A primary trail would be paved with colored asphalt to differentiate it from
standard roadway; unique paving areas within the park would be preserved; historic walls, curbing,
and fences would be preserved and uses as focal points.
4.Studios. Buildings repurposed as studio spaces would be for daytime occupancy only. They would
be finished simply and provided with electricity; water and restrooms would be available in the
central restroom building; addition of sewer lines to studios would be explored; septic tanks will not
be allowed; the Utah State Historic Preservation Office matrix would guide alterations to achieve
ADA access.
5.Allen Lodge. This rehabilitation project is identified as the top priority of the community and the
Adaptive Reuse Plan. Future uses would include park offices, Park Ranger office space, a history
display, and a small community gathering space.
E.Public Engagement
Extensive public engagement was carried out in-person and online for the Allen Park Plan over the course of
a full year. The goals were to:
build awareness about the development of the adaptive reuse and management plan;
understand community priorities and desires for Allen Park’s future; and,
solicit input from diverse audiences throughout the City.
The Department reports that during four phases of public engagement, the project team engaged with
approximately 730 people. The phases were:
1. The Learning Phase, with stakeholder and community interviews to understand current
opportunities and challenges at Allen Park and the surrounding community.
2. The Visioning Phase, with in-person and virtual open houses and other opportunities for online
engagement to help shape the concepts and preferred plan for the park.
3. The Planning Phase, when the concept, “Arts and Sciences in the Wild” was discussed with the
public through an online open house and survey.
4. The Sharing Phase, when the draft Plan was provided to the Technical Advisory Committee and the
Advisory Committee for review, along with the general public. These two advisory committees were
formed during the planning process. The Technical Advisory Committee included representative
members of City and County divisions and departments who reviewed all plans, recommendations,
and concepts for technical accuracy and feasibility, including the full draft Allen Park Adaptive
Reuse and Management Plan. The Community Advisory Committee was created to promote
collaboration between the project team (Public Lands and Engineering staff, plus the City’s
consultants) and local residents and stakeholders. It met four times during the planning process to
provide in-depth community knowledge and a broad range of community perspectives, which
helped improve and strengthen the Plan.
F.Previous City Funding and Activities
Since purchasing the property in 2020, the City’s investments have focused on urgent property repairs,
including stabilizing the structures and protecting the area through completion of the Cultural Landscape
Report and this Plan. Specific information on the work completed between 2020 and 2023 and its funding is
listed below.
Date
completed
Salt Lake
City funding
Source of funds
a.Installation of protective temporary
fencing
April 2020 $82,000 CIP (SLC Capital Investment
Program)
b.Removal of dead trees from other areas of
the park
Ongoing since
2021
Part of regular
park
maintenance
Operations funding in SLC
Trails and Natural Lands
Division, and Urban Forestry
c.Upgrade of electrical infrastructure January 2022 $11,560 CIP
d.Removal of unsafe bridge over Emigration
Creek
Summer 2022 $0 Salt Lake County Flood Control
(flood mitigation work)
e.Removal of dead and non-native trees
from riparian zone
Summer 2022 $0 Salt Lake County Flood Control
(flood mitigation work)
f.Design of irrigation and fire-suppression
lines under Allen Park Drive
January 2023 $31,433 CIP
g.Allen Lodge roof replacement April 2023 $164,994 CIP
h.Stabilization of the Allen Lodge April 2023 $54,321 CIP
i.Installation of irrigation and fire
protection water lines
In progress,
Fall 2024
$373,458
(estimated)
CIP
Total City Funds $717,766
G.Capital Budget Estimates
1.Phase 1 Budget. Most of the Phase 1 improvements would be funded from the $4.5 million
allocated to Allen Park by the Parks, Trails, and Open Space General Obligation Bond approved by
voters in 2022, along with an additional $500,000 provided by the City for stream restoration.
Phase 1 cost estimates (see chart below) include construction costs and an additional 40 percent for
soft costs and contingencies. The Plan’s high-end cost estimates suggest that the $5 million for one-
time capital costs may fall short by over $1 million, the Department of Public Lands reports that it
factored in “comfortable” contingency percentages and believes it will be possible to “refine the
scope and cost of improvements to remain within our current funding allocation” while carrying out
Phase 1 of the Plan. The focus of this phase would be on enhancing visitor experience and restoring
the landscape. It would not include stabilization or adaptive reuse of the remaining buildings.
2. Subsequent Phases. Subsequent phases would depend on the availability of funding. The
Department would seek additional funding for structural work on the remaining buildings and other
features, including completion of the secondary trail system, continued implementation of visitor
amenities, gathering areas, and connections to the Citywide trail system. Structure-related funding
would focus on rehabilitating the 1384 Duplex as restrooms, and rehabilitating and creating
opportunities for visitors to enter and use priority buildings. The proposed park programming would
include delineation of several self- or docent-guided tours to enhance understanding of the cultural
significance of Allen Park. The tour routes and information would be created electronically for visitors to
access and follow along during construction of the various phases and prior to installation of on-site
signage.
H.Management Plan: Programming and Staffing Budgets
As alluded to above, the draft Allen Park Plan anticipates that additional programming and Public Lands
staff will be needed to balance the Park priorities, including protection of the environment and wildlife
habitat, creating an enjoyable environment for visitors, and providing insight into the history of the site. In
addition, the work of any programming partners would need to be coordinated by the Department of Public
Lands. The estimated budget for these activities is below, followed by brief descriptions of some key
maintenance types.
1.Tree Canopy. The goal of this work is maintenance and management methods would be to reduce
invasive non-desirable trees and enhance overall tree coverage. It would include A yearly tree
inventory should take place by a trained arborist, and annual planting of new trees.
2.Emigration Creek and Riparian Zone. Creek management would ensure long-term creek
health and provide flood control capacity during spring run-off periods. The Trails and Natural
Lands Division would coordinate with Salt Lake County Flood Control and Salt Lake City Public
Utilities to manage and repair flood control, flood mitigation, and bank stabilization efforts. Once
Phase 1 projects are complete, the Plan calls for annual monitoring of Emigration Creek and the
drop structures installed, along with additional monitoring after extreme storms to ensure the
stability of channel improvements installed. Riparian Zone management would include annual
inventories and treatment of invasive species, riparian tree or shrub and tree replacement, and nest
protection for any active nests in any trees removed. Work also would include a yearly inventory of
native vegetation areas with bare or thin plant coverage; a yearly inventory of landscaped areas to
identify plants that may need to be replaced; weed treatment by trained professionals; and a yearly
assessment of bare areas for fall seeding, especially on unofficial trails.
3.Stories and Historic Significance. The Plan notes that throughout the process, members of the
community shared stories and memories of the property. It recommends that stories should
continue to be collected and curated for long-term storage and accessibility within a history exhibit
in the Allen Lodge. The Public Lands Department also should partner with the Utah Historical
Society and the American West Society at the University of Utah to gather, curate, and preserve
these oral histories. This would require funding for digital files to be recorded and stored on
computers resources as part of the history exhibit. Technology services also would be required to
ensure long term viability of the digital system.
2.Historic Structures. The Plan finds that the fifteen historic structures in Allen Park will continue
to deteriorate unless they are demolished or stabilized. Six of the structures have been identified for
demolition and replacement with naturalized vegetation or public gathering spaces. Another seven
are slated for rehabilitation as park offices, a history exhibit and community meeting space, a
restroom facility, a park maintenance facility, or use as arts and sciences studios. The two remaining
buildings, the Thomas Boam House and Ye Olde George Albert, are two-story log structures which
are recommended for stabilization to prevent further deterioration. Preservation of the exteriors
may be the best option for these two buildings because rehabilitation for public access is likely cost
prohibitive.
3.Events. The adaptive reuse plan, as seen on page 44 of the transmittal, contemplates several types
of events or gatherings that could be held in the park. Events could be held in the new gathering
areas, in the rehabilitated Allen Lodge, in the studios, and throughout the park on the trail.
Suggested types of events would range from arts and sciences classes for K-12 students, college
coursework and community arts strolls, and raising awareness of the work of the local artists,
scientists, and community groups. Only pre-approved, permitted events would be allowed in the
park.
4.Arts & Sciences Studios. The twelve planned Arts and Sciences studios would be located in The
Roost, The Mary Rose, The Sally Anne, and the Ethylene. They are conceived as an opportunity to
partner with a local arts organization to manage the occupancy and leasing of the spaces. The spaces
would be minimally finished with existing flooring and plywood walls to allow for flexibility. The
arts organization partner would be responsible for identifying artists and scientists to occupy the
spaces, and any lease payment for the studios to the City.
The Council may wish to ask whether any organizations have been approached
about this aspect of the plan? What has been the response?
5.Artwork. The Plan foresees a professional and accredited art conservator would be identified and
contracted to protect the art objects in the park. To the extent possible, all art objects should remain
in their current, historic locations. One major exception would be the gateway pillar at the eastern
end of Allen Park Drive, which would be relocated nearby to accommodate the required fire truck
access to the site.
In addition, a professional and accredited art restorer would be identified and contracted to restore
two major art elements in the park: the Central Roundabout Fountain and the Swimming Pool.
Their assessment would determine whether both objects would be restored as dry elements, or if the
fountain can be restored in a way that includes reusing the water.
6.Janitorial. Trash and recycling cans would be kept together at key locations within the park
including each entrance, at the restroom, and evenly spaced between these locations. Trash and
recycling cans should be emptied daily at a minimum and more frequently during the summer if
demand is high. Parks janitorial staff also should clean the public restrooms and Allen Lodge as well
as wipe down and straighten tables and chairs in the public gathering areas daily.
I.Parking
The Plan does not contemplate adding parking for visitors or studio tenants, apart from the single ADA-
compatible space mentioned in the Entrances section above. No other parking would be provided on-site,
7. and no public parking is allowed on 1300 East in front of, or adjacent to, the park. Two-hour public
parking is available on side streets nearby, but this is in high demand at certain times because of the
proximity to Westminster University. Over the longer term, the Plan recommends a parking strategy that
would include the following:
educational materials and signage to inform visitors of approved parking
strategies;
parking agreements with Westminster University and with Elizabeth Academy
(at the Garfield School), when trail connection to the east is completed, to
identify and install signage for Allen Park visitor parking
coordination with UTA to identify Allen Park as a destination to encourage bus
ridership
designated “load in/load out” times for users of the studios
evaluating permits for Allen Park artists and scientists in residence for parking
in current restricted on-street parking zones (in cooperation with the City
Transportation Division).
J.Next Steps
Implementation of the draft Allen Park Adaptive Reuse and Management Plan is scheduled to begin in Fall
2024. Some utility and structural work (like the installation of water lines for fire suppression and
irrigation, and minor stabilization of the structures) has begun as preparation for Phase 1 and this will
continue as needed (see section F. Previous City Funding and Activities, above). The Plan also includes the
following “next steps”:
1.Historic Preservation & Listing. The Allen Park Cultural Landscape Report will be updated
with additional information on Ruth Allen and description of the recommended treatment
methodologies. That way, the Report will provide justification for the listing as required in the
National Park Service application process. A similar process is recommended for the Allen Lodge to
obtain listing as a historic structure, since its planned rehabilitation will be consistent with Park Service
requirements and listing it may result in additional funding opportunities. The Plan notes that the
support of the State Historic Preservation Office, particularly the Office of the State Cultural Site
Stewardship Manager can support both processes.
The Council may wish to ask whether the State offices been approached yet and
consider whether their personal support could be beneficial in this process.
2.Potential Partnerships. Opportunities for partnerships with organizations outside the City that
appear in the draft Plan are listed below. These could help inform final design and long-term park
programming.
Arts and Sciences Organizations: To identify docents for guided tours of the Park
and opportunities for arts workshops and discussions, along with potential users of
studio spaces once Phase 1 is completed. (No specific organizations are named in the
Plan.)
Education Organizations: To identify design and programming needs for small
group discussions and learning environments in the new gathering spaces within the
park. These would include Westminster University and The Elizabeth Academy at
Garfield School, both of which participated in the park planning process. They also have
both indicated their interest in using the park as an outdoor classroom. Other
opportunities for collaboration could include wellness, environmental, and leadership
programs. Other nearby options, like the University of Utah, will be contacted about these types of
collaboration.
Community Organizations: As sources of information about potential grant-based
funding sources, and future programming support. Community organizations that were
active in the adaptive reuse planning process included Friends of Allen Park and the
Seven Canyons Trust. Other participants included Tree Utah, Tracy Aviary, Utah Open
Lands, Preservation Utah and the Visual Arts Institute.
City, County, and State Government Partners: To provide additional technical
assistance for planning and potential future funding sources, particularly the State
Office of Historic Preservation, which participated on the Community Advisory
Committee.
Utah Transit Authority: To add Allen Park to UTA’s trip planning software as a
destination for the bus stop near the 1300 East park entrance. The Department of
Public Lands could also discuss the possibility of “branding” this stop for Allen Park.
The Council may wish to require, as it did for adoption of the Reimagine Nature 20-
Year Master Plan that any reference to a partnership with a “friends group” or
other 501(c)(3) to support or maintain this park include a requirement that the
group be separate from the City, and not managed by City employees. The group
would have a contractual, transparent relationship with the City to support and
maintain the park that includes City processes for any budgeting, receiving of
funding and contracting for the management or maintenance of these City assets.
The Council may wish to stress, as it did in the Glendale Park Plan, that “The
adoption of any plan serves to identify the goals and objectives of the identified plan
area, all of which are subject to future budget appropriations.”
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. Several potential future budget items are mentioned in this update, including costs for additional staffing
and programming. Given that these items are not eligible for impact fee funding or the GO
bond approved by voters, would the Council like to request the Administration provide
information about the strategies it is considering to fund these items in future budgets?
2. Recommendations for future programming opportunities at Allen Park would expand the Public Lands
Department into some areas of service with which it has relatively little experience. Would the Council
like to ask the Administration how it plans to help the Department succeed in this area?
3. The Council may wish to request additional information on the role planned for the Community Advisory
Committee once the final version of the Plan is adopted. Does the Administration foresee a
continuing role for this group of local community leaders and organizations? Would the
Council like to suggest some potential roles to explore?
4.Council Members may wish to discuss potential safety issues related to the park, including
whether it would be closed nightly, how trespassing, camping, and other prohibited
activities would be detected and discouraged, and whether the current private security
contract would be continued.
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 10, 2024
RE: Budget Amendment Number 1 of Fiscal Year (FY) 2025
NEW INFORMATION:
At the September 3 briefing, the Council continued reviewing the Administration’s proposed items as well as seven
Council-added items. Information on options and costs is pending for placeholder items I-4 additional constituent
surveys and I-5 police noise enforcement. If more time is needed to explore options, then the Council could consider
leaving Budget Amendment #1 open beyond September 17 to address those items later. Note that items I-6 and I-7
were requested by the Administration after the prior staff report had been published. Both items were discussed at
the last briefing and written descriptions are provided below. At the formal meeting that evening, the Council closed
the public hearing and adopted seven urgent items. Note that item D-15 was partially adopted. The budget
amendment remains open. The Council is scheduled to continue reviewing the remaining items at a follow up
briefing on September 10. A potential adoption vote is scheduled for September 17 at a Westside meeting hosted at
the Sorenson Unity Center.
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 is being updated to clarify that the $8,522,895 of earned interest is going into holding accounts for the five
tax exempt bonds. As discussed during the briefing, the Finance Department is working to clarify IRS regulations
related to arbitrage issues. The issue relates to the difference between the interest rate the City pays on the tax
exempt bonds and the interest earnings from the bond proceeds sitting in interest bearing accounts. There might be
federal income tax implications which require additional time to sort out. The interest earnings on the sixth bond
are not subject to arbitrage issues because those $1.96 million are from a federally taxable bond, and item D-15
appropriates those as additional funding to Pioneer Park capital improvements.
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 Council requested written information about all projects funded by the 2022 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Series C
taxable and Series B non-taxable) including project status updates, next steps, budget to actuals, and any challenges
to meet the spending deadlines. The Administration is developing responsive updates which will be provided to the
Council as soon as they’re available.
I-1: Replacing Trees and Landscaping on North Temple ($505,000 one-time from Funding Our
Future Fund Balance Parks Maintenance Category)
The Council asked whether any additional resources are expected to be needed to fully fund the public commitment
of replacing two trees for every tree that died from the accidental herbicide spraying on North Temple. Some Council
Project Timeline:
1st Briefing: August 27, 2024
2nd Briefing & Public Hearing: Sept. 3, 2024
3rd Briefing: Sept. 10, 2024
Potential Adoption Vote: Sept. 17, 2024
Page | 2
Members asked whether the $505,000 would only fund 100 trees since 100 planters would be purchased. At the
time of publishing this staff report a response from the Public Lands Department was pending.
I-6: Consultant Services to Assist with City Prosecutor’s Office Transition ($95,000 one-time from
General Fund Balance)
Note: This request relates to item A-1
This request from the Attorney’s Office arrived after the September 3 second briefing budget staff report was
published. The Administration is requesting an additional $95,000 for consultant services to facilitate the City
Prosecutor’s Office transition. If approved, the consultant’s work will include the following scope and deliverables:
- An impact assessment of the transitioning attorneys and associated mitigation activities.
- A change strategy and implementation plan for the identified mitigation activities.
- A communications plan for all associated stakeholders, leaders included.
- Execution of the change strategy and communications plan by developing communications, managing
leader approvals, and sending the communications.
- Project management of the logistical move for the attorneys, including weekly status reports.
- Change management advisory to new or incoming leaders on how to lead through change
I-7: Neutral Third-Party Administration for Labor Organization Election ($25,000 one-time from
General Fund Balance)
On September 3, the Council received a briefing from the City Attorney’s Office about updating the City’s 2011 joint
resolution for collective bargaining and employee representation processes. The update includes creating a process
to determine whether a group of eligible employees should be represented by a different labor union acting as their
exclusive representative. This item would provide one-time funding for an independent neutral third-party to
administer that election process. Election tasks could include verifying the petition for a labor organization
challenge and tabulating and reporting the vote results among other tasks. The Council considered potential
concerns with the City paying all the costs for such an election and the possibility of cost sharing. Staff is working
with the Attorney’s Office on language to advance the Council’s request for a policy to guide how to handle funding a
union election in the future.
Items Adopted on September 3 after the Public Hearing was Closed:
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)
Information below this line was provided at earlier briefings
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
Page | 3
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:
- 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
Page | 5
Item Subtotal
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)
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
Page | 6
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
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.
Page | 7
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 | 7
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 | 8
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 | 9
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 | 10
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 | 11
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 October 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 | 12
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 | 13
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 | 14
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 wasn’t 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 | 15
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 C were issued in October 2022 and
have a spending deadline of October 2027. 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 | 16
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
receiving $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
Springs Park, likely by
ordinance amendment
Smith’s Ballpark $ - $ - $ (3,000,000) $ (3,000,000)
As a taxable bond, these
funds have an October
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 taxable
bond, these funds have an
October 2027 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 non-taxable sales tax
bond
Page | 17
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
Page | 18
- 3.0 officers - 6 months of time is charged to grant
- 1.0 Lieutenant - 9 months of time is charged to the grant
Note: All positions EXCEPT 3 officers and 1 Lieutenant are positions that have been previously paid for by the grant.
The 3 officers and Lieutenant are new to this grant for this funding year.
Policy question:
The Council may wish to ask the Administration when they will be requesting the $662,760
needed from the General Fund for the equipment and safety gear needed for all the grant-funded
positions or whether existing budget could absorb some or all the costs? The grant provides 4 new
positions in SLCPD to assist with HRC’s & YWCA. Sub-award will go to Volunteers of America. The award was less
this year and does NOT fund police vehicles and computers or ongoing equipment costs for 15 officers. The
Administration indicates it will request that general fund balance be used to fund these needs which the grant no
longer covers.
Questions and Responses from the Administration:
Are there any one-time costs needed but not covered by this grant which would be paid for
another way (e.g, vehicles, equipment, supplies)?
HEART – All costs are included in the funding request.
SLCPD –Police officer one-time costs for vehicles and computers are not covered by this grant. Also, no
ongoing costs for any of the police equipment on the current or new FTE’s are included. See one-time costs in
the chart below:
Housing Mitigation Cost Estimate for FY 25
Equipment Costs FTE Cost Total
Officer Vehicles (Fleet) - NEW 4 $ 69,000 $ 276,000
Computers /software (IMS) - NEW 4 $ 7,150 $ 28,600
Officer Equipment/Safety/gear 15 $ 44,184 $ 662,760
Officer Equipment/Safety/gear - NEW 4 $ 48,887 $ 195,548
Overtime MOU related- 15 hours/Month per FTE 19 $ 11,200 $ 212,800
Total cost estimate for FY 25 $ 169,221 $ 1,375,708
Would this shift the $662,760 of ongoing costs for the 15 existing officers out of the Police
Department budget to this grant? It seems those ongoing costs would have been covered in the
PD budget for the existing employees.
Those costs have not yet been moved to general fund. They have been covered by the grant in previous fiscal
years but the grant funding is not enough to cover personnel and equipment in fy25 - only personnel. Because
of that, we need to make a request to have ongoing costs for all non-personnel costs covered in general fund.
Grant Funded Positions
EXISTING POSITIONS # of hourly
positions
Salary Amount
HEART Grant Specialist list -50% of time charged
to grant
.50 $42,296.80
2 FTE HEART Coordinators 100% of time charged
to grant
2.0 $157,414.40
1 Justice Court Intercept 100% of time charged to
grant
1.0 $87,360
12 officers- 100% of time charged to grant 12.0 $778,752
3 Sergeants-100% of time charged to grant 3.0 $330,720
NEW POSITIONS
3 officers-6 months charged to grant 1.5 $76,076
1 Lieutenant-9 months of time charged to grant .75 $98,280
20.75 $1,570,899.20
Page | 19
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
Page | 20
potential costs, 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
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 | 21
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
Page | 1
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
September 10, 2024
New Information
At this time, Council Members have confirmed that they are not intending to change Council
compensation to that of a full-time council, nor is a compensation increase intended to replace primary
income. Rather, some Council Members are interested considering changes to Council Member
compensation in light of two primary factors:
The increased hours required by the job because of the increasing complexity of adequately
representing constituents as the City grows
The disruption caused to any Council Member’s full-time employment and family by the
increased demands of the position, including time spent on Council matters and personal safety
Council Members confirmed that the policy goal of this discussion is to broaden the applicants who may
choose to run for office in Salt Lake City, so that a broader cross-section of constituents is represented on
the Council and the Office is not limited to people who are financially able to serve.
Council staff is working with the City Attorney’s Office to evaluate whether any adjustment in Council
base salary would be in accordance with current state law relating to part time Councils. In addition, staff
is evaluating the current City ordinance to evaluate whether it accurately reflects the “citizen legislature”
model, central to the City’s current form of government. To some extent, this will be informed by
whichever direction the Council chooses to pursue, or not pursue.
The following are potential discussion items going forward. Depending on the policy direction of the
majority of the Council, staff will work with the Attorney’s Office to determine whether ordinance or
Council policy adjustments are necessary, and will review that policy direction to ensure compliance with
state law.
The Council could choose to discuss any combination of options starting on Page 7 of
this staff report.
Leadership and Board Service Stipends (option 4 on page 7)
o Some Council Members have asked about stipends for leadership, and stipends for service
on Boards required by State Law (such as the Inland Port Board), or where the City
residents receive significant value based on that service (such as the Wasatch Front
Regional Council). For informational purposes, current City board and commission
members receive a stipend of $40 for each meeting.
o Utah State leadership stipends (based on citizen committee recommendations as
discussed below) are as follows:
President of the Senate and Speaker of the House - $5,000 each
Majority and Minority Party Leaders - $4,000 each
Majority and Minority Whips, Assistant Whips, Minority Caucus leaders,
Executive Appropriations Committee Chairs and Vice Chairs, Senate and House
Rules Chairs - $3,000 each
o The Council may wish to discuss interest in approving either or both stipends for
leadership of the Council Chair and Vice Chair, RDA Chair and Vice Chair, and meeting
stipends for additional City-related board service such as the Wasatch Front Regional
Page | 2
Council, Utah Inland Port Authority, Utah League of Cities and Towns, etc.
External Compensation Review Committee –
o Some Council Members expressed an interest in exploring external review committees to
recommend changes to elected official compensation. The City currently has a Citizen
Compensation Advisory Committee, that is tasked with reviewing elected officials’
salaries. However, a recent review of peer city elected official’s salary suggests that the set
of cities being reviewed may not represent the complexity of issues facing Salt Lake City
currently. The Council could consider adjustments to the City code with more specific
policy direction regarding peer cities with which it would be appropriate to compare.
o Salaries and leadership stipends for the Utah State Legislature are determined by the
Utah Legislative Compensation Commission (UCA 36-2-4), which submits a report to the
legislature each year (see Attachment C for most recent report). The Commission is
comprised of seven members appointed by the Governor to four year terms. State code
outlines policies by which they are required to evaluate payment, reimbursements, and
leadership stipends. They are required to represent different workforce interests (persons
employed by any branch of government are ineligible), geographic areas of the state, and
political parties.
Additional authorized reimbursements
o Some Council Members expressed an interest in broadening the categories of
reimbursement to include personal security devices such as cameras that may be needed
due to the person’s role as an elected official. The Council could discuss whether it
supports reimbursement for equipment or equipment and service.
o Council Members do not typically submit regular requests for mileage to and from City
events or to attend community meetings. The Council may wish to evaluate this option.
The following information was provided for the August 27 discussion, it is provided again for
reference.
Given the fact that legislative bodies are responsible to set and fund their own salaries, it is safe to say
that those salaries are highly influenced by the desire and duty to be fiscally responsible, and to meet the
taxpaying public’s expectations that elected officials are conscientious with the public’s money. In some
cases, the public expects not only fiscal responsibility but fiscal conservatism from those who are elected,
unlike other government employee salaries, which are usually based on objective market data, and are
not as heavily reviewed by the public. That said, there are policy considerations to weigh with the unique
positioning of Salt Lake City as the Capitol City, including rapid growth, and upcoming national and
international activities that are placing a greater burden on all elected officials in the City to fulfill their
duties to the taxpaying citizens of the City, and make sure to represent the City’s interest in all of those
conversations.
In the FY 2025 City Budget, the Mayor recommended, and the Council approved an increase in the
Mayor’s salary to $211,764. This set the Council salary at $52,941 given that the Council salary is
currently set by ordinance at 25 percent of the Mayor’s salary. That ratio was set in 2018. Until this
previous budget year, the Council and Mayor have received the same annual cost of living increases as
other City employees but there has been no extensive review of comparable City salaries for Councils or
time commitments. The Mayor’s salary for FY 25 was based on an extensive review of the Mayor with
respect to other City Managers in Utah, and other Mayors in cities with the same for of government as
Salt Lake City. The City’s HR department compared the Mayor’s salary to City Managers because under
the Salt Lake City’s form of government, the Mayor is the City’s full-time chief executive, which is
analogous to a City Manager in other forms of government. No such similar review was performed for
Council salaries in cities with the same form of government (full time Mayor; part time Council). Staff
has provided Attachment A to provide a sample list of other City Councils’ salaries, although it
should be noted that the same political pressure applies to those cities, and they may also be operating
in different forms of government with different expectations for the Council Members; hence the wide
range.
Page | 3
The Council expressed its intent during the budget process to schedule a time before the end of the
calendar year to more fully evaluate several of the factors related to the City Council Member salaries.
This memo provides information on various policy lenses to consider this issue that the Council
may wish to discuss:
1. Increased time commitment and community expectations for participation &
response
o Based on a staff analysis of scheduled meetings for Council Members, Council work
session and formal meetings, and time spent responding to constituent requests and
emails, Council Members spend between 90-150 hours each month on City business,
or 21-35 hours per week if averaged out over a year. The average among Council
Members is 27 hours per week and the median is 26 hours per week.
o While each Council Member serves a different number of hours each week based upon
particular policy issues before the Council at the time, needs of the district, service on
outside committees, personal approach, and other factors, the amount of time it takes
to be a member of the Salt Lake City Council effectively representing residents has
increased significantly since 1980 when this form of government was initially
established.
o Community organizations expect elected representatives to attend constituent
meetings, requiring a significant investment of time. Each City Council district
currently has 3-8 community councils with regularly scheduled, typically monthly,
public meetings. District 7 is the exception with only the Sugar House Community
Council which covers a population significantly larger than other community councils.
There are currently 27 community organizations registered with the city. When the
form of government was first established, and the salary ratios were set, the entire City
had only eight community councils.
2. Compensation Philosophy
o Equal Opportunity: In the 2018 adjustment to their compensation the Salt Lake
City Council specifically added the consideration of ‘equal opportunity to serve as a
City Council Member.’ The Council evaluated whether there were realities about the
structure and compensation for the position that unintentionally limited the likelihood
that people from all walks of life and all income levels were able to serve. It has been
several years since the Council made that adjustment, and this is the first
opportunity the Council has scheduled to determine whether the changes
made are adequate meet the concern identified by the Council in 2018.
Policy questions:
Is the compensation adequate to cover expenses associated with the time
demands of the position, including the cost of time off from full-time
employment, childcare expenses, out-of-pocket expenses, etc.?
Are there practical aspects of the elected office that limit who can serve in the
office of Salt Lake City Council Member? Examples might be timing of the
public meetings, expectations of attendance at small group briefings,
expectations of attendance at community council meetings and other public
functions, etc. Are there ways to address these challenges outside of the
compensation discussion without limiting effectiveness (electronic meetings for
example)?
o Policy Concept of a part time ‘Citizen Legislature,’ and ‘Citizen
Legislators:’
The form of government established in Salt Lake City, under State Statute, is
based in the same concept as the Utah State Legislature – informally it is
referred to as a ‘citizen legislature’ and the members of the body are informally
referred to as ‘citizen legislators.’ The 1979 ballot language approved by voters
said, “The Council shall be a part-time legislative body and shall meet at least
twice monthly. Compensation of the Council Members and employees of the
Page | 4
City shall be set by the Council.”
A fundamental basis of the citizen legislature concept is that the legislators do
not serve full-time. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures,
the model anticipates that the legislators have a profession and/or means of
support outside of legislative service. Serving as a legislator in a ‘citizen
legislative’ model typically means that the compensation for the legislative
work is a secondary source of income.
Citizen legislators are considered to be more representative of the public
because their primary work is not for the government. They are considered to
be “an outside set of eyes” to fulfill the oversight duty and other duties of the
legislative branch.
As part-time elected officials, theoretically they can be more directly engaged in
the communities in which they live. The model is recognized as “close to the
people” because the legislators are making decisions on behalf of the public
while being members of that public and experiencing similar day-to-day
circumstances in the community.
The Council may wish to consider the following policy questions relating to
this aspect of compensation philosophy:
Council Members have not expressed an interest in changing the form
of government, but it may be helpful to get a good understanding of the
level of flexibility that the City has in operating within the Council-
Mayor form of government with regard to compensation philosophy.
Particularly how is part-time service defined/compensated?
Is the concept of having a ‘citizen legislature’ essential to the form of
government?
Where along the continuum of compensation does the Council want to
balance the policy concept of maintaining a ‘citizen legislature’ with the
concept of setting the compensation at a level that maximizes the
number of people who can serve?
What are the downsides to the ‘citizen legislator’ concept? Does the
‘citizen legislator’ model imply that some portion of the time and
resources of the elected official are expected to be volunteered/donated
by the elected official? Does this inadvertently limit the pool of potential
candidates?
If the donation of time and resources is an expectation of serving on the
City Council, might the position be inadvertently limited to those who
might have one of the following situations:
o Be retired
o Have significant free time
o Have personal financial means
o Have flexible work hours
o Have more than one income in the household
o Have a job or source of income that is not affected by time away
due to Council work, etc.
1. Increased complexity and profile of legislative issues, economic development
projects, and international events
o State Legislature - Each year since 2018, the Utah State Legislature has been
increasingly involved in development in the Capitol City, whether through the Inland
Port, the State Fairpark, or various high-profile economic development projects like
facilitating Major League Baseball, the National Basketball Association or National
Hockey League. This requires the investment of significant time and coordination on
the part of City Council Members to adequately represent their constituents in the
many discussions that happen to form legislation that ultimately impacts Salt Lake
Page | 5
City residents.
o Homelessness - Since the previous compensation discussion, the Council has joined
the Administration in elevating the homelessness crisis to the state level. Recognizing
that Salt Lake City resources are not sufficient to solve this issue alone, Council
Members are more regularly involved with advocacy and engagement, to ensure that
state leaders hear the on-the-ground experience of City residents as it relates to this
state-wide issue. This includes participating more regularly in Wasatch Front Regional
Council, Utah League of Cities and Towns, and State level organizations.
o Complex challenges of growth - The City is experiencing unprecedented growth
which brings new challenges that require focused attention of both the Executive
Branch and the Legislative Branch. This includes many more conversations and
constituent interactions about zoning reform, anti-displacement measures, and a focus
on the City’s role in providing affordable housing.
o Events and Economic Development - The City is preparing to welcome the world
in anticipation of the 2034 Olympics. In addition to that, Salt Lake City has proven to
be a successful host to many high profile events, including the NBA All-Star game in
2023. Hosting these events is an honor for the City, and also comes with increased
time commitments for elected officials.
2. Relationship between the salary for the Mayor and the salary for Council
Members:
o The current ordinance establishes a link between the Council Member and Mayoral
salaries, with Council Member salaries set at 25 percent of the Mayor’s salary. The
Council has the authority to change that ordinance.
o The 25 percent figure reflects the ratio that existed when the Council / Mayor form of
government was established. The salary of Council Members had lagged to be less
than 25 percent in the years between 1980 and 2018, and the Council re-established
that ratio with the 2018 salary discussion.
o Policy questions relating to this concept:
Is the percentage based upon an assumption that Council Members would
dedicate roughly 25 percent of the full-time position of Mayor?
Is it based upon an assumption that the pay of a council member is more of a
‘stipend’ provided to cover a portion of the elected officials’ efforts, with the
balance of the service to the public expected to be provided by the council
member as a public service?
Is it intended as a ‘salary’ that roughly relates to the number of hours worked?
If so, is it appropriate for the Council to consider adjusting the percentage
based on the increased demands of the position that are outlined elsewhere in
this report? The following chart illustrates various percentage levels for
discussion purposes only (it is provided again in the options section):
FY 25 Mayor’s Salary $ 211,764
(current) 25%$ 52,941
30%$ 63,529
33%$ 69,882
35% $ 74,117
40% $ 84,706
50%$ 105,882
3. The value and limitations of salary comparisons to other cities
o In 2018, salary surveys of Council Members in other municipalities showed significant
variation in annual salaries, regardless of whether the Council is part or full time. In
2018 there was no consensus from the data about what City is most
comparable/appropriate for Salt Lake City elected officials.
Page | 6
o Staff has conducted a similar review with more recent data and found similar results
(see Attachment A).
o In addition to the inconclusive survey data, some challenges arise when comparing
salaries for elected officials such as differences across forms of government, separation
of duties/powers, demographic and economic variations, actual hours worked, and
other factors. It is particularly difficult to identify comparable situations due to the
population of the City vs its role as the Capital City and its role as a regional hub.
o As a local point of reference, Salt Lake County Council Member compensation is
$48,222 for 2024.
6. Equality of compensation between Legislative and Administrative elected officials:
o In adopting the FY 2025 budget, the Council supported a new approach to set the
compensation of the Salt Lake City Mayor. Rather than limiting the comparison to the
salary of mayors in Utah or the salaries of mayors in what might traditionally be
considered comparable cities, the Council recognized the unique situation of Salt Lake
City and agreed to bring the salaries of city managers into the comparison, since the,
under the City’s form of government, the Mayor is the full-time chief executive of the
City.
o Is there an argument to be made that the position of Salt Lake City Council Member is
as unique as the Salt Lake City Mayor’s position?
o Recognizing that Salt Lake City’s form of government has a full-time Mayor and part-
time Council, should Council salaries be increased to address the added workload
experienced by all elected officials in the Capitol City? How would the Council define
part time? Is the 25 percent figure less relevant than in 2018? (see item 2 above – the
concept of Citizen Legislator, and item 4 above).
o There may be legal considerations relating to part-time vs. full-time status that the
Council may wish to discuss further with the City Attorney.
7. Other issues raised in relation to the compensation discussion:
o Comparison with Area Median Income (AMI), living wage, and other City
jobs – Some Council Members have requested to have information about the AMI for
Salt Lake City, along with a review of other jobs in the City in a similar range as is being
discussed for Council compensation, as context for the “what is the definition of part-
time” discussion.
AMI for SLC in 2024 is $92,000 per year.
Attachment B includes a sample of City jobs with FY 25 compensation
information. Note that these roles are full-time roles with different qualifications
and experience.
Living wage in SLC is $47,160 for a single person no children, and $110,946 for a
family of four with two adults working. Staff referenced this MIT analysis as it
includes information for a variety of family types:
livingwage.mit.edu/metros/41620. Staff note: the housing expenditure data in
this analysis appears to be significantly lower than other housing cost data
recently reviewed by staff. It is possible this analysis has not yet updated that
portion of the data. The Council may wish to engage with the Gardner Policy
Institute to create a more Salt Lake City-specific data set as it relates to
understanding a living wage.
o Regular review - Several Cities require a regular schedule of evaluation of elected
officials. Some Council Members expressed interest in requiring by ordinance a review
every 4 years.
o Additional compensation for leadership - Additional compensation for SLC
Council Members who serve as the City Council Chairperson and Vice Chairperson to
address the time necessary to fill these roles. If the Council is interested in this, the
Council staff could research amounts provided in other jurisdictions. If there is interest
Page | 7
in this concept, the Council could determine whether RDA leadership would be
compensated at the same level as the Council Chair and Vice Chair.
o Other reimbursements - Evaluate the benefits and reimbursements that are
established for Department Directors and other City employees, such as milage
reimbursements or use of City vehicles on City business, to determine whether some may
be appropriate to extent to Council Members as a matter of equity.
o Term Limits - The possibility of term limits, to mitigate concern about people serving
multiple terms and being considered ‘career politicians’ rather than ‘citizen legislators.’
The Council could ask the City Attorney to determine whether term limits could be put in
place by the City, or whether State legislation would be needed.
o Document policy considerations – The Council may wish to document the core
policy principles to inform any future compensation discussion.
o New form of government - Consideration of whether the demands of City Council
Members are such that a discussion of the impacts of full-time status may be worth
discussing in the future. The opinion of past City Attorneys has been that changing from
a part-time elected legislative branch to a full-time elected legislative branch would
necessitate a change in state law (to create that form of government as it does not
currently exist) followed by a vote of the public. If the Council is interested in a future
conversation on this topic, it may be helpful to determine whether there is appetite at the
state level to create a form of government that includes a full-time legislative body. Note
that this would also change the Mayor’s role in City government.
POLICY BALANCING
Value Statements – Many, sometimes conflicting, values exist when discussing compensation for
municipal elected officials. Some examples include:
1. Local elected office is a public service and should be compensated minimally.
OR
Absent reasonable compensation, the pool of potential candidates could be
inadvertently limited to persons of financial means, which is counter to the City’s
stated policy goals of equity and inclusivity.
2. Discussing elected official salaries can be a controversial topic, therefore it is easier to evaluate
them very infrequently.
OR
It is best for the public to be aware of the compensation level and have the opportunity to
comment on those salaries each year, or at some regular interval.
OPTIONS
The following are options that could be considered independently or combined, that have been raised
for consideration, based on all factors listed above as well as specific ideas raised by Council Members:
1. Make no change at this point. The Council could ask staff to conduct more research in a variety
of areas, with or without outside resources, to prepare for future discussions.
2. Change the ratio of pay in relation to the Mayor to reflect the increased time Council
Members spend on City business: this chart is provided for discussion purposes only
FY 25 Mayor’s Salary* $ 211,764
(current) 25%$ 52,941
30%$ 63,529
33%$ 69,882
35% $ 74,117
40% $ 84,706
Page | 8
50%$ 105,882
As noted above, based on a staff analysis of scheduled meetings for Council Members, Council work
session and formal meetings, and time spent responding to constituent requests and emails, Council
Members work 90-150 hours each month, or 21-35 hours per week if averaged out over a year. This
would require an ordinance change and depending on amount, budget adjustments.
3. Increase compensation based on comparison with other Cities. As noted above, it is
difficult to conclude an appropriate “peer” set of Cities, and as shown in Attachment A, salaries
for Councils vary widely whether or not those Councils serve full time and may be further influenced
by the form of government in those cities. This would require an ordinance change and depending
on amount, budget adjustments.
4. Increase compensation for leadership positions
Several Cities reviewed by staff compensate leadership positions with an additional stipend to
reflect the increased workload leadership positions often have in representing their respective
bodies and conducting official business. This extra compensation ranges from $1,000-$10,000
additional. This would require an ordinance change. It is likely the Council office budget could
absorb this increase if on par with other Cities.
5. Require by ordinance a time-certain evaluation of Council compensation
Several Cities reviewed by staff require that elected official compensation is re-evaluated every 4
years (time is usually separated from election years). The Council may wish to discuss this option.
This would require an ordinance change and no budget adjustment.
6. Delayed effective date
Some have raised the option that the Council could decide to make any potential ordinance changes
effective at some future date.
7. Other
If the Council is interested in pursuing any of the above changes Staff would work with the
Administration to determine if it would require an ordinance to amend the Elected Officials
component of the Compensation Plan and whether there would need to be any adjustment to the
Council Office budget (see notes above).
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Comparison of select Council compensation
Attachment B – Sample of City employee compensation
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
9/11/2024 9:25 Jeffrey Wood Jordan River Trail closure, State fair, and get to the
river festivities - a fervent plea for change
Dear City Council & Mayor, I write to you today with deep concern and a fervent plea for change. The recent closure
of the vital corridor connecting the north side of the Jordan River to North Temple, particularly during the "Get to the
River" festival, is a stark reminder of the inequities that persist in our city. Get to the river info:
https://jordanrivercommission.gov/get-to-the-river-festival/ This closure, ostensibly for safety during the State
Fair, rings hollow when juxtaposed with the daily realities faced by residents in the surrounding neighborhoods. The
Jordan River Trail, a cherished community asset, is abruptly deemed 'unsafe' only when it inconveniences
fairgoers. This not only frustrates us, but it's an affront to the dignity and well-being of those who call the West Side
home. New article: https://kutv.com/news/local/utah-state-fair-fences-off-jordan-river-trail-to-reduce-crime-keep-
fairgoers-safe This reactive approach to safety perpetuates a cycle of neglect and discrimination. It echoes the
redlining practices of the past, where specific neighborhoods were deemed undesirable and unworthy of
investment. It reinforces the harmful narrative that the West side's challenges are temporary inconveniences to be
swept under the rug rather than systemic issues demanding sustained attention. If residents from other parts of
our city could witness the daily struggles faced by those in the West side, they would be rightfully outraged.
Perhaps then, we will see the collective will to address these issues locally and at the state level. Recent
legislation aims for equitable resource distribution, recognizing the disproportionate burdens placed on Salt Lake
City. Yet, actions like this closure undermine that very goal, masking the true nature of our challenges. We cannot
achieve equity by hiding our problems; we must confront them head-on. I implore you to reconsider this closure
and commit to a proactive, comprehensive approach to safety and revitalization in the West side. The urgency of
this matter cannot be overstated. Let us not squander this opportunity to build a truly equitable and just city for all
residents. The time for change is now. Thank you for your time and consideration. Jeffrey Wood
9/11/2024 10:10 Tanya ANDREW Prevent North Salt Lake from Choking on Dust . Mr. Wharton, This batching plant is inconsistent with M-1 zoning goals. The commission is allowing the applicant
to game the system to qualify its application. The commission’s recommendations for mitigation are inadequate
and in many cases meaningless. It is not “reasonable” to allow the applicant to exploit existing residents in the
area, and operate a facility that will cause significant health harm to people who are already victims of
environmental injustice, given the multiple sources of pollution they are already exposed to. This application
should be denied. Sincerely, Tanya T Andrew
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
9/11/2024 10:11 Anton Burtsev Fw: (EXTERNAL) Comment on Concrete
Manufacturing Facility in North Salt Lake
Dear members of the Salt Lake City Council I would like to argue against allowing construction of a new concrete
staging plant in North Salt Lake. Every time I pass the gravel pit north of Salt Lake (I guess it's owned by Lakeview
Products) I am horrified -- it got 4-5 times larger in the last 5 years, and it's _so_ close to the city. Even the slightest
wind starts a dust storm around it due to erosion of the mountain blowing the dust over the hills into Salt Lake City.
And I am honestly worried. Worried to the point that I am thinking of relocating elsewhere. While Salt Lake City has
a green average over the entire year, such averages are misleading as they mask severe unhealthy air events (see
for example, https://www.iqair.com/us/usa/utah/salt-lake-city). The question of another concrete plant is the
choice between the health of one million people living in the valley and profit margins for a company which is trying
to save on transporting concrete from a healthy distance. I hope you are clear on this choice. A concrete plant will
create a minimal number of jobs, will have no positive impact on the valley (even for construction purposes the
cost of ordering concrete is a tiny fraction of most concrete projects), but will only further jeopardize the health of
one million people. I hope today you will make the choice to protect the people which you represent. Anton
Burtsev, PhD Assistant Professor Kahlert School of Computing, University of Utah
9/11/2024 10:13 Kimberly Bailey Granite Construction Please reconsider the proposal for Granite Constructions’ plan to put in concrete batching plant. The air is bad
already and especially a windy day. There is dust everywhere. I’m sure there are areas outside of the vicinity of the
city that can be used. Already it has made air quality poor, and don’t need it to be worse. We need to consider the
health of residents who live here, not just the profit of a company.
9/11/2024 10:14 Michelle LeBaron Fw: (EXTERNAL) North Salt Lake batch plant
hearing 9/11/24
Hello Chris, I would like my comments below to be included in the records of the 9/11/24 meeting addressing
possible approval of a batch plant in north Salt Lake by Granite. construction. In addition to a dismal track record
of Granite Construction to consider the concerns of nearby residents, my main concern is the severe air pollution
risk, including toxic dust, and diesel emissions, which are proven to cause significant health problems, for and
citizens located along the Wasatch front. Dust blown by valley winds from concrete batch plants covers barbecue
pits, patios, playgrounds, roofs and cars, making it difficult to live outside 7 months of the year. I strongly urge you
and your colleagues to oppose approval of this project. Michelle LeBaron
9/11/2024 10:16 Neal Patwari (EXTERNAL) Granite Construction's plans to build
a concrete plant
Councilperson Chris Warton, Regarding Granite Construction's plans to build a concrete plant just North of Salt
Lake City, I urge you to vote against their plans. We desperately need cleaner air in SLC, and Granite Construction
is currently one of our big polluters. We all pay the price with our health, but this will affect the most vulnerable --
children, elderly, and people with asthma or respiratory disease. We need our SLC leadership to take action to
protect our city residents (since no one else in Utah will). Please stand against permitting another dirty industrial
source from polluting our air. Neal Patwari
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
9/11/2024 10:18 Stacey Cole 1/5 (EXTERNAL) Oppose Granite Constructions'
proposal for concrete manufacturing facility
Dear Rylee, Vitoria, Alejandro, Chris, Eva, Darin, Dan, and Sarah, I am strongly opposed to Granite Construction's proposal for a
concrete manufacturing facility and urge you to oppose it as well. The many serious reasons to oppose this are listed below.
Stacey Cole, 1809 S 1700 E, Salt Lake City, UT 84108 801-808-9249 Comments on Granite Construction’s proposal for a
concrete manufacturing facility UPHE sent the following comments to the Salt Lake City Planning Commission ahead of their
September 11, 2024 meeting to hear Granite Constructions permit for a concrete manufacturing. Summary In summary, this
batching plant is inconsistent with M-1 zoning goals. The commission is allowing the applicant to game the system to qualify its
application. The commission’s recommendations for mitigation are inadequate and in many cases meaningless. It is not
“reasonable” to allow the applicant to exploit existing residents in the area, and operate a facility that will cause significant
health harm to people who are already victims of environmental injustice, given the multiple sources of pollution they are
already exposed to. This application should be denied. Comments to: rylee.hall@slc.gov Dear Mr. Hall: The signers of these
comments formally request that the Salt Lake City Planning Commission rescind their recommendation for approval of a
conditional use for a concrete manufacturing facility at 1055 N Warm Springs Rd, for the multiple reasons outlined below. The
Staff Report Errors in Concluding the City is Obligated to Approve the Application The report states, “State and City code require
that a Conditional Use be approved if reasonable conditions can be imposed on the use to mitigate any reasonably anticipated
detrimental effects of the use. A conditional use can only be denied if the Planning Commission finds that reasonably
anticipated detrimental effects cannot be mitigated with the imposition of reasonable conditions.” The health hazards
associated with concrete batching plants can vary tremendously depending on the precautions and pollution controls used by
the operator. But even in ideal circumstances they are significant sources of air pollution of numerous types–particulate matter,
nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds, water and noise pollution. The terms “reasonable,” and “mitigate” are
extremely vague, they make this standard very much subject to individual interpretation, and do not obligate the city to approve
the application. Is it “reasonable” to allow a business that is virtually guaranteed to harm the health of nearby residents and
property owners? What constitutes mitigation? How much reduction of known health hazard qualifies as “mitigation”? In the
statement of intent for 2A.28.010 of Zoning Standards for M-1, it states that the intent of the manufacturing district is to
“enhance property values…” This project hardly enhances the property values of nearby property owners, whether they are
residents or businesses. Further, in the purpose statement of 2A.28.020 it states, “The purpose of the M-1 Light Manufacturing
District is to provide an environment for light industrial uses that produce no appreciable impact on adjacent properties, that
desire a clean attractive industrial setting, and that protects nearby sensitive lands and waterways.” None of the above stated
goals is consistent with a concrete batching plant, as the pollution, truck traffic, and noise all constitute an “appreciable impact
on adjacent properties, that desire a clean attractive industrial setting…” Recommendation number 7 says that, “No portion of
the use (including any accessory uses) can be within the portion of the property that is within 1,000 ft. of a single or two-family
zoning district. Otherwise, the use would be prohibited.” Previous commenters have noted the planning commission has
allowed Granite to game the system with the way they have drawn the center point of the 1,000 ft. set back radius.
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
9/11/2024 10:18 Stacey Cole 2/5 CONTINUED!! (EXTERNAL) Oppose Granite
Constructions' proposal for concrete
manufacturing facility
The commission is allowing Granite to determine how the ambiguity in that ordinance is to be interpreted, undermining the
intent of the ordinance which obviously is to provide some protection for the residents. Even so, as the report notes, “A portion of
the subject parcel is [still] located within 1,000 ft. of an area zoned R-1/5,000 Single Family Residential. However, the use is
prohibited from operating within the portion of the property that is within this 1,000 ft. buffer area.” We raise the question: “Once
operation has begun, does the city have any staff or means by which that limitation will be enforced?” If not, then even deferring
to Granite to draw those boundaries leaves the buffer area meaningless. The commission’s staff report justifies approving the
application in part because it claims there has been a shortage of concrete in the Salt Lake Region, and in that “Approving this
use will allow additional concrete production in the Salt Lake area and support new construction and development.” They offer
no details and no references for the claim, and nothing in the ordinance obligates them to consider such a shortage.
Nonetheless, according to reports in 2022, the limiting factor in concrete shortage at that time was a shortage of cement due to
multiple factors. Utah’s baseline production of cement is already low, but one of the only two cement plants in Utah had
maintenance issues and broken equipment. There were supply chain problems related to the pandemic, a rise in shipping rates,
a national shortage of truck drivers, and a global labor shortage in the industry, all of which further decreased the supply of
cement. Fly ash, another ingredient in cement, became harder to obtain for several reasons. This concrete batching plant will
not increase the supply of cement or fly ash, and therefore will do essentially nothing to increase concrete supply in the Salt
Lake Valley. Air Pollution from Batching Plants The Commission has already received numerous letters of opposition from the
public primarily on concerns over air pollution. Based on nationwide and routine public opposition to batching plants from
citizens that live nearby, one can assume that common mitigation strategies are not adequate to protect residents. Residents
who are unfortunate enough to live near these plants know very well about the pollution they are continuously exposed to.
Comments from residents who live near these plants in Harris County, Tx, said, “It’s hard to breathe with a concrete plant in your
backyard.” “The dust that blows from concrete batch plants covers their roofs, their cars, their barbecue pits. They can’t go
outside. They can’t have friends over.” The staff report downplays the air pollution issue. It states, “Air quality concerns are most
acute during winter months but may also occur at other times of year.” In reality, the air pollution burden of the Wasatch Front is
a year-round concern. In the North Salt Lake area there is no “off season” for air pollution given the multiple sources that
surround them. Dust from any source is toxic. When inhaled, it triggers a systemic inflammatory cascade, and in turn, a long list
of clinical consequences, nearly as long as the list caused by smoking cigarettes. When dust settles over homes, yards, and
penetrates indoors, then everyone living in those homes can be re-exposed over and over as the dust is disturbed and
resuspended with activity, especially children playing in the yard or on an indoor floor. In some ways, people living near dust
producing industrial sites are even more exposed than workers, because for them the exposure is 24/7, whereas workers at
these sites are typically exposed only 40 hours a week. Even short-term exposure to aggregate dust from gravel pits is
associated with increased risk of hospitalization for heart disease. The dust from components of wet concrete, i.e. cement,
sand, and aggregate, can contain respirable crystalline silica and cause deterioration of lung function and impair lung growth in
children.
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
9/11/2024 10:18 Stacey Cole 3/5 CONTINUED!! (EXTERNAL) Oppose Granite
Constructions' proposal for concrete
manufacturing facility
The smallest particles that are most easily inhaled and therefore cause the most damage, can remain suspended in the
atmosphere for days or even weeks and travel far from their source with minor winds. It is virtually guaranteed that ultrafine
particulate pollution from this plant would drift over to Salt Lake City’s downtown and Temple Square. These plants are also
epicenters of nitrogen oxide (NOx) pollution from the diesel trucks. NOx are a triple health threat because they are precursors to
both PM2.5 and ozone, and they are toxic in and of themselves. One study in Houston, Tx found that near concrete batching
plants and metal recyclers, atmospheric NOx was 48% higher than the rest of the city. Another study of the pollution from
concrete batching plants in Harris County, Tx, estimated that the PM2.5 alone from the 131 plants in the county was responsible
for health damages annually costing $29 million and two premature deaths. The study was done by the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality, a state agency notorious for favoring industry. The facility will generate 232 daily vehicle trips, 176 of
which will be diesel emitting concrete mixing trucks. However, this number does not include trucks delivering raw materials like
aggregate. That is a significant additional pollution burden to nearby neighbors, and diesel emissions are generally the most
toxic in the urban mix, because of high concentrations of ultrafine particulates, and highly toxic chemicals like polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). While Diesel Oxidation Catalysts (DOC) and Diesel Particle Filters (DPF) are fairly effective in
reducing black carbon emissions, they are largely ineffective in reducing ultrafine particles, the most toxic of the particle subsets
because of their extremely small size and absorbed PAHs. They are completely ineffective in reducing emission gases, like
nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide. Diesel exhaust is a proven, potent carcinogen, revealed by recent research to be even
more toxic than previously thought. A recent landmark study indicates that long term exposure to even low levels of diesel
exhaust raises the risk of dying from lung cancer about 50% for residents who live near industrial operations involving diesel
exhaust, and about 300% for the workers who are heavily exposed. The homes across the freeway, west and downwind of this
property, are already exposed to multiple sources of concentrated pollution. The freeway, soon to be expanded, the refinery, the
nearby airport, emissions from nearby massive warehouse farms that the city approved, and dust from the Great Salt Lake.
Approving this plant just adds to their existing environmental justice burden, including more toxic dust, more deadly diesel
exhaust, more disease and an earlier death upon this neighborhood. Commission trivializes noise pollution The planning
commission’s discussion about noise pollution suggests they do not understand the issue. While the impact of batching plant
noise is not additive to the freeway noise, noise from the freeway will not overwhelm and therefore “obscure” the noise from the
batching plant, it will add to it. The end result is more subtle than directly additive noise volume, but the plant will inflict
additional noise on the nearby residents. The graft below explains. It is also important to note that decibels are in logarithmic
scale. A small increase in number represents a large increase in noise and therefore human health impact. For example, 80
decibels is twice as loud as 70 decibels. Overall noise pollution is the second most hazardous environmental pollution after air
pollution, and it causes many of the same disease impacts via stress on the autonomic nervous system. Moreover, chronic
exposure to 85 decibels can provoke hearing loss. Virtually no detail was given to the claims about noise by the planning
commission. Important details were completely left out, such as: Were noise tests actually done to support the claims about
plant noise? Who measured the noise? At what location(s) was the noise tested?
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
9/11/2024 10:18 Stacey Cole 4/5 CONTINUED!! (EXTERNAL) Oppose Granite
Constructions' proposal for concrete
manufacturing facility
What was the applicable averaging time, if any, for such testing? Instantaneous, 5 seconds, one minute, one hour, overnight,
etc.? What type of noise meter was used? From a practical standpoint, is it likely a noise limit will be enforced, and who will
enforce it? Commission’s recommendations are inadequate to protect residents The planning commission’s recommended list
of conditions, while better than nothing, is inadequate to protect the health of near by residents. There is no value in the multiple
provisions recommended by the planning commission unless enforcement can be expected. We are unaware of any
enforcement capability on the part of the city, and it is clear that state agencies will not be involved. Who will enforce the
preferred, outlined truck route, intended to spare the residential area to the West? Likewise for the idling restrictions. Posting
signs that declare idling will be limited to 2 minutes, and stating that “idling will be discouraged” is not a substitute for actual
enforcement, especially on private property. It seems like compliance will be up to individual truck drivers to adhere to an honor
system prompted by signs. Health hazards from the fugitive dust is the number one concern for protecting residents. The
commission states, “The applicant intends to manage fugitive dust by applying water as needed to areas that generate dust and
aggregate materials will be rinsed before arriving at the facility.” That is wholly inadequate. Yet, the planning commission is
recommending approval before the dust control and mitigation plan is submitted to DAQ. Furthermore, every gravel pit in the SL
Valley has a dust mitigation plan on file with DAQ, and the ineffectual results of those plans and their enforcement can be readily
seen every day of the year, at every one of these sites. The gravel pit near this site in North Salt Lake is a daily example of the
failure of those mitigation plans. The commission says, “The fugitive dust plan must address immediate actions to eliminate
fugitive dust during wind events,” but yet is recommending approval without that plan even being submitted to DAQ. It is
recommending “Landscaping, non-permeable windbreaks, and/or walls,” but again no specifics required prior to their
recommending approval. The commission says, “The height of any outdoor material storage shall be limited to below the height
of the installed windbreaks.” That will not be sufficient to protect the surrounding area from fugitive dust. As noted in the staff
report, once the project receives a “Small Source Exemption” from the DAQ, there will be no further renewal or inspection of the
plant by DAQ, and for all practical purposes, no one else either. And among the many questions that raises is: who will enforce
the production limits set by the Small Source Exemption? At a minimum the commission should require best practices by the
facility. We cannot find no evidence that is the case. Cement storage silos need to be fitted with a reverse pulse fabric filter dust
collector (FFDC) or other dust control technology with an equivalent or better performance. But that technology needs to be
maintained consistent with the manufacturer’s instructions, otherwise efficacy can quickly and easily be lost. It does not appear
there will be any enforcement of critical maintenance of that technology. Sand and aggregates should be delivered in a
dampened state, using covered trucks. If the materials have dried out during transit they should be dampened again before
being dumped into the storage bin to minimize dust emissions during loading. We see no mention of this as a requirement. The
truck loading bay is another source of dust and water pollution. Raw materials should be loaded into the truck agitators by either
a telescopic chute (preferred) or a flexible sleeve to prevent spillage.
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
9/11/2024 10:18 Stacey Cole 5/5 CONTINUED!! (EXTERNAL) Oppose Granite
Constructions' proposal for concrete
manufacturing facility
Where is the specification of what Granite will be required to install at this stage in the process? The plant should have wheel-
wash facilities to prevent contaminants from being tracked out of the site on truck tires on to the street, where they can be
washed into stormwater drains. All trucks should be provided with spill kits to cover clean-up needs in transit. Spills during
transit need to be cleaned up immediately to prevent contaminants entering stormwater drains or waterways. Concrete
batching plants must be designed and operated to prevent cement and fly ash from being blown, swept, hosed or left to be
washed by rain into gutters or the stormwater system. Who will enforce that with this project? Relying on the good will of Granite
to provide all this regulation offers no confidence to us, nor should it to the planning commission or the city, given Granite’s poor
ethical and environmental track record, which includes 39 violations since 2000, fines of over $22 million, eight different fines
for environmental violations, and over $20 million for fraud. granite-construction | Violation Tracker Violation Tracker, produced
by the Corporate Research Project of Good Jobs First, is a wide-ranging database on ... Water Consumption and Waste Water
Management These plants also consume large amounts of water and generate waste water that can contribute to ground water
pollution. As other commenters have pointed out, the commission is merely taking Granite’s word that they will not exceed the
200,000 gallons per day water use limit. The commission must require verification of that claim. The facility should be
connected to a water management system to prevent contaminants such as spilt cement, aggregate or concrete slurry from
entering stormwater drains. It should be designed to enable recycled water from the water management system. Other
commenters state that Granite is only proposing a catch basin with no outlet to store waste water. If so, common sense
suggests that is grossly inadequate to protect ground water or nearby properties and could be a mosquito breeding site. Sand
and aggregates need to be kept out of stormwater drains, creeks and other waterways because they are prescribed water
contaminants that can degrade or destroy aquatic habitats. Concrete batching plants must be designed and operated to prevent
dust and aggregates from being blown, swept, hosed or left to be washed by rain into gutters or the stormwater system. So far
there is no evidence that Granite intends to use the wide range of best practices that should be required.
9/11/2024 10:20 Morgan Parham (EXTERNAL) Opposed to proposed Granite Batch
Plant
Dear Legislator, I am writing you today to voice my opposition to the proposed Granite Construction's North Salt
Lake concrete batch plant. As there are many reasons I am opposed to this plant I want to highlight the increase in
air pollution this plant would most certainly cause. The significant health risks linked to air pollution from concrete
batch plants, including harmful dust and diesel fumes, are a major concern for nearby residents. In Harris County,
TX, people living close to these plants have expressed serious worries about their health. One resident said,
“Breathing is difficult with a concrete plant right in your backyard.” This highlights the difficulties faced by those
constantly exposed to these pollutants. Another resident described the situation by saying, “Dust from concrete
batch plants covers everything—roofs, cars, even barbecue pits. People can’t go outside or host friends.” This
paints a clear picture of how pervasive the dust is, making everyday life much harder for those affected. The health
consequences of this exposure are well-known, leading to increased respiratory issues and other serious health
problems for residents. The severe impact of toxic dust and diesel emissions underscores the need for stricter
regulations and more effective safeguards to protect the health and quality of life of affected communities. Thank
you for your time and I hope you can vote to oppose this concrete batch plant to prioritize the health of Salt Lake
City's residents. Best, Morgan Parham
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
9/11/2024 16:45 Bert Holland Bringing Families to new Single Family Homes
Downtown SLC
Dear Mayor Mendenhall, We are happy to see your focus on bringing families back to the City.
https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2024/1/31/24056495/erin-mendenhall-state-of-salt-lake-city-2024-families/ I
work with several landowners, especially on the west side, to entitle their land for residential use, primarily single
family homes intended for young families and multi-generational buyers in the workforce. Our properties are near
schools, shopping, parks, and transit in existing and established neighborhoods. Our emphasis is on single-family
homes to provide residents and their families in the neighborhood the opportunity to have their children stay in the
area and also help bring families back to the City. Unfortunately, we face obstacles with city process that
unnecessarily complicate and in some cases even prevent the development of these walkable, connected, and
family-focused additions to our city neighborhoods. We want to meet with you to explain our concerns and suggest
some practical and straightforward solutions. Our request to meet with you is not an attempt to circumvent
competent staff in the various departments. We would be happy to work around your schedule for a meeting, if
possible in a timely fashion since we have a number of properties waiting. Sincerely, Bert Holland
9/11/2024 16:47 Jeffrey Haverkos the Capital City Revitalization Zone This constituent is extremely opposed to the Capital City Revitalization Zone. He will not vote to reelect anyone
who supports it. He emphasized one of his major concerns is the use of the word revitalization. It comes across as
the City adopting the Smiths group's language. Like propaganda. The City should be including alleged or purported
if they want to use revitalization. "In its current state the plan has major changes proposing to destroy the rest of
poor Japan town and Abravanel Hall..." "If the state really wants this revitalization zone, they can take it to SLC
County, and they can take the Jazz with them too" "I thought the Eccles Theater was going to be the one to revitalize
downtown" "A project of King and Queen Smith"
9/11/2024 16:50 Alicia Ramirez Rejected grant application I am happy to say that even though my application for grant funding for the proposal I made to victoria petro earlier
this year asking the city to put funding aside for landscape projects to help the elderly and the disabled no longer
able to tend to their yards and asked mike Ribe if he would allow me to clean up his yard for him with donated
services by me with no money coming out of his pocket and I got an email back from victoria petros assistance
telling me that victoria would get back at me in June to discuss this plan but never heard from her and then i saw
my idea on the city website with the option to apply for a $500 grant which i did but it got rejected so I took it upon
myself and ordered and paid for the mulch I needed to finish this project I started and having it delivered to Mike's
from Sutherlands. What was really upsetting to me that after all these years of mikes yard being neglected and
nobody seemed to care of pay attention or think that an elderly man or someone disable might of lived there for his
yard looking the way it did and not even a visit from the city until i started working on it and then the city came and
posed a notice on mike's dor stating that if he didnt get his yard cleaned up he was going to be fined $25 a day. This
to me made no sense why the City do that to an elderly man when it was my idea to begin with and already in
progress cleaning it up. Thank You all but the project is done.
9/11/2024 16:51 Virgil Preston Subject;having pets in your lap while driving. Hi council member,I have nearly been in traffic accidents twice recently,because other driver had a pet in his
lap.pet caused him to not concentrate on the road.i noticed a couple of states banned having pets in your lap while
driving.would the council consider that,or is not up to you to decide.
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
9/11/2024 16:52 Katie Pappas Comment about Warm Springs Concrete
batching plant
The Salt Lake City Planning Commission should rescind their recommendation for approval of the concrete
batching plant on Warm Springs Road for a number of reasons. M-1 Zoning standards don’t allow for this type of
business in their statement of intent. It is not possible for this type of business to positively impact the surrounding
area. Even without the refineries, airport, large gravel pits and industry in the Salt Lake valley, we would struggle to
maintain our air quality due to the geography of our valley. Dust from concrete is especially toxic due to its
components. We’ve all seen the dust clouds coming off local gravel pits on windy days. No amount of water can
suppress it. West side residents have already been over-burdened with most of the health impacting businesses,
rail yards, truck traffic, freeways and the inland port. The only way to stop worsening the air quality is to locate
these types of businesses outside our airshed. This concrete batching facility will not solve the concrete shortage
because it doesn’t address the cement shortage. Katie Pappas Salt Lake City
9/11/2024 16:54 Alicia Ramirez Homeless what job do you think is available for me with the city having lived experience and peer support in homelessness
and addiction, I have been an advocate for the homeless and addicts in Rosepark, I am a humanitarian and an
advocate and have done many hours in outreach and collecting donations from schools and businesses for the
homeless and addicts population . Evey year i collected donations for the homeless and delivered food, clothing,
blankets , wood pallets,and other items to those who couldn't get to the places where they could get the resources
they needed and now that I am homeless myself due to no fault of my own and because of domestic violence and
have lived experience and still advocating and still doing outreach on my own to collect food and items to help
others out here on these streets. I graduated from the Westside Leadership Institute from the U of U in 2021 to
become one of the leaders on the Westside, I'm one of the members who rallied at the capitol against the inland
port trying to protect our wildlife habitat, our air quality and our health. I'm also a member of The Warm Springs
Alliance and a volunteer for, Noxious weed program, Jordan trail and river clean ups and plant a tree programs in
our Community . I am known as the Go Getter Girl in Rosepark and in the Rosepark Community Group on Facebook
when I used to do Landscaping in our Community from 2019-2024 but due to my disability I can no longer do
physical labor. I want to work for the City and I have had great support from this support including from Wayne the
owner of Sutherlands who has donated garbage bags, rakes, brooms and other supplies to help me continue doing
the clean ups on the river trail and parks on my own volunteer time. I also got support from John the owner of
Cornell Apts in loaning me the skid steer and providing the dumpsters and paying for dump fees on the project i
started on Mike Ribe's property on 216 N Cornell Street to clean up the property and proposed my idea to Victoria
Petro requesting the city put aside funding for all adult seniors and disabled home owners/renters who could no
longer tend to their yards and the funding could help with the yard clean ups but all i got was an email from her
assistant that told me Victoria would get back at me in June and never heard from her to discuss this plan but then
seen the grant funding on the city website of my idea and applied for the grant and got denied the funding and mike
got served a notice on his door after I started this project that he would be fined $25 a day if the yard wasnt cleaned
up even though I told victoria and the governor and the mayor of my plan. My crime victims advocate gave me a
form to fill out against anyone who abused me or violated my civil rights and i will be filling out one against victoria
petro for also taking my idea requesting for a safe place to park at night when she asked me what i suggested the
city can do for the homeless and i suggested a safe place for us who have vehicles to park to sleep at night. My
ideas are my intelectual thoughts that i should be compensated for to continue helping the homeless.
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
9/11/2024 16:55 Alicia Ramirez Green Space I'm not only an advocate for the Homeless and the addicts on these streets, but I'm also a member of the
Inlandport Coalition fighting to preserve our Wetlands on the West Side to save our Wild life species who thrive to
survive , our Air Quality for our children and our gand children who live on the Westside and for our own health. I am
also a member of the Warm Springs Alliance bringing back the Warm Springs Building back to life , Noxious weed
volunteer to take out the intrusive weeds, Trail and river clean ups to keep our enviroment clean and safe for our
children and grand children and also Plant a tree volunteer to help keep trees alive in this community and our Air
purification and healing energy also comes from plants and trees. My Love for Nature, Animals and for People is
expressed in the things I strongly advocate for and have been doing for many years. I suggest perserving more of our
green space and planting more trees https://www.deseret.com/2019/9/18/20872416/utah-inland-port-pollution-
protest-study/
9/12/2024 16:58 Lisa Raty Abravanel Hall Please do not tear down Abravanel Hall. I don't think you'll read further than that first line, but I am concerned
about a city that would tear down a cultural icon that serves the community beautifully to serve the whims of a
millionaire that simply doesn't understand or value classical music. Please don't try and rebut that with the
east/west argument, it is beneath us both (as someone that lives west of State). I raised my children to attend, play
and serve in Abravanel Hall. We may be in the minority, but no less important than the hockey playing minority.
There is enough space for both. Please look to someplace that could use and welcome the new team. Thank you,
Lisa Raty
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
9/12/2024 17:00 Max Olivier Please act now to save the Fleet Block murals of
Darrien Hunt, Bobby Duckworth, George Floyd, et
al
Dear Salt Lake City Council, You must act immediately to preserve the memorial Fleet Block murals. I believe it is
still possible to save the original murals. It is a disgrace that the beautiful, undeniably powerful, and historically
significant murals of Fleet Block are not being preserved. This whole situation is highlighting the city’s treatment of
Black people and indeed all people of color in the following way: these murals weren’t a high priority for Salt Lake
City when they were created, which is why they ended up on an abandoned building that is now condemned and
slated for destruction. They are now an icon of Salt Lake City, widely loved and recognized. The memory of
individuals depicted there, such as Darrien Hunt, Bobby Duckworth, and George Floyd, is not disposable or
forgettable. You can salvage this very bad look for your city and indeed Utah as a whole. You need to figure out how
to either save the original walls and murals or copy the walls and murals exactly. Just imagine – how would it look
to show the entire world these murals at the Olympics? And how would it look to the entire world if these murals
were destroyed? How do I know this can be done? I have seen it, in the Cité de l’architecture et du patrimoine in
Paris, France, which is translated on Wikipedia as Architecture and Heritage City. It is a museum which displays
entire portals of cathedrals which are casts of the originals, plus copies of historic murals and stained glass and
other architectural models and materials. I have already contacted the museum asking for more information about
this process, but they might pay a little more attention if a local government, mayor, or historical society reached
out to them. Of course, our country also has architecture museums which could help, like the National Building
Museum, but I have not yet personally visited any such museum in the US. I understand that the city has already
agreed to create a permanent installation memorializing these individuals who were killed by police, which may be
included in the same block as it is redeveloped. I also understand that such a space would include newly-
commissioned artwork. I say, the problem of police brutality against people of color is so important that BOTH a
new space should be created AND the old should be preserved! It can be done. This is not a novel situation in the
world. My name is Max Olivier, I use they/them pronouns, I am a graduate student in social work, and I speak for
myself as a private citizen and a concerned constituent. Please acknowledge receipt of this message and indicate
what has already been done to save the murals now that they are slated to be destroyed and what options have not
yet been exhausted. I would love to help if I can. This needs to be a top priority for our city. Thank you for your time. --
Max Olivier (they/them)
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
9/13/2024 9:48 Nancy Boskoff Genuinely Grateful - D/7 Thanks in part to a Project Support grant from the Salt Lake City Arts Council, the Performing Arts Coalition (PAC)
successfully presented “Pictures at an Exhibition: ReFramed” to a full house at the Rose Wagner Performing Arts
Center on August 24. PAC is most appreciative of the financial and philosophical support for the arts that Salt Lake
City provides, knowing that you recognize the multiple levels of value that the arts bring to the Capital City. PAC
was organized in late 80s to assist in the fundraising, design and community support for what is now the Rose
Wagner Performing Arts Center, a world class public cultural facility and the home of the six companies that are
PAC members. In 2012, PAC embarked on a public campaign, through an annual performance at the Rose, to
thank the community and welcome the community into this gem of a theatre in the heart of downtown. Each show
is one-of-a-kind, one-time only, professionally produced and performed by these six companies in a collaborative
and creative spirit: Ririe-Woodbury Dance Company, Gina Bachauer International Piano Foundation, SB Dance,
Pygmalion Theatre Company, Repertory Dance Theatre and Plan-B Theatre Company, For a little insight into the
creative process, the underlying musical theme: Mussorgsky’s “Pictures at an Exhibition” was selected, a
playwright was engaged to write the script that tied the sections together, and the companies each performed
what they do best - music, dance, theatre - built around the music and the script. The audience, as mentioned,
arrived with enthusiasm to fill the house and thoroughly enjoyed this collage created by six of Salt Lake’s best
performing arts companies. PAC also engages American Sign Language interpreters for the show and custom
invitations are sent to agencies, college clubs and nonprofits that serve the Deaf and hard of hearing communities.
9/13/2024 15:28 Alicia Ramirez SLC Allocates $58.1 Million to Community
Projects | Council Meeting Recap - 8/27
can we use some of that money to improve the neighborhood in jordan meadows west of redwood road from north
temple to 700 north? This neighborhood has been my home for over 20 years and have not seen any upgrades in the
streets besides the parks . the alley ways streets and side walks are terrible and parking strips are not upgraded .
this neighborhood as you can visibly see has been neglected for many years
9/13/2024 15:30 Bernie Hart A simple question.... Hi All, The following was sent go a friend who is concerned about the chronically homeless in Salt Lake City: When
it comes to "helping" the chronically homeless mentally ill and addicted we talk in circles. If you are a
Socialworker, jail is not the answer.. programs are. If you are a police officer arresting someone for the 9th time,
who has been in 10 addiction programs and in a number of treatment programs... jail seems like the only answer. If
you are an elected official trying to make good decisions... who do they believe? They can't both be right, but they
could both be wrong. I think we need to hire a couple of accountants who are charged with directing the limited
funds that are available to programs that have data that show how effective they are. The representatives and
spokesperson for the police or social work efforts or drug intervention programs must have the data available. If no
data is available and the lack of data might impact funding... they will find it ... or insist that there is funding
available for research... because they're sure research will show that the programs and treatment that never
worked in the past... really work. But.. an observation. If the programs aren't as effective as everyone claims, will
they ask for funding for research? Is the Social worker sure that programs work, and does the police officer really
believe jail is the answer? I want to jump into the middle of all this. What is working? A simple question, Bernie Hart
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
9/16/2024 12:20 Karen Stirland Homeless situation | D1 I grew up in what was Morton Meadows, now Jordan Meadows, from 1971 until my family moved away because of
what we saw happening to the city and neighborhood. I loved growing up in Morton Meadows, we used to walk to
rose park to the playground. It was a fun time. My dad still lives in my childhood home so I still see the areas I grew
up in. I've seen the ugliness that has changed the area. Driving down 6th north by the Jordan river & saw all the
homeless. I see people setting up ship on the lawns of the shopping centers. I don't know how people raise families
around all this. The city keeps just kicking the homeless around. The city needs to implement some kind of a plan
to help these people get off the street. I do not understand why it is so out of hand. Some kind of a community
needs to set up for them to be off the street. What plans does the city have.
9/16/2024 13:25 Chris Gay Wilson Bird Park Cleanup HI Dan. I’m Chris Gay , volunteer today and frequent bird park walker and citizen. Thanks for your efforts in showing
up to make our community better. I’m glad you got re-elected and happy to watch how our city works and
participate when I can. i’m a private practice family physician, downtown x 16 y and at UU 14 y prior, a transplant
with good roots here after leaving Oregon PNW and family behind to create my own here. i’m interested in more city
and park involvement in future, especially as I slowly retire over next few years.
9/16/2024 3:17 PM Sam Higginson School Buses My name is Sam Higginson and I live in the Jordan Meadows area. I know you and I haven't had a chance to meet yet
but I'm sure we will have that opportunity. I currently am in a position to probably be voted in as Vice Chair or the
Northwest Community Council working alongside Terry here in the West side I was recently speaking with a
member of my family that works for the Salt Lake City School District in the bussing department. They mentioned
to me that they have seen an increase in people going around the busses while the Red Lights are flashing. Due to
the increase in situations across the state where children have been struck by cars this caused some concern to
myself and others. Is there a way this can be addressed within the City Council so we can possibly reverse this
trend? I know the drivers and parents would appreciate some manner of resolution or prevention. Thanks For you
attention Sam Higginson
9/16/2024 16:39 Paul Cahoon Downtown Sports District I am very concerned about the plans to turm downtown Salt Lake City into a Professional sports district. The plans,
it seems, are being made by private entrepreneurs and city government officials with very little public input. The
idea to remove existing businesses, the Abravanel Hall and an existing hotel, a financial business and other
business to fulfill the dreams, aspirations and pocket books of sports business people and professional athletes
without so much as a public referendum and vote is unconscionable. There are many locations in the outskirts on
the city that could meet their needs without destroying the character of the city. I am also opposed to raising the
city's sales tax to fund these activities. i enjoy a good hockey game, and watch one occasionally on TV.
Professional baseball can be interesting to watch on TV ocassionally, but to dedicate the center of a city which was
founded and built by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints os a sacriledge. Yours truly, Charles Paul
Cahoon
9/16/2024 16:43 Margaret Holloway Please rethink this. Just does not add up... https://utahstories.com/2024/09/why-the-salt-lake-city-council-should-reject-a-new-salary-
raise/?mc_cid=c62bf9c99a&mc_eid=d49404f347&fbclid=IwY2xjawFU8ddleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHXa_WIkSk0TpDa
gKnrX6zFc_sqNiqFjGKcaxvyoB36RWIBSNRkQV7-2izA_aem_cPWdZ3WSKq5Hw6msQVksmQ Margaret Holloway
9/17/2024 3:19 Tyler F Jones Listen to the people - Abravanel Hall Clearly people want to keep Abravanel Hall. As a Salt Lake City home owner and community member, I add my
voice to the many thousands who have spoken up about this issue. Please, listen to your constituents.
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
9/17/2024 10:51 Don Butterfield First Responders I would like to support and honor our city's First Responders and support staff by giving them "Shop Local First"
discount shopping cards. Do you remember the "Happenings" coupon book? It is the same concept that has just
been brought up to date. How many First Responders and support staff are employed by Salt Lake City?
9/17/2024 12:43 Margaret Morin Please preserve and protect Abravanel Hall for
future generations.
Hello Salt Lake City Council, please use your time on the Salt Lake City Council to preserve and protect Abravanel
Hall for future generations. Specifically, please apply to Abravanel Hall the same precedent being established by
Salt Lake City and the Smith Entertainment Group proposed Entertainment District, that of "protecting historic or
emotionally valuable segments of the proposed Entertainment District." By all means, protect Japantown but most
certainly include Abravanel Hall in that same language. Abravanel Hall is an irreplaceable piece of SLC cityscape
and cultural life. The building that houses Abravanel Hall is beloved by all who use it and is in very good condition.
What it needs is better maintenance by its landlords. I strongly suggest that it's in the very best interests of
residents, including myself, for Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County to use the taxing and bonding powers the
Legislature has granted them to preserve and protect Abravanel Hall for future generations. I hope I can count on
your support here. respectfully, Margaret R Morin
9/17/2024 12:45 Jeff WHITE Manufactured Housing District 2 Good Day Members of the city council, I’m Jeff White, working with the Salt Lake Housing Authority to promote
HUD-approved, energy-rated manufactured homes for affordable homeownership. Two rezoned lots are ready for
activation. I’m including a recent example from California: https://www.vox.com/policy/371561/affordable-
housing-crisis-economy-hud-california. The Legacy Challenge Grant for Section 108 Financing increases funding
threefold, but the deadline is in November. Please support us in moving forward with these lots for affordable
homes quickly. Respectfully Jeff White
9/17/2024 13:10 Affordable Housing SLC owns small parcels of land on the west side good for first time , low income home buyers. The city is terribly
slow at releasing this property. We have plans that could have really decent, affordable factory built homes ready
in less than six months. We would like to talk to the city council about this as soon as soon as possible.
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
9/17/2024 13:59 Alek Konkol Comment on Amendment to Prohibit Demolition
of Dwelling Units for Parking Uses
Hello City Council, My name is Alek and I am a resident of District 4, represented by Eva Lopez Chavez. I live and
work right downtown and am an avid walker and biker on our streets. I am writing this email to convey my full
support for the amendment to ban destruction of housing for parking lots. Even though we are 70 years late on this
proposal, and so much of our neighborhood has been lost to parking, now is better than never. In my years living
downtown, I have witnessed tragic losses of architecture and housing for parking. The Greek Orthodox church
destroying the La France apartments near my home was heartbreaking. The loss of the Utah Pantages theatre for
yet another parking lot is ridiculous. Downtown has thousands of parking spots, the last thing we need is more.
Parking is a tax on downtown residents for the benefit of suburban commuters. Why should we have to pay the fees
associated with plentiful parking if all it does is harm us? Creating more parking creates more traffic, which causes
air/noise pollution, increases risk of injury and accident for people walking/biking, and creates eyesores in the
neighborhood. Additionally, it increases the cost of living downtown for all, as developable land is used for housing
cars instead of people. If every surface level parking lot was used for housing, I'm sure we would be farther along in
our war on housing costs. Salt Lake of the early 1900's was developed on nearly every block. There was no need for
parking because everything a resident could want was located on the city block. It's time to turn our sights back
towards creating a downtown that served its residents, instead of a downtown that served weekday suburban
commuters. I urge and beg you to pass this amendment to ban the destruction of housing for the creation of
parking. Thank you. Alek Konkol
9/17/2024 16:46 Andre Joseph GSL Water Diversions A 20% decrease in agricultural diversions from the lake's tributaries is equal to a 100% reduction in municipal
diversions. Total agricultural output accounts for 2.6% of the state's GDP, with a significant portion of those
proceeds coming from exported products. Please ensure this context is at the forefront of all conversation about
household water conservation. It helps, but it will not come close to solving the problem. Any genuine long term
solution comes via reduction of agricultural uses.
:
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 10, 2024
Victoria Petro (Sep 17, 2024 14:41 MDT)
Sep 17, 2024
Sworn Statement September 10, 2024 Work
Session
Final Audit Report 2024-09-17
Created:2024-09-13
By:STEPHANIE ELLIOTT (STEPHANIE.ELLIOTT@slc.gov)
Status:Signed
Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAArXWssJXMry-8X5aPSRaBgbD-ciPTj6mS
"Sworn Statement September 10, 2024 Work Session" History
Document created by STEPHANIE ELLIOTT (STEPHANIE.ELLIOTT@slc.gov)
2024-09-13 - 8:13:30 PM GMT
Document emailed to victoria.petro@slcgov.com for signature
2024-09-13 - 8:17:09 PM GMT
Email viewed by victoria.petro@slcgov.com
2024-09-14 - 6:16:32 AM GMT
Email viewed by victoria.petro@slcgov.com
2024-09-17 - 5:05:42 AM GMT
Signer victoria.petro@slcgov.com entered name at signing as Victoria Petro
2024-09-17 - 8:41:55 PM GMT
Document e-signed by Victoria Petro (victoria.petro@slcgov.com)
Signature Date: 2024-09-17 - 8:41:57 PM GMT - Time Source: server
Agreement completed.
2024-09-17 - 8:41:57 PM GMT