10/01/2024 - Formal Meeting - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
FORMAL MEETING
October 1, 2024 Tuesday 7:00 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 tinyurl.com/SLCCouncilMeetings.
Council Chambers
451 South State Street, Room 315
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
SLCCouncil.com
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Victoria Petro, Chair
District 1
Chris Wharton, Vice Chair
District 3
Alejandro Puy
District 2
Eva Lopez Chavez
District 4
Darin Mano
District 5
Dan Dugan
District 6
Sarah Young
District 7
Generated: 09:42:51
Please note: Dates not identified in the FYI - Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet
determined.
WELCOME AND PUBLIC MEETING RULES
A.OPENING CEREMONY:
1.Council Member Chris Wharton will conduct the formal meeting.
2.Pledge of Allegiance.
3.Welcome and Public Meeting Rules.
4.The Council will approve the work session meeting minutes of August 13, 2024, as
well as the formal meeting minutes of August 13, 2024, and September 3, 2024,
and the Truth in Taxation meeting minutes of August 13, 2024.
5.The Council will consider adopting a joint ceremonial resolution with Mayor
Mendenhall declaring the second Monday in October as Indigenous Peoples Day
in Salt Lake City.
B.PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. Capital City Revitalization Zone Participation Agreement, Project Area, and
Citywide 0.5% Sales and Use Tax Follow-up
The Council will accept public comment on the proposed participation agreement and
project area with the City and Smith Entertainment Group. The proposed participation
agreement outlines how the City and SEG could utilize the proposed sales and use tax
revenue to develop the project area. The Council voted to endorse the proposed
participation agreement and project area on July 9, 2024, and submitted notice of the
Council’s endorsement to the Revitalization Zone Committee on August 30, 2024. The
Revitalization Zone Committee approved the endorsed project area and participation
agreement on September 17, 2024. The Council may consider adopting a resolution
during the October 1 formal meeting approving the final proposed participation
agreement and project area, and designating Smith Entertainment Group, LLC, as the
project participant.
In addition, the Council may consider adopting an ordinance to impose a citywide 0.5%
sales and use tax in connection with the proposed participation agreement, project area,
and designation of Smith Entertainment Group, LLC as the proposed project participant.
Section 63N-3-1306 of the Utah Code provides that if the Council approves the final
participation agreement, the final project area, and designates a project participant, the
Council will vote to impose a 0.5% citywide sales and use tax authorized by Utah law.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, October 1, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 1, 2024 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 1, 2024
Staff Recommendation - Close and consider options.
2. Grant Application: Lead Hazard Reduction Grant
The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the
Community and Development, Housing Stability Division to Housing and Urban
Development. If awarded, the grant would provide funding for lead-based paint
mitigation for exterior paint windows, kitchen repairs and other work requiring lead-
based paint mitigation. The grant would also fund one new full-time position and
continue to fund two existing full-time positions.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - n/a
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 1, 2024 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent
agenda.
3. Ordinance: Northpoint Light Industrial Zoning Text Amendment
The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that
would amend various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code creating a new
section 21A.28.040 Northpoint Light Industrial (M-1A) Zoning District that aligns with
the goals, policies and future land use recommendations established in the Northpoint
Small Area Plan. The proposal would include providing an environment for light
industrial, office, and research uses, while reducing the impact on adjacent agricultural
and residential properties and native habitats. This is a City Council-initiated petition.
Other sections of Title 21A – Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. This
project is within Council District 1. Petition No.:PLNPCM2024-00333.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, September 3, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, September 3, 2024
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 1, 2024 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 15, 2024
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
4. Ordinance: Zoning Map Amendment at Approximately 450 East 700 South
The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that
would amend the zoning of the property at approximately 450 East 700 South from
RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi Family Residential) to RMF-30 (Low-Density Multi
Family Residential). The proposal would enable the construction of two new houses on
the property in a configuration similar to how properties in the area would have been
historically divided. There is a private easement intended to preserve an existing house
on the property. As it is a private easement, the City does not have a legal interest in
it. The project is located within Council District 4. Petitioner: Trevor Cell, property
owner. Petition No.:PLNPCM2023-00452.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, September 3, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, September 17, 2024
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 1, 2024 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 15, 2024
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
5. Ordinance: Driveway and Loading Area Standards Text Amendments
The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance 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. Petition No.:PLNPCM2023-00937.
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
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
6. Ordinance: Monument Signs in Manufacturing Districts Text Amendment
The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would
amend section 21A.46.100 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to changing the number
of monument signs permitted in Manufacturing Districts. The proposal would allow one
monument sign for the first 100 feet of street frontage and one additional sign for every
additional 250 feet of street frontage, with each sign separated by at least 150 feet.
Petitioner: YESCO Sign Company. Petition No.:PLNPCM2023-00970.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, September 17, 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
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
7. Ordinance: Text Amendment to Prohibit Demolition of Dwelling Units for
Parking Uses
The Council will continue to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance
that would amend various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to
the development of parking facilities. The proposal would prohibit the demolition of
dwelling units for stand-alone parking uses and the expansion or modification of parking
for existing uses unless it includes additional housing units. Other sections of Title 21A
may also be amended as part of this petition.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, August 27, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, August 27, 2024
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, September 17, 2024 and
Tuesday, October 1, 2024 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 15, 2024
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
8. Ordinance: City-wide Text Amendment for Gas Station Standards
The Council will continue to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance
that would amend various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to
the minimum distances that any gas station can be from a river, stream, or other water
body, a park, or open space area over a certain size. The proposal would establish more
stringent zoning standards for any gas station that is located in the secondary
groundwater recharge area of the City and prohibit new gas stations that do not meet the
proposed standards regardless of whether they are permitted or conditioned land use in
an allowable zoning district. Petition No.:PLNPCM2023-00260.
For more information visit https://tinyurl.com/GasStationTA.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, August 27, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, August 27, 2024
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, September 17, 2024 and
Tuesday, October 1, 2024 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 15, 2024
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
9. Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.1 for Fiscal Year 2024-25
The Council will accept public comment and consider an ordinance amending the final
budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year
2024-25. 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; Tuesday,
September 10, 2024; and Tuesday, October 1, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, August 13, 2024 and Tuesday, September 17,
2024
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, September 3, 2024 and
Tuesday, October 1, 2024 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 17, 2024
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
10. 2025-2026 U.S. Housing and Urban Development General Community
Development Needs Annual Public Hearing
The Council will accept public comment for the 2025-2026 U.S. Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) General Community Development Needs. Each year Salt Lake City
receives several million dollars of grant funds from HUD for the Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG), Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG), HOME
Investment Partnership (HOME), and Housing Opportunities for Persons With
HIV/AIDS (HOPWA) programs. HUD requires an annual public hearing for the City to
hear about community development needs from the public. This feedback helps to
prioritize the grant funds between many competing needs.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - n/a
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 - TBD
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
C.POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS:
1. Ordinance: Zoning Map Amendment at Approximately 754 South State
Street
The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of
property at approximately 754 South State Street from D-2 (Downtown Support District)
to D-1 (Central Business District). The purpose of the proposed amendment is to allow for
the redevelopment of the property with an urban hospital. The Council will also consider
an ordinance that would amend the text of Section 21A.33.050 of the Salt Lake City Code
to add Hospitals (including accessory lodging facility), and Ambulance Services (indoor &
outdoor) as Conditional Uses in the D-1 Central Business District. Consideration may be
given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics.
Petitioner: Kirton McConkie. Petition No.:PLNPCM2022-01109.
For more information on this item visit https://tinyurl.com/754StateStreetRezone.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, July 11, 2023; Tuesday, June 11, 2024; Tuesday, August 27,
2024; and Tuesday, October 1, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, June 13, 2023 and Tuesday, July 9, 2024
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, July 11, 2023 and Tuesday,
August 27, 2024 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 1, 2024
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
2. Ordinance: Zoning Text Amendment to the D-1 Central Business District
Zone
The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the text of Section
21A.33.050 of the Salt Lake City Code to add Hospitals (including accessory lodging
facility), and Ambulance Services (indoor & outdoor) as Conditional Uses in the D-1
Central Business District. Petitioner: Kirton McConkie. Petition No.:PLNPCM2022-
01109. This item is related to the proposed Zoning Map Amendment at 754 S. State
Street (former Sears site).
For more information on this item visit https://tinyurl.com/754StateStreetRezone.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, July 11, 2023 and Tuesday, June 11, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, June 13, 2023 and Tuesday, July 9, 2024
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, July 11, 2023 and Tuesday,
August 27, 2024 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 1, 2024
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
D.COMMENTS:
1.Questions to the Mayor from the City Council.
2.Comments to the City Council. (This is a one-hour time slot for the public to
comment on any City business not scheduled for a public hearing. Each person
will have two minutes to talk. General comment registration closes at 7:30 p.m.)
E.NEW BUSINESS:
1.
Resolution: Capital City Revitalization Zone – Final Participation
Agreement, Final Project Area, Project Participant Designation
The Council will consider adopting a resolution approving the final Capital City
Revitalization Zone Project Area and Participation Agreement between Salt Lake City and
Smith Entertainment Group, LLC, and designating Smith Entertainment Group, LLC as
the project participant. The proposed participation agreement outlines how the City and
Smith Entertainment Group, LLC could utilize sales and use tax revenue to develop the
project area.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, October 1, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 1, 2024 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 1, 2024
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
2. Ordinance: Capital City Revitalization Zone – Imposing a 0.5% Citywide
Sales and Use Tax
The Council will consider adopting an ordinance establishing, approving, and levying a
0.5% citywide sales and use tax on eligible transactions identified in Utah Code 59-12-
402.5 (Revitalization Tax). If approved, the Revitalization Tax will be imposed for a
period of 30 years, beginning from the date of the first imposition of the tax, and shall be
imposed in addition to any other sales and use taxes assessed in the City.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, October 1, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 1, 2024 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 1, 2024
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
F.UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
1. Resolution: Updating Salt Lake City’s Collective Bargaining and Employee
Representation Processes
The Council will consider adopting a resolution that would update the City’s longstanding
practice of recognizing the representation of eligible employee groups by labor
organizations for the purpose of collective bargaining. It would authorize the
continuation of this practice and make several adjustments including creating a process
to determine whether a group of eligible employees should be represented by a different
labor union or exclusive representative.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, September 3, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 1, 2024
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
2. Ordinance: Economic Development Loan Fund - Exotic Fast Foods, LLC
The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would approve a $100,000 loan for
Exotic Foods, LLC, at 55 North Redwood Road from the Economic Development Loan
Fund (EDLF). Exotic Foods, LLC is a restaurant specializing in Eurasian cuisine. This
loan will assist in the creation of six new jobs in the next year and the retention of three
current jobs.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, October 1, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 1, 2024
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
3. Ordinance: Economic Development Loan Fund - City Cakes SLC, LLC
The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would approve a $100,000 loan for
City Cakes SLC, LLC, at 1860 South 300 West Suite D from the Economic Development
Loan Fund (EDLF). City Cakes SLC, LLC is a bakery specializing in vegan and gluten-free
options from cookies and cupcakes to wedding cakes. This loan will assist in the creation
of four to six new jobs in the next year and the retention of eight current jobs.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, October 1, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 1, 2024
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
4. Ordinance: Economic Development Loan Fund - Botanika SLC, LLC
The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would approve a $100,000 loan for
Botanika SLC, LLC, at 353 West 200 South from the Economic Development Loan Fund
(EDLF). Botanika SLC, LLC is a small-scale grocer selling non-alcoholic wines and
healthy foods. This loan will assist in the creation of one new job in the next year and the
retention of one current job.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, October 1, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 1, 2024
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
G.CONSENT:
1. Ordinance: Salt Lake City International Center Maximum Fence Height
Zoning Text Amendment
The Council will set the date of Tuesday, October 15, 2024 at 7 p.m. to accept public
comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend various sections of Title
21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to M-1 zoning districts of the Salt Lake City
International Center. The proposal would increase the height of front yard fences from
four feet to a maximum of six feet. Other sections of Title 21A may also be amended as
part of this petition. Petition No.:PLNPCM2024-0080.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, October 1, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, October 1, 2024
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 15, 2024 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 15, 2024
Staff Recommendation - Set date.
2. Mosquito Abatement District Property Tax Report
The Council will set the date of October 15, 2024 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and
consider a request by the Salt Lake City Mosquito Abatement District to increase
property taxes. In keeping with State Code, the Mosquito Abatement District Board of
Trustees will report to the appointing Legislative Body regarding their intent to levy a tax
rate that exceeds the certified tax rate, resulting in a property tax increase to Salt Lake
City residents in 2025. Following the City Council hearing, an additional hearing and vote
will be held by the Salt Lake City Mosquito Abatement District Board of Trustees before
the end of the year.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - n/a
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, October 1, 2024
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 15, 2024 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
Staff Recommendation - Set date.
3. Board Appointment: Cultural Core Finance Committee – Seth Brown
The Council will consider approving the appointment of Seth Brown to the Cultural Core
Finance Committee Board for a term ending October 1, 2028.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, October 1, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 1, 2024
Staff Recommendation - Approve.
4. Board Appointment: Library Board – Polina Konuchkova
The Council will consider approving the appointment of Polina Konuchkova to the
Library Board for a term ending June 30, 2027.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, October 1, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 1, 2024
Staff Recommendation - Approve.
5. Board Appointment: Planning Commission – McCall Christensen
The Council will consider approving the appointment of McCall Christensen to the
Planning Commission for a term ending October 1, 2028.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, October 1, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 1, 2024
Staff Recommendation - Approve.
H.ADJOURNMENT:
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
On or before 12:00 p.m. on Friday, September 27, 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@slc.gov, 801-535-7600, or relay service
711.
JOINT RESOLUTION DECLARING THE SECOND MONDAY IN
OCTOBER AS INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’ DAY IN SALT LAKE
CITY
WHEREAS,Indigenous Peoples’ Day was first proposed in 1977 by a delegation of
Native Nations to the United Nations-sponsored International Conference
on Discrimination Against Indigenous Populations in the Americas; and
WHEREAS,Salt Lake City recognizes the city is built upon the homelands of the
Indigenous Peoples of this region, whose histories are entwined with the
settlement of Salt Lake City; and
WHEREAS,Salt Lake City established its Human Rights Commission in 2005,
committing itself to protect, respect and fulfill the full range of inherent
human rights for all as set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and numerous other international human rights treaties; and
WHEREAS,Salt Lake City values Indigenous Peoples’ contributions to our community,
including sharing their culture and fostering progress in technology,
science, philosophy, and arts that substantially shaped the character of our
City; and
WHEREAS,Salt Lake City opposes systematic discrimination toward Indigenous People
in the United States, which perpetuates high rates of poverty and income
inequality, exacerbating disproportionate health, education, and social
crises; and
WHEREAS,Salt Lake City supports policies and practices to close the equity gap for
Indigenous Peoples by supporting policies and practices that ensure broader
access to resources and opportunities, and by honoring our nation’s
Indigenous roots, history, and contributions; and
WHEREAS,Indigenous communities and Tribes in Utah support officially recognizing
the Second Monday of October as Indigenous Peoples’ Day and celebrate
this day to promote understanding and friendship, and to combat prejudice
and eliminate discrimination stemming from colonization.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
the Salt Lake City Council and Mayor of Salt Lake City strongly support that
Indigenous Peoples’ Day shall be an opportunity to celebrate the thriving
cultures and values of the Indigenous Peoples of our region.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED
the Salt Lake City Council and Mayor of Salt Lake City strongly encourage
Salt Lake City Public Schools to teach the culture, government and history of
Indigenous Peoples on this day and encourage residents, businesses,
organizations, and public institutions to recognize Indigenous Peoples’ Day.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED
the Salt Lake City Council and Mayor of Salt Lake City firmly commit to
efforts that promote the well-being and growth of Salt Lake City’s American
Indian and Indigenous community and declare the second Monday in
October as Indigenous Peoples’ Day in Salt Lake City.
Adopted this _____ day of October 2024.
Item B1
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Nick Tarbet
Policy Analyst
DATE:October 1, 2024
RE: MOTION SHEET: Capital City Revitalization Zone Participation Agreement, Project
Area, and Citywide 0.5% Sales and Use Tax Follow Up
The Council will consider adopting the Participation Agreement (E1) and Citywide sales tax increase (E2)
during the New Business portion for the formal meeting.
MOTION 1
I move that the Council close the public hearing.
MOTION 2
I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting.
Item B2
Page 1
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst
DATE:October 1, 2024
RE: MOTION SHEET FOR PUBLIC HEARING
________________________________________________________________________________
The Council will conduct a Public Hearing and may consider the following motion:
Motion 1 – Close and Refer
I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and refer Item B-2 to a future Consent
Agenda for action.
Project Timeline:
Public Hearing: October 1, 2024
NEW GRANT APPLICATION
October 1, 2024 PUBLIC HEARING
City Match
Required?
Number of
FTEs
Requested
Grant Title Grant Purpose Status Annual
Grant
Total
Grant &
and FTE
Amount
Funding
Agency
Requested
By
1.Yes. $442,152 1 New
Program
Manager for
four years
Lead Hazard
Reduction Program
Provides lead-based
paint mitigation for
exterior paint on
windows, kitchen repairs
and other work requiring
lead-based paint
mitigation. The City
plans on mitigating 120
SLC homes over 48
months.
Needs
Public
Hearing
No $4,440,952
and 1 new
Program
Manager
Housing &
Urban
Development
Community
&Neighbor-
hoods Housing
Stability
Division
Item B3
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Nick Tarbet
Policy Analyst
DATE:October 1, 2024
RE: MOTION SHEET – Text Amendment: Northpoint Light Industrial
(M-1A) Zoning District Petition PLMPCM2024- 00333
MOTION 1
I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future council meeting.
MOTION 2
I move the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future council meeting
COUNCIL STAFF
REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Nick Tarbet, Policy Analyst
DATE: October 1, 2024
RE:Text Amendment: Northpoint Light Industrial
(M-1A) Zoning District
Petition PLMPCM2024- 00333
PROJECT TIMELINE:
Briefing: Sept 3, 2024
Set Date: Sept 3, 2024
Public Hearing: Oct 1, 2024
Potential Action: TBD
NEW INFORMATION
During the September 3 briefing, the Council provided direction to staff on the following policy questions.
1. Max height 40 feet. Concern this wouldn't allow for the parapet/screening.
o Response: Current city code (21A.36.020.C) already gives an allowance to do 5' parapet
walls for screening mechanical equipment.
o Council Direction: Yes to keeping as is.
2. Painted vs Tinted concrete. Is it possible to add “painted” in addition to tinted/textured as allowed
types of concrete.
o Response: Planning staff confirmed they would be ok with adding painted concrete.
o Council Direction: Yes to adding “painted concrete” to the ordinance.
3. Blank Wall Standard – request to change from 12” to 8”.
o Proposed Language: The maximum length of any blank wall uninterrupted by windows,
doors, art, or architectural detailing along any ground level street facing facade is 25’.
Changes in plane, texture, materials, scale of materials, patterns, art, or other architectural
detailing are acceptable methods to comply with this standard. The architectural feature
shall be either recessed a minimum of twelve inches (12") or projected a minimum of twelve inches (12").
Page | 3
o Response: 12" is the City standard that is used in all other districts no matter the building
size. As of now, Planning staff would prefer to keeping it at 12" for consistency in applying
the code for our building services and zoning reviewers, and because 12" will better break
up the wall than 8".
o Council Direction: Yes to keeping at 12 inches.
4. Exclude dock areas from maximum building height since they go below grade.
o The Constituent is concerned that without this accommodation, the buildings will not
match standard market buildings for interested tenants.
o Response: If the Council is supportive, staff will work with the constituent and planning
staff to develop recommendations for the Council to consider that would address this
concern.
o Council Direction: Yes to working with stakeholder on language. *See below for
additional information.
5. Amend the wetland buffers in this ordinance to be consistent with language that applies to the
Jordan River buffer: “Land within the Jordan River Transitional Buffer Area may count as natural
open space.”
o Response: Planning staff recommends that request is better addressed in the Riparian
Corridor overlay amendments Public Utilities will bring forward.
o Council Direction: Yes to NO change at this time.
6. Remove the buffer requirements from the Jordan River, and work with Cross E Ranch on
alternatives that work for them via a potential development agreement. Cross E Ranch doesn’t
want to create the open areas along the Jordan River in their area because the banks are very high
and potentially dangerous. Cross E Ranch would prefer to cluster the traditional open space,
buffer, and landscaping in their area
o Response - Does the Council want staff to work with planning staff to review and come back
with options for consideration.
o Council Direction: Yes to further discussions with the constituent and come
back to the Council with more information. *See below for additional information.
Additional information
Per Council direction Council and Planning staff reached out with stakeholders who requested changes to
the ordinance for items 4 and 6 above. Those discussions are still ongoing; therefore, staff recommends the
Council continue the public hearing to a future meeting so that if any changes to the ordinance are
proposed, the public will have the opportunity to weigh in on them. Once staff has the potential new
information ready for the Council to review, it will be brought back for discussion in a work session.
The following information was provided for the September 3 work session briefing.
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend various sections of the Salt Lake City
Code creating a new section 21A.28.040 Northpoint Light Industrial (M-1A) Zoning District. This Council
initiated petition would create a new zoning district that would help implement the vision and goals of the
Northpoint Small Area plan adopted by the Council in November 2023.
Page | 4
The new zoning district would provide an environment for light industrial, office, and research uses, while
reducing the impact on adjacent agricultural and residential properties and native habitats.
The Planning Commission reviewed the petition and forwarded a positive recommendation. In the motion,
the Planning Commission requested that any land use involving hazardous waste or medical waste be
prohibited. As noted in the Transmittal letter, Planning Staff reviewed the land use tables and confirmed
that such uses are not proposed in the current draft ordinance.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Purpose Statement - The purpose of the Northpoint District is to protect sensitive lands and wildlife
habitat surrounding the Great Salt Lake shore lands and the Jordan River while providing an environment
for light industrial, office, and research uses that produce minimal impact on adjacent residential and
agricultural properties. This district is appropriate within the Northpoint Small Area Plan boundaries. The
district promotes a high standard of building design quality, open space preservation, and protection of
sensitive lands and waterways
Land Uses
The following summary of uses is outlined on page 4 of the Planning Commission staff report.
The land use table is significantly pared down from the M-1 Light Industrial Zoning District, excluding
many uses that would be inappropriate for the area. Prohibited uses include kennels/pounds,
raising of furbearing animals, bottling plants, check/payday loan businesses, community correctional
facilities, commercial laundry facilities, outdoor recycling processing centers, rock and gravel storage
and distribution, and vehicle auctions, package delivery service and distribution centers.
Allowed Uses include primarily agriculture, light industrial, office, manufacturing uses, and some retail
services.
Development and Design Standards
The following table outlines the Development and Design standards as well as Modification standards
outlined on pages 4-7 of the Planning Commission staff report
Summary of Development Standards
Max lot size Maximum lot size is 10 acres, but larger lots may be approved if 20% of
the area of the lot to be modified is preserved as natural open space on
the development site. See the section below titled Allowed Modifications
for more information on modifications to
the standards.
Page | 5
Max Height Buildings cannot exceed 40 feet in height.
Building Size Limitations
Maximum building footprint is 100,000 square feet, with potential
for increased size if the property owner incorporates sustainability
measures such as additional open space preservation, a green roof, or
electric vehicle parking. See the section below titled Allowed
Modifications for more information on modifications to the
standards.
Setbacks and Buffers
Additional Setback:
Jordan River Buffer
Building setback requirements for the front and corner side yard is 20’,
and the rear and interior side yards is 15’, with additional setbacks from
residential structures and specific buffer requirements along the Jordan
River.
New development must be 65’ from principal residential structures on
neighboring properties, and vehicle laneways used to access a
development site must be setback 30’ from principal residential
structures on neighboring properties.
The Jordan River has a 300’ buffer from the annual highwater line. The
first 100’ is a strict no-disturbance buffer and no construction or
development activities will be permitted in this area. The remaining 200’
of the buffer area (the area between 100’ and 300’) is designated as the
Transitional Buffer Area. This allows the buffer width to be reduced in
some areas if a greater buffer is provided elsewhere. The modified buffer
must maintain the total required buffer area, foot for foot, and must be
contiguous with the No-Disturbance Buffer.
Landscaping Requirements include water wise landscaping and prevention of noxious
weeds to protect adjacent sensitive lands.
Trees
Trees are required along all property lines at a rate of 1 tree per 30 feet
of property line, however, due to concerns with the unique drainage
conditions in the area, trees can be spaced irregularly or clustered. When
abutting a residential use, the amount of trees required is increased to 1
tree for every 15 feet of property line and must be placed every 15 feet for
the length of the residential use and within 30 feet of the residential use.
Design Standards
Page | 6
Building Façade Length Limiting building facade length along 2200 West to 250 feet.
Maximum Length of Blank
Walls
The maximum length of any blank wall uninterrupted by windows,
doors, art, or architectural detailing along any ground level street facing
facade is 25’.
Building Materials
Specifying building materials to ensure they are compatible with the
natural environment. Brick, natural stone, wood, and tinted/textured
concrete are appropriate materials. Stucco, including EIFS, is limited to
architectural detailing surfaces and articulation. Exterior plastic vinyl
siding or any reflective or polished materials are prohibited.
Roofs
Implementing roof specifications to mitigate the heat island effect. Light
reflective roofing material with a minimum solar reflective index (SRI)
of 82 is required for all roofs.
Bird-safe Glass Treatments
For any building elevation with more than 10% glass, a minimum of 90%
of all glass shall be treated with applied films, coatings, tints, exterior
screens, netting, fritting, frosted glass, or other means to reduce the
number of birds that may collide with the glazing. Any treatment must
create a grid pattern that is equal to or smaller than 2 inches wide by 4
inches tall. Mirrored or highly reflective glass is prohibited.
Dark Sky Lighting Standards
All lighting on the property, including lighting on the buildings, parking
areas, and for signs shall be shielded to direct light down and away from
the edges of the property to eliminate glare or light into adjacent
properties and have cutoffs so that no light is emitted and/or reflected
above the horizontal plane of the fixture.
Fence Guidelines
To minimize impacts on wildlife, fences shall have a visually open design
with at least 50% of the fence open for the continuous length of the
fence.
Stormwater Retention
Retention of the 80th percentile storm is required for all new and
redevelopment projects greater than 1 acre. Detention shall be provided
to ensure stormwater discharge does not exceed 0.2 cfs per acre, or less,
to match pre-development flows, as identified in the area stormwater
master plan.
Modification of Standards
Maximum Lot Area
Approval for lots larger than 10 acres may be granted, provided the
buildings and structures are grouped and a minimum of 20% of the area
to be modified is designated as natural open spaced on the development
site. Required setback yards and disconnected small areas of open space
scattered throughout the site do not count toward the 20%, but any
required wetland, canal, or other riparian buffers may be included.
Maximum Building Façade
Length
The maximum building façade length of 250 feet along
Page | 7
2200 West may be increased if more natural open space is provided on
the development site. The maximum building façade length may
increase at a ratio of 20 feet per 5% of the total site dedicated as natural
open space. The natural open space dedicated and permanently
protected on site shall be no less than 7,000 SF, and to the greatest
extent possible, shall be contiguous.
Maximum Building Footprint
Electric Vehicle
Parking
Sustainable Roof
Designation of
Natural Open Space
Public Amenities:
Stormwater
All electric property
The maximum footprint of a new building (100,000 SF)
may be increased by complying with one or more of the options below.
No more than an
additional 100,000 square feet in building footprint will be permitted for
an overall
maximum building size of 200,000 SF.
Provide a minimum of 10 electric vehicle parking spaces
with a rate of 10,000 SF of additional footprint per 10 EV stalls.
At least 30% of the roof area shall be devoted to either solar
panels or a green roof, or a combination of the two in exchange for
40,000 SF of
additional footprint.
Additional open space designation on the
development site at a rate of 1 square foot of building square footage for
1 square
foot of open space preserved.
Inclusion of a privately-owned public pathway, trail, or
greenway connecting to or through natural open space areas with a rate
of 10,000
SF per 1,000 SF of linear feet of trail, or 25,000 SF per trailhead.
Providing full retention of stormwater with no release to the public
storm drain system for 50,000 SF of additional footprint, or providing
stormwater
detention to the effect that no more than 0.1 cfs/acre is discharged from
the 100-
year 3-hour storm for 35,000 SF of additional footprint.
The site is developed as an all-electric property for an
additional 50,000 SF of additional footprint.
Key Considerations
Page | 8
Planning staff discusses in depth two key considerations on pages 7 -10 of the planning commission staff
report. Below is a short summary of the discussion, Please see those pages for full analysis.
1. How the Proposal Helps Implement City Goals & Policies Identified in Adopted Plans
Staff found the text amendment was consistent with the goals and policies outlined in Plan
Salt Lake such as Economy, Natural Environment and Growth. Additionally, they found
text amendment aligns with the goals and vision of the newly adopted Northpoint Small
Area plan.
2. Public Input and Code Changes
Staff made many substantive changes to the draft ordinance based on feedback from the
public. These include changes to the land use table, maximum lot size, vehicle laneways and
location of trees.
Potential Amendments
After the Planning Commission forwarded their recommendation, some stakeholders reached out to
Council Member Petro and staff to raise concerns and questions they have about the proposed ordinance.
Staff was able to review and respond to some of the questions. For the others which do not yet have a
response, staff is asking if the Council supports working with the constituent and planning staff to come up
with potential changes that would address their concerns.
Questions with Responses
1.Max height 40 feet. Concern this wouldn't allow for the parapet/screening.
o Response: Current city code (21A.36.020.C) already gives an allowance to do 5' parapet
walls for screening mechanical equipment.
2.Painted vs Tinted concrete. Is it possible to add painted in addition to tinted/textured concrete.
o Response: Planning staff confirmed they would be ok with adding painted.
3.Blank Wall Standard – change to 8’ instead of 12’.
o The maximum length of any blank wall uninterrupted by windows, doors, art, or
architectural detailing along any ground level street facing facade is 25’. Changes in plane,
texture, materials, scale of materials, patterns, art, or other architectural detailing are
acceptable methods to comply with this standard. The architectural feature shall be either
recessed a minimum of twelve inches (12") or projected a minimum of twelve inches (12").
o Response: 12" is the City standard that is used in all other districts no matter the building
size. As of now, Planning staff would prefer to keeping it at 12" for consistency in applying
the code for our building services and zoning reviewers, and because 12" will better break
up the wall than 8".
Questions for further discussion
1.Exclude dock areas from maximum building height since they go below grade.
o The Constituent is concerned that without this accommodation, the buildings will not
match standard market buildings for interested tenants.
Page | 9
o Response: If the Council is supportive, staff will work with the constituent and planning
staff to develop recommendations for the Council to consider that would address this
concern.
2.Amend the wetland buffers in this ordinance to be consistent with language that applies to the
Jordan River buffer: “Land within the Jordan River Transitional Buffer Area may count as natural
open space.”
o Response: Planning staff recommends that request is better addressed in the Riparian
Corridor overlay amendments Public Utilities will bring forward.
Item B4
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:October 1, 2024
RE: Zoning Map Amendment at 450 East 700 South
PLNPCM2023-00452
MOTION 1 (close and defer)
I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting.
MOTION 2 (close and adopt (if the Council would like to adopt tonight))
I move that the Council close the public hearing and adopt the ordinance.
MOTION 3 (continue hearing)
I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting.
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:October 1, 2024
RE: Zoning Map Amendment at 450 East 700 South
PLNPCM2023-00452
BRIEFING UPDATE
During the September 3, 2024 briefing, Council Members expressed general support for the proposed
zoning map amendment noting the potential for missing middle housing that may be affordable while
retaining the existing home on the property. No significant concerns or questions were raised and the
public hearing was set for October 1.
The following information was provided for September 3, 2024 Council meeting. It is
included again for background purposes.
The Council will be briefed about a proposal to amend the zoning map for the approximately 0.22-acre
parcel at 450 East 700 South in Council District Four from its current RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-
Family Residential) zoning to RMF-30 (Low Density Multi-Family Residential). The petitioner’s stated
objective is to develop unused portions of the property with two additional homes in a configuration it may
have been in historically. An existing home on the site is proposed to remain. An official development
application hasn’t been submitted, but the petitioner included a preliminary development plan submitted
with the application and can be found on page 3 of the Planning Commission staff report.
RMF-35 zoning requires lot sizes of at least 5,000 square feet and with a 50-foot minimum width. Lot sizes
within RMF-30 zoning may be as small as 2,000 square feet, and there is no minimum lot width.
An easement was purchased by Preservation Utah in 1993 and prohibits demolition or significant exterior
changes to the home without consent of the easement holder. Zoning of the property is not dictated by the
easement. It is worth noting that this is a private easement, and the City has no legal interest in it. In
Item Schedule:
Briefing: September 3, 2024
Set Date: September 17, 2024
Public Hearing: October 1, 2024
Potential Action: October 15, 2024
Page | 2
addition to meeting City requirements, development on the site would need to be approved Preservation
Utah’s Historic Properties Committee.
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at its February 14, 2024 meeting and held a public
hearing at which two people spoke. One commenter recommended a development agreement recognizing
the responsibility of Preservation Utah regarding the property. The other commenter expressed general
support for the proposal. Planning staff recommended and the Commission voted unanimously
to forward a positive recommendation to the Council.
Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning map amendments, determine if the Council supports
moving forward with the proposal.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. The Council may wish to ask the applicant if housing planned for the site is anticipated to be rental
or for sale and if they will be affordable units.
2. The Council may wish to ask the Administration how the Affordable Housing Incentives may
impact this petition or development potential on the property.
3. The Council may wish to ask the petitioner what sustainable features such as all electric homes,
solar panels, high efficiency HVAC systems, etc. are planned for the new homes.
As shown in the map below, area zoning is primarily RMF-35 fronting the south side of 700 South, with
some RMF-30 to the east and on the north side of 700 South. The surrounding neighborhood is primarily
residential with single-family homes, row houses, and apartment buildings. Two notable buildings in the
area include the Liberty Wells Community Center on the southeast corner of 400 East and 700 South, and
a church on the southwest corner of 500 East and 700 South.
Page | 3
Area zoning map with subject parcel highlighted in blue.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property. No formal site plan has been submitted
to the City nor is it within the scope of the Council’s authority to review the plans. Because zoning of a
property can outlast the life of a building, any rezoning application should be considered on the merits of
changing the zoning of that property, not simply based on a potential project.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
Planning staff identified three key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 5-7 of
the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the
staff report.
Consideration 1 – Master Plan Compatibility
Planning staff found that the proposed zoning map amendment supports several initiatives in Plan Salt
Lake (2015) including Neighborhood, Growth, Housing, and Beautiful City. In addition, the (2005) Central
Community Master Plan suggests 15-30 dwelling units per acre, which both the current RMF-35 and
proposed RMF-30 zoning districts meet. It is Planning staff’s opinion that rezoning the property would not
affect the property’s compatibility with the Central Community Master Plan’s future land use map. Finally,
Planning found that the requested zoning map amendment supports the spirit of Housing SLC (2023)
though few initiatives within the plan specifically apply to the proposal.
Consideration 2 – Housing Loss Mitigation
Page | 5
Petitions that change zoning allowing a nonresidential use of the land including residential units must have
an approved housing loss mitigation plan. The cost to replace the existing structure is greater than that
structure’s value, resulting in a negative number (though it would be very difficult to get approval to
demolish the existing home because of the preservation easement). Since it is a negative number, no
mitigation fee is required.
Consideration 3 – Preservation Easement
As discussed above, Preservation Utah holds a preservation easement on the subject property intended to
preserve the existing historic home. Some requirements of the easement include:
No construction, alteration, remodeling, demolition, or any other modification that would change
exterior materials or dimensions is allowed without Preservation Utah’s consent.
The property owner must keep the house in good repair.
Additions visible from the street are not allowed.
No new buildings shall be constructed without express permission from Preservation Utah.
Preservation Utah does not have a position on the proposed new homes since no official development plans
have been submitted.
As previously mentioned, the preservation easement does not prevent changes to the property’s zoning or
future land use designation.
A zoning district comparison is included on page 19 of the Planning Commission staff report. It is
replicated here for convenience.
RMF-35 (Existing)RMF-30 (Proposed)
Maximum Building
Height
35 feet Single- and two-family: 30 feet
Row houses: 30 feet.
Cottage development:
23 feet (pitched roof)
16 feet (flat roof).
Tiny house: 16 feet.
Nonresidential and multi-
family: 30 feet.
Front and Corner Side
Setback
Front yard: 20 feet
Corner side yard: 10 feet
Front yard:
20 feet or block face average.
Corner side yard: 10 feet.
Interior Side Setback Detached single-family:
4 feet and 10 feet.
Two-family (single lot):
4 feet and 10 feet.
Twin home (split lot): 10 feet.
Attached single-family:
4 feet (non-party wall).
Multi-family: 10 feet.
Single- and two family:
4 feet and 10 feet.
Row houses: 4 feet.
Sideways row houses:
6 feet and 10 feet.
Cottage development: 4 feet.
Tiny house: 4 feet.
Nonresidential: 30 feet.
Multi-family: 10 feet.
Rear Setback 25% of lot depth, 20 foot Cottage development and tiny
Page | 6
minimum, 25 foot maximum.house: 10 feet.
All others: 20% of lot depth, 25
foot maximum.
Minimum Lot Width Detached single-family:
50 feet.
Two-family: (single lot):
50 feet.
Twin home (split lot):
25 feet per lot.
Attached single-family:
22 feet (interior lots)
32 feet (corner lots).
Multi-family: 80 feet.
None
Maximum Lot Width None 110 feet, including combination
of multiple lots.
Minimum Lot Size Detached single-family:
5,000 square feet.
Two-family (single lot):
8,000 square feet.
Twin home (split lot):
4,000 square feet (per lot).
Attached single-family:
3,000 square feet.
Multi-family:
9,000 square feet (3 units)
2,000 square feet (per
additional unit up to 11)
26,000 square feet (12 units)
1,000 square feet (per unit
over 12).
Cottage development and tiny
house:
1,500 square feet per unit.
Non-residential:
5,000 square feet per building.
All other uses:
2,000 square feet per unit.
Building Coverage Detached single-family:
45% of lot area.
Two-family (single lot): 50%
Twin home (split lot): 50%
Attached single-family: 60%
Multi-family: 60%
50%
Open Space, Landscape
Yards, and Landscape
Buffers
10-foot landscape buffer if
abutting single- or two-family
zoning district.
Front and corner side yards
must include landscape yard
according to 21A.48.
10-foot landscape buffer if
abutting single- or two-family
zoning district.
Front and corner side yards
must include landscape yard
according to 21A.48.
New buildings in the RMF-30 zoning district are subject to additional design standards that are not required in
the RMF-35 district. These are outlined in a table on page 20 of the Planning Commission staff report and
replicated below.
Page | 7
Requirement Standard
Building materials, ground floor At least 50% of street-facing facades must be clad in durable
materials (excluding doors and windows).
Building materials, upper floors At least 50% of street-facing facades must be clad in durable
materials (excluding doors and windows).
Glass: ground floor 20% of street-facing facades must have transparent glass between 3
and 8 feet above grade.
Glass: upper floor 15% of street-facing facades must have transparent glass.
Building Entrances Required for each residential unit facing the street.
Blank Wall Maximum Length 15 feet
Entry Features Each entry required by the design standards must include a
permitted entry feature, as listed in 21A.37.050.O
Analysis of Standards
Attachment F (pages 24-25) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning map amendment standards
that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. The standards and findings are summarized
below. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for additional information.
Factor Finding
Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent
with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of
the city as stated through its various adopted
planning documents.
Complies
Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the
specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance.
Complies
The extent to which a proposed map amendment will
affect adjacent properties
Complies
Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent
with the purposes and provisions of any applicable
overlay zoning districts which may impose additional
standards.
N/A
The adequacy of public facilities and services
intended to serve the subject property, including, but
not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational
facilities, police and fire protection, schools,
stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and
wastewater and refuse collection.
Complies
Page | 7
City Department Review
During City review of the petitions, no responding departments or divisions expressed concerns with the
proposal but stated additional review and permits would be required if there is additional development on
the property.
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
• June 13, 2023 – Application submitted to Planning Division.
• June-September 2023 – Planning staff worked with applicant to remedy application deficiencies.
• October 9, 2023 –
o 45-day notice required for recognized community organizations sent to community
councils.
o Early notification provided to neighbors within 300 feet of the development.
• November 24, 2023 – 45-day public comment period for recognized community organizations
ended.
• July 3, 2023 –
o Notice sent to Granary District Alliance, Ballpark Community Council, and Downtown
Community Council.
o Early notification sent to residents and property owners within 300 feet of the project site.
• November 2023-January 2024 – Online open house hosted to solicit public comments on the
proposal.
• February 2, 2024 –
o Public hearing notice mailed. Public notice posted on Cit and State websites and Planning
Division listserv.
o Public hearing notice posted on the property.
• February 14, 2024 – Planning Commission public hearing. The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to
forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed zoning map amendment.
• March 13, 2024 – Ordinance requested from City Attorney’s Office.
o (Planning staff noted the City Attorney’s Office was limited due to a reduction in
available personnel and a number of pressing cases taking up available staff time.)
• June 20, 2024 – Planning received signed ordinance from the Attorney’s Office.
• July 16, 2024 – Transmittal received in City Council Office.
Item B5
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:October 1, 2024
RE: Driveways and Loading Text Amendment
PLNPCM2023-00937
MOTION 1 (close and defer)
I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting.
MOTION 2 (close and adopt (if the Council would like to adopt tonight))
I move that the Council close the public hearing and adopt the ordinance.
MOTION 3 (continue hearing)
I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting.
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
BRIEFING UPDATE
During the September 3, 2024 briefing, a question was raised about whether public safety access was
considered. Planning staff responded that the proposal was circulated to City departments and divisions
and no concerns were raised. No significant concerns or questions were raised and the public hearing was
set for October 1.
The following information was provided for September 3, 2024 Council meeting. It is
included again for background purposes.
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.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: September 10, 2024
Set Date: September 17, 2024
Public Hearing: October 1, 2024
Potential Action: October 15, 2024
Page | 2
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
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:
Page | 3
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
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
Page | 4
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
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.
Item B6
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:October 1, 2024
RE: Monument Signs in Manufacturing Districts Text Amendment
PLNPCM2023-00970
MOTION 1 (close and defer)
I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting.
MOTION 2 (close and adopt (if the Council would like to adopt tonight))
I move that the Council close the public hearing and adopt the ordinance.
MOTION 3 (continue hearing)
I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting.
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:October 1, 2024
RE: Monument Signs in Manufacturing Districts Text Amendment
PLNPCM2023-00970
BRIEFING UPDATE
During the September 3, 2024 briefing, Council Members expressed general support for the proposal. They
discussed a desire to allow businesses to identify themselves but don’t want a proliferation of monument
signs in manufacturing districts. It was noted these signs are expensive and that would help self-regulate
the numbers.
Planning staff discussed different types of signs such as those on buildings are not affected by the proposed
text amendment. In response to a question about allowed curb cuts, Planning said these are regulated in
the parking chapter for City streets, and by UDOT for State owned roads.
The petitioner addressed the Council and said directional signs are restricted to a relatively small size and
that makes it difficult for drivers of large trucks to see them in time to turn into facilities’ entrances.
The following information was provided for September 17, 2024 Council meeting. It is
included again for background purposes.
The Council will be briefed about a text amendment requested by YESCO sign company to amend the
zoning ordinance related to monument signs in the city’s M-1 and M-2 manufacturing districts which are
currently found in City Council Districts One, Two, and Three. Monument signs are freestanding with a
sign face that extends to the ground or a base as shown in the image below from City code.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: September 17, 2024
Set Date: September 17, 2024
Public Hearing: October 1, 2024
Potential Action: October 15, 2024
Page | 2
Currently the zoning ordinance limits monument signs to one
per street frontage, regardless of the frontage length. The
proposal would allow one monument sign for the first 100 feet
of street frontage and one additional sign for each additional
250 feet of street frontage, with a minimum 150-foot
separation between signs.
Development in the manufacturing districts is often on very
large lots with multiple driveways leading to different
buildings. Driveways may be designated for visitors, truck
entrances, employee parking, etc. The text amendment’s intent
is to allow multiple monument signs with adequate spacing
between them to avoid becoming a distraction to drivers.
It is important to note that the proposed text amendment
applies only to monument signs and does not affect other sign
types such as pole signs or billboards. In addition, the proposal
does not change other requirements for monument signs such
as size.
The Planning Commission reviewed this proposal at its April 24, 2024 meeting and held a public hearing
during which no one spoke. The Commission voted 5-2 to forward a positive recommendation to
the City Council. One Commissioner who voted against the proposal expressed concern with the
potential for monument sign proliferation on very long street frontages simply because they are allowed.
The other Commissioner did not share why she was opposed.
Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed text amendment and determine if the Council supports
moving forward with the proposal.
POLICY QUESTION
Council Members may wish to discuss whether they are supportive of the proposal as recommended by the
Planning Commission, or if they prefer different spacing between monument signs in manufacturing
districts.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
Planning staff identified two key considerations related to the proposal, found on pages 13-15 of the
transmittal, and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the transmittal.
Consideration 1 – How the proposal helps implement city goals and policies identified in
adopted plans:
Planning staff found that the proposed amendment generally aligns with guiding principles and initiatives
found in Plan Salt Lake (2015) including Transportation and Mobility, Beautiful City, and Economy. In
addition, Planning found the following sign related strategies, policies, and recommendations in the 1990
Urban Design Element are applicable:
“Signage throughout the commercial/industrial areas need not be overpowering.”
“Provide ample opportunities for business to advertise products and service without having a
detrimental effect on the community.”
Page | 3
“Consider sign design and location as an integral part of all development, not as an after
thought.”
Consideration 2 – Zoning Analysis & Best Practices:
During their analysis for the proposed monument sign text amendment, Planning staff reviewed sign codes
in several nearby communities. They found that some cities restrict these signs in manufacturing zones to
one per street frontage, while others allow multiple monument signs.
West Valley City:
o Generally, maintain a minimum 100-foot separation from all other signs.
o Limited to one monument sign per 200 feet of street frontage.
o Properties with more than one street frontage may have at least one sign per frontage if
there is a cumulative total of 200 feet of frontage or at least 100 feet of frontage per street
frontage, whichever is greater.
Magna:
o One monument sign per 300 feet of street frontage in non-residential zones.
South Salt Lake:
o In commercial and industrial districts there may be any number of attached or detached
signs provided their total does not exceed the maximum square footage of sign area allowed
for the type of sign and the location unless a special exception is granted for unusual
circumstances.
Salt Lake City:
o On August 27 the City Council approved an expansion of the Delta Center overlay zone to
include the convention center blocks. Up to five monument signs per street frontage would
be allowed in the expanded overlay.
o Monument signs are limited to one per street frontage in all other areas of the city.
ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS
Attachment D (pages 26-27) of the transmittal 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 transmittal for additional information.
Factor Finding
Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with
the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the City as
stated through its various adopted planning documents.
Complies
Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the
specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance.
Complies
Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with
the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay
zoning districts which may impose additional standards.
Not applicable
The extent to which a proposed text amendment
implements best current, professional practices of urban
planning and design.
Complies
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
• December 5, 2023 – Application accepted by Planning Division.
• January 2, 2024 –
Page | 4
o Early notice period begins.
o Notice sent to all community councils.
• April 11, 2024 – Planning Commission agenda posted to website, emailed to the listserv, and
notice of public hearing posted to City and State websites.
• April 24, 2024 – Planning Commission meeting and public hearing. The Commission voted 5-2 to
forward a positive recommendation to the City Council.
• May 14, 2024 – Ordinance requested from Attorney’s Office.
• June 25, 2024 – Signed ordinance from Attorney’s Office received by Planning Division.
• July 16, 2024 – Transmittal received in City Council Office.
Item B7
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:October 1, 2024
RE: Parking Text Amendment to Prohibit Demolition of Housing for Parking Uses
PLNPCM2023-00646
MOTION 1 (close and defer)
I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting.
MOTION 2 (close and adopt (if the Council would like to adopt tonight))
I move that the Council close the public hearing and adopt the ordinance.
MOTION 3 (continue hearing)
I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting.
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:October 1, 2024
RE: Parking Text Amendment to Prohibit Demolition of Housing for Parking Uses
PLNPCM2023-00646
PUBLIC HEARING UPDATE
There were no comments at the September 17, 2024 public hearing. The Council continued the hearing due
to a noticing error. Noticing was correctly provided for a public hearing on October 1.
The following information was provided for previous Council meetings. It is included
again for background purposes.
BRIEFING UPDATE
During the August 27, 2024 briefing, Council Members and Planning staff discussed scenarios in which
development is delayed or property where dwelling units were demolished is sold. Planning staff explained
that new development does not have a time limit on when it needs to be completed provided there is
progress is being made. If there is no progress, a building permit can be voided and enforcement, including
fines, could begin.
If dwelling units are demolished and the property is sold before replacement housing is built, the new
owner is responsible to construct housing. The community benefit ordinance requires details of
demolished units including numbers of bedrooms, and whether they were above or below market rate are
recorded on the property title and run with the land.
The Council will be briefed about a proposal requested by Mayor Mendenhall to prohibit demolition of
housing units to develop standalone parking facilities. It also prohibits demolition of dwellings to expand
parking facilities if the result is a net loss of housing units. It is worth noting that the proposal would allow
Item Schedule:
Briefing: August 27, 2024
Set Date: August 27, 2024
Public Hearing: September 17, 2024
Potential Action: October 15, 2024
Page | 2
expansion of residential and commercial developments to add units while increasing parking, provided
there is not a net loss of dwelling units.
Thriving in Place, the City’s strategy and action plan addressing housing and community displacement
issues was adopted by the City Council in 2023. A series of City Code text amendments implement
Thriving in Place, including repealing the housing loss mitigation ordinance. That ordinance requires a
plan for mitigating housing loss when expanding parking in residential zoning districts resulted in a loss of
dwelling units. This proposed text amendment replaces that requirement with enhanced regulations
prohibiting demolition of housing for parking and would apply citywide.
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at its February 14, 2024 meeting and held a public
hearing at which one person spoke expressing concern for the loss of affordable housing units. The
Commission voted to table this item to give Planning staff additional time to clarify the proposed text
amendment’s intent. (Staff note: Planning staff’s original and updated recommendations are included in
the Additional Information section below.)
The Commission reviewed Planning staff’s updated recommendations and voted unanimously to
forward a positive recommendation to the City Council.
Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed text amendment and determine if the Council supports
moving forward with the proposal.
POLICY QUESTION
1. Council Members may wish to discuss whether they support Planning staff’s updated
recommendations which received Planning Commission support.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
As discussed above, the Planning Commission asked staff to add clarifying language about the text
amendment’s intent. Planning staff’s original recommended and updated regulations are listed below.
Original recommended regulations:
1. Prevent the demolition of housing for the development of commercial parking lots, park-and-
ride lots, and off-site parking facilities.
2. Prevent the demolition of housing if it results in the expansion of existing parking or the
development of new parking.
Updated recommended regulations:
1. Prevent the demolition of housing if it results in the development of standalone parking
uses. Standalone parking uses are commercial parking lots, park and ride lots, and off-site
parking facilities. The proposed Zoning Ordinance text change would add a footnote to
all parking-related land uses in each of the land use tables and would prohibit the
particular use if it results in the demolition of a dwelling unit.
2. Prevent the expansion of parking for any existing land use when it includes the
demolition of a dwelling unless it results in the replacement of the dwelling unit. The
proposed amendments would add language to the Off-Street Parking chapter that would
prohibit “increasing the number of parking stalls or modifying a parking lot” for existing
uses if it results in a net loss of dwelling units. This language would allow for existing
residential and commercial developments to add units or expand their current
development while accommodating the required parking for their site, but not voluntary
expansion of parking when including demolition of housing.
KEY CONSIDERATION
Page | 4
Planning staff identified one key consideration related to the proposal, found on pages 2-3 of the Planning
Commission staff report, and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the Planning staff
report.
Consideration 1 – How the proposal helps implement city goals and policies identified in
adopted plans:
Planning staff found that the proposed amendment aligns with initiatives found in Plan Salt Lake and
Housing SLC to preserve naturally occurring affordable housing. Additionally, Planning noted:
While the proposed amendments seek to prohibit demolition of dwelling units when there is an
expansion of parking, it makes an exception when there is a net gain of units. While preservation
of housing is extremely important, especially when replaced by a stand-alone parking use, the net
gain of housing in the city is supported by this plan.
ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS
Attachment B (pages 8-9) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning text amendment
standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. The standards and findings are
summarized below. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for additional information.
Factor Finding
Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with
the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the City as
stated through its various adopted planning documents.
Complies
Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the
specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance.
Complies
Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with
the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay
zoning districts which may impose additional standards.
Complies
The extent to which a proposed text amendment
implements best current, professional practices of urban
planning and design.
Complies
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
• August 4, 2023 – Petition initiated by Mayor Mendenhall.
• October 12, 2023 – Petition assigned to Cassie Younger, Senior Planner.
• November 15, 2023 – Early notification to all recognized community councils. 45-day comment
period begins.
• November 20, 2023 – Proposal posted for online open house.
• December 30, 2023 - 45-day recognized community organization notice period ends.
• February 1, 2024 –
o Agenda posted to Planning Commission website and State of Utah public notice webpage.
o Public hearing notice with project information and notice of the Planning Commission
public hearing physically posted at various library noticing points citywide.
• February 14, 2024 – Planning Commission briefing and public hearing. The Commission tabled
the item and directed staff to clarify proposed language.
Page | 5
• February 28, 2024 – Planning Commission reviewed changes and voted unanimously to forward a
positive recommendation to the City Council.
• March 1, 2024 – Planning Division requests ordinance from the City Attorney’s Office.
• March 19, 2024 – Ordinance from Attorney’s Office received by Planning Division.
• April 8, 2024 – Transmittal received in City Council Office.
Item B8
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:October 1, 2024
RE: City-wide Text Amendment for Gas Station Standards
PLNPCM2023-00260
MOTION 1 (close and defer)
I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting.
MOTION 2 (continue hearing)
I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting.
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:October 1, 2024
RE: City-wide Text Amendment for Gas Station Standards
PLNPCM2023-00260
PUBLIC HEARING UPDATE
There were no comments at the September 17, 2024 public hearing. The Council continued the hearing due
to a noticing error. Noticing was correctly provided for the October 1 public hearing.
The Planning Division received a comment on the gas station zoning amendment that will need some
additional review and a potential change to the ordinance. It is related to requirements under the National
Fire Protection Association code for healthcare facilities. Some facilities are required to have on-site fuel
storage facilities that would enable them to care for four or more people who are incapable of self-
preservation due to being under anesthesia, severely injured, or some other reason when power is lost.
These facilities are required to be able to provide emergency power for a minimum of 96 hours. Not
allowing on-site fuel storage for these facilities to run emergency power equipment may restrict their
ability to meet the requirement.
Staff will work with the Planning Division and come back to the Council with a proposal or
recommendation for consideration.
The following information was provided for previous Council meetings. It is included
again for background purposes.
BRIEFING UPDATE
During the September 3, 2024 briefing, Council Members expressed support for requiring fuel storage
tanks a minimum of 30 feet from the property line.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: September 3, 2024
Set Date: September 3, 2024
Public Hearing: September 17, 2024
Potential Action: October 15, 2024
Page | 2
A question was raised about requiring gas stations to provide options for recycling. Following the briefing
Planning staff provided the following information. Under Section 9.08.200.A of Salt Lake City Code, a gas
station is required to have a recycling collection bin if it generates an average of four or more cubic yards of
solid waste or recyclable items per week. However, the Waste and Recycling Division does not have a code
enforcement section that includes fines, so its enforcement of retail establishments that do not comply with
the ordinance is educational enforcement.
If the Council is interested in adding code enforcement for noncompliance with the ordinance, that would
be a process separate from the subject gas stations text amendment being considered.
The Council will be briefed about a proposal from the Administration to amend the zoning ordinance to
require a minimum 350-foot distance that new gas stations must be from rivers, streams or other water
bodies, parks or open space areas one acre or larger throughout the city. Council Members may recall a
conditional use application that proposed locating a gas station on the corner of 2100 South and 1300 East,
adjacent to Sugar House Park. The Administration reviewed that application and ultimately denied the
request. That was the impetus for this proposed text amendment.
The Planning Commission reviewed this proposed text amendment at its January 10, 2024 meeting and
held a public hearing at which four people from the gas station industry spoke in opposition. The
Commission voted to table the application so Planning staff could work with those from the gas station
community that submitted comments, review electric vehicle (EV) requirements, and consider where the
amendment would apply in the city.
Following the meeting, Planning staff modified the proposed text amendment to eliminate specific
required locations where EV chargers would be placed. They also reviewed all zoning districts where gas
stations are allowed and determined prohibiting gas stations near or adjacent to schools, residential
neighborhoods, and other public areas would both eliminate large areas where these stations could be
located and conflict with station owners’ rights. As noted above, the subject text amendment was initiated
from a conditional use application that would have allowed a gas station adjacent to a public park. The
focus of this text amendment is to preserve and protect water sources and open space areas.
This proposal was reviewed by the Planning Commission again at its April 10, 2024 meeting
and the Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City
Council.
Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed text amendment and determine if the Council supports
moving forward with the proposal.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration their reasoning for recommending fuel
tanks be at least 30-feet from property line vs. the requested 10-foot minimum from Maverik.
2. The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration what impact, if any, the proposed zoning
district consolidation will have on this text amendment.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Planning staff notified all gas station owners in the city of the proposed text amendment and requested
comments. A second notice was sent to station owners following the January 10, 2024 Planning
Commission meeting and included revisions based on the Commission’s requests.
Page | 3
Maverik, Inc. was the only company to respond to the notices. They expressed concern about the proposed
requirement to locate fuel storage tanks and gas vents in new gas stations a minimum of 30 feet from
property lines. Maverik believes this is “impractical, unnecessary and potentially dangerous to customers.”
They noted the tanks would need to be very close to the fuel canopy where there is a lot of vehicle traffic.
Current technology can detect any leaks from the tanks which would allow quick remediation. Maverik
proposes a 10-foot minimum from property lines. The draft ordinance retains the 30-foot minimum
distance from property lines for fuel tanks in new gas stations. It is worth noting that fuel tanks being
replaced at existing stations may be in substantially the same location as the old tanks.
The following are some key changes included in the draft ordinance:
Underground and above-ground fuel storage tanks and vents must be located a minimum of 350
feet from water bodies (pond, river, stream, canal, etc.), water resources, public parks or open
spaces one acre or larger.
For new gas stations, underground and above-ground fuel storage tanks must be located a
minimum of 30 feet from the property line.
Pump islands must be a minimum of 25 feet from property lines and buildings for new gas stations.
Fuel vents must be located at the top of a provided gas pump canopy for new gas stations.
At least one EV parking space with a standard charger is required for every 10 required parking
spaces for new gas stations.
New and replacement underground fuel storage tanks must be constructed of non-corrodible
material or designed to prevent the release or threatened release of any stored fuel to ensure
greater durability and lifespan.
If a leak or surface runoff contamination occurs the property owner is accountable for cleanup and
remediation.
Fuel tanks and pumps that are unused or out of service for one year or more will be considered
willfully abandoned and ineligible for nonconforming status. Their use cannot be restored unless
they comply with updated standards.
Replacement and updated tanks at existing stations may be in substantially the same location and
not have to comply with the updated requirements. The Zoning Administrator may modify the tank
locations if federal or state requirements prevent locating tanks in a substantially similar location,
or if the applicant demonstrates a different location is more appropriate.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
Planning staff identified five key considerations related to the proposal, found on pages 4-24 of the January
10, 2024 Planning Commission staff report, and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see
the Planning Commission staff report.
Consideration 1 – Compatibility with Master Plan Policies and Initiatives
Planning found that the proposed ordinance will help implement goals of the Salt Lake City Open Space
Plan (1992), and Plan Salt Lake (2015) to protect the natural environment from fuel leaks and surface
water contamination.
Consideration 2 – The Importance of Standards for Gas Stations and Accessory & Primary
Facilities with Above and Underground Storage Fuel Tanks
Planning noted the proposed ordinance is intended to promote the public’s health and safety by reducing
potential air, water, and soil contamination from gas station leaks and vapors. They cited a 2022 Utah State
Department of Environmental Quality report that showed approximately one in four underground fuel
storage tanks tested throughout the state were not in compliance with regulations, and leaks were detected
Page | 4
at approximately seven percent of tested facilities. It stands to reason that tanks found to be out of
compliance when inspected create environmental issues, and leaking tanks unquestionably cause these
issues.
Additionally, overfilling storage tanks from fuel delivery trucks, and water runoff from gas stations have
the potential to contaminate soil and water.
Planning staff stated:
Any failure of best management practices would cause a risk of contamination to water sources and
open space in the city through the storm drain connection. There are no best management plans
that can mitigate the negative impact since spills are caused by human error, and that could lead to
a potential failure.
Consideration 3 – Impacts of the Proposed Text Amendment on New and Existing Uses
The proposed text amendment would apply to newly constructed gas stations. Existing stations with above
or underground fuel storage tanks would become legal nonconforming uses and allowed to continue.
Consideration 4 – Zoning Districts That Allow Gas Stations & Accessory/Primary Facilities
with Above or Underground Fuel Storage Tanks – Use Analysis
Gas stations are allowed in 14 zoning districts in the city as shown in the list below. They are a permitted
use in 13 of the districts and a conditional use in the CB (Community Business) zone. Gas stations are
prohibited in many zoning districts including all residential districts and restricted in the Groundwater
Source Protection Overlay District, which is primarily in the eastern part of the city.
There are no existing specific City zoning standards that must be met for building a station in areas where
they are allowed, other than fire and building codes. (The State of Utah Department of Environmental
Quality has requirements gas stations must comply with.)
Zoning districts where gas stations are allowed:
M-1 (Heavy Manufacturing) -permitted use
M-2 (Light Manufacturing) -permitted use
BP (Business Park) -permitted use
CB (Community Business) -conditional use
CS (Community Shopping) -permitted use
CC (Corridor Commercial) -permitted use
CG (General Commercial) -permitted use
CHSBD1/2 (Sugar House Business District) -permitted use
D-2 (Downtown Support District) -permitted use
D-3 (Downtown Warehouse/Residential District) -permitted use
D-4 (Downtown Secondary Central Business District) -permitted use
TSA-MUEC-T (Transit Station Area Mixed Use Employment Center Station-Transition)
-permitted use
TSA-SP-T (Transit Station Area Special Purpose Station-Transition) -permitted use
Staff note: pages 10-19 of the January 10, 2024 Planning Commission staff report includes several maps
illustrating sections of the city where gas stations are located in relation to green spaces, streams, and
open spaces.
Consideration 5 – Secondary Recharge Area and the Groundwater Source Protection
Overlay District and Ordinance
Page | 6
More than 10% of the state’s drinking water comes from groundwater, much of which is filtered through
recharge areas, primarily along the east bench and eastern parts of the city including the foothills and
front-facing mountain ranges. These include primary and secondary recharge areas.
Primary recharge areas are comprised of rocks and boulders but do not have layers of clay. Water and other
liquids spilled in these areas can end up in the groundwater without filtration through the soil that would
otherwise help clean them. The unfiltered and cleaned liquids can flow into the water supply.
Secondary recharge areas are similar to primary recharge areas but have layers of clay that can help
minimally contain contaminants that may spill on the surface of these areas. As the name implies,
secondary recharge areas are a secondary drinking water source to replenish groundwater and can be up to
10% of the city’s water supply.
Gas stations are not allowed in primary recharge areas. Underground fuel storage tanks are restricted in
secondary recharge areas, meaning with best management practices they can be permitted in those areas.
ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS
Attachment B (pages 32-33) of the January 10, 2024 Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning text
amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. The standards and
findings are summarized below. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for additional
information.
Factor Finding
Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with
the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as
stated through its various adopted planning documents.
Complies
Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the
specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance.
Complies
Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with
the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay
zoning districts which may impose additional standards.
Complies
The extent to which a proposed text amendment
implements best current, professional practices of urban
planning and design.
Complies
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
• April11, 2023 – Petition received by Salt Lake City Planning Division.
• April 12, 2023 – Petition assigned to Diana Martinez, Senior Planner.
• July 10, 2023 – Information about the proposal was sent to all community council chairs to solicit
public comments and begin the 45-day recognized community organization comment period.
• August 21, 2023 – 45-day recognized community organization public comment period ends.
• November 9, 2023 – Notice of the proposed text amendment sent to all gas station owners in Salt
Lake City.
• December 29, 2023 – Planning Commission public hearing notice posted at the following city
libraries: SLC Main, Chapman, Sprague, Day-Riverside, Glendale, and Anderson-Foothill.
Page | 7
• January 5, 2024 – Public notice posted on City and State websites and sent via the Planning
Division listserv for the January 10, 2024 Planning Commission meeting. Public hearing notice
mailed.
• January 10, 2024 – Planning Commission briefing and public hearing. The Commission voted to
table the proposed text amendment for Planning staff to go back and make changes.
• April 5, 2024 – Public notice posted on City and State websites and sent via the Planning Division
listserv for the April 10, 2024 Planning Commission meeting. Public hearing notice mailed.
• April 10, 2024 – The Planning Commission was briefed on changes to the proposed ordinance.
The Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council.
• April 15, 2024 – Ordinance requested from the Attorney’s Office.
• May 4, 2024 – Ordinance from Attorney’s Office received by Planning Division.
• May 23, 2024 – Transmittal received in City Council Office.
________________
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
Jill Love
Jill Love (May 23, 2024 16:31 MDT)Date Received: 05/23/2024
Jill Love, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: 05/23/2024
TO:Salt Lake City Council DATE: 05/23/24
Victoria Petro, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods
_
SUBJECT:Petition PLNPCM2023-00260 City-wide Text Amendment for Gas Station Standards
STAFF CONTACT:Diana Martinez, Senior Planner
(801) 535-7215 or diana.martinez@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should follow the Planning Commission's recommendations
and approve the petitions for a zoning text amendment.
BUDGET IMPACT:None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Mayor Erin Mendenhall has initiated a petition to amend the zoning ordinance to require minimum
distances that new gas stations can be from a river, stream, or other water body, a park, or open space area
over a certain size and establish more stringent zoning standards for any gas station that is located in the
secondary groundwater recharge area of the city.
The proposed text amendment would prohibit new gas stations that do not meet the proposed standards
regardless of whether they are permitted or conditioned land use in an allowable zoning district.
Existing gas stations could replace and/or upgrade fuel equipment and tanks without complying with
these new regulations as long as the new equipment is in the same location as the original
equipment/tank(s). Section D of the proposed ordinance addresses replacement, reconstruction, and any
modifications existing gas stations may request.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV
P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005
●Notification–
o Early notification of the proposal was sent to all City Community Councils on July 10,
2023.
o November 9, 2023- Notice of the proposed text amendment was sent to every owner of a
gas station in Salt Lake City.
o December 29, 2023- Notice of the public hearing for the Planning Commission meeting
of January 10, 2024- notice signs posted at six city libraries: SLC Main Library,
Chapman Branch Library, Sprague Branch Library, Day-Riverside Branch Library,
Glendale Branch Library, and Anderson-Foothill Branch Library.
●Planning Commission Meeting –
On January 10, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the proposed text
amendment. The Commission tabled the item so that the Planning staff could work with the
stakeholders from the gas station industry, who had given comments on the amendment, review
the EV requirement section again, and consider where this ordinance would be most applicable
and appropriate within the city.
Notification for the April 10, 2024 Meeting-
o Public notice posted on City and State websites and Planning Division list serve – April
5, 2024.
Planning Commission Meeting-
On April 10, 2024, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the proposed text
amendment. The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to send a favorable recommendation for the
petition to the City Council.
PLANNING RECORDS:
a) PC Agenda of January 10, 2023, meeting (Click Here)
b) PC Minutes of January 10, 2023, meeting (Click Here)
c) PC Staff Report of January 10, 2023, meeting (Click Here)
d) PC YouTube Video of the January 10, 2023, meeting (Click Here)
e) PC Agenda of April 10, 2024, meeting (Click Here)
f) PC Minutes of April 10, 2024, meeting (Click Here)
g) PC Staff Report/Memo of April 10, 2024, meeting (Click Here)
h) PC YouTube Video of April 10, 2024, meeting (Click Here)
EXHIBITS:
1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
3. ORIGINAL PETITION
4. ORDINANCE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
3. ORIGINAL PETITION
4. ORDINANCE
1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
Petition: PLNPCM2023-00260 City-wide text amendment
April 11, 2023, Petition for the text amendment was received by the Salt Lake City
Planning Division.
April 12, 2023 Petition assigned to Diana Martinez, Senior Planner, for staff
analysis and processing.
July 10, 2023 Information about the proposal was sent to the all-City Community
Council Chairs to solicit public comments and start the 45-day
Recognized Organization input and comment period.
August 21, 2023 The 45-day public comment period for Recognized Organizations
ended.
November 9, 2023 Notice to sent to all gas station owners within Salt Lake City, regarding
the proposed text amendment.
December 29, 2023 Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the
Planning Commission public hearing physically posted at six city
libraries: SLC Main Library, Chapman Branch Library, Sprague
Branch Library, Day-Riverside Branch Library, Glendale Branch
Library, and Anderson-Foothill Branch Library.
January 5, 2024 Public notice posted on City and State websites and sent via the
Planning list serve for the Planning Commission meeting of
January 10, 2023. Public hearing notice mailed.
January 10, 2024 The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing January 10, 2023.
By a vote of 7-1, the Planning Commission voted to table the proposed
Text Amendment for planning staff to go back and make changes.
April 5, 2024 Public notice posted on City and State websites and sent via the
Planning list serve for the Planning Commission meeting of
April 10, 2023. Public hearing notice mailed.
April 10, 2024 The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on April 10, 2024.
By a vote of 6-0, the Planning Commission voted to send a favorable
recommendation for the zoning map amendment petition to the City Council.
2. NOTICE OF CITY
COUNCIL HEARING
NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petitions PLNPCM2023-00260:
Mayor Erin Mendenhall has initiated a petition to amend the zoning ordinance to propose
minimum distances that any gas station can be from a river, stream, or other water body, a
park, or open space area over a certain size and establish more stringent zoning standards
for any gas station that is located in the secondary groundwater recharge area of the city.
The proposed text amendment would prohibit gas stations that do not meet the proposed
standards regardless of whether they are permitted or conditioned land use in an allowable
zoning district. The Ordinance under section 21A.36.120 will list the proposed standards,
“Standards for Gas Stations and Facilities with Underground and Above-Ground Fuel
Storage Tanks.”
As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive
comments regarding the petition. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City
Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may
consider adopting the ordinance the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be
held:
DATE:
TIME: 7:00 pm
PLACE: 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah
** This meeting will be held in-person, to attend or participate in the hearing at the City
and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah.
For more information, please visit www.slc.gov/council. Comments may also be provided
by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to
council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared
with the Council and added to the public record.
If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Diana
Martinez at 801-535-7215 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
or via e-mail at diana.martinez@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at
https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “planning” tab and entering the petition
number PLNPCM2023-00260.
People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include
aids and services. Please make requests at least advance. To make a request, please contact the
City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, 801-535-7600, or relay service 711.
3.ORIGINAL PETITION
MEMORANDUM
PL,\.11/NING DIVISION
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
To:
Cc:
From:
Date:
Re:
Mayor Erin Mendenhall
LisaShaffer, ChiefAdministrativeOfficer; Blake TI1omas, Department of Conununityand
Neighborhoods Director; Michaela Oktay, DeputyPlanning Director
Nick Nonis, Plaiming Director
April10, 2023
Amendments related to gasstations located nearwater sow-ces andsensitive lands
The Planning Division is requesting that you initiate a zoning text amendment to analyze the zoning
districts where gas stations are allowed in the city and prohibit the use when in close proximity to
water bodies, water resources, ground water recharge areas, and public parks. TI1is action is
necessa1y to fmther the legitimate government interest in protecting rivers, creeks, streams and
other water bodies in the cityand increasing the protection of the ground water protection areas. TI1is
action will also fmther the role that parks and open spaces provide in creating large areas where
ground water can be recharged.
TI1is proposal will propose minimum distances that any gas station can be from a river, stream, or
other water body, a park or open space area over a certain size, and establish more sttingent zoning
standards for any gas station that is located in the seconda1y ground water recharge area of the city.
Determining the minimum separation and standards will be coordinated with Public Utilities to
ensure that best practices for managing water impacts from gas stations can be included in the city's
zoning code.
The public process will include a minimum 45-day public input period before the Planning
Commission holds a public heating. All registered recognized organizations will be notified of the
proposal.
TI1is memo includes a signature block to initiate the petition if that is the decided course of action. If
the decided course of action is to not initiate the application, the signature block can remain blank.
Please notifythe Planning Division when the memo is signed or if the decision is made to not initiate
the petition.
Please contact me at ext. 6173 or nick.nonis@slcgov.com if you have ai1yquestions. Tiiank you.
Concurrence to initiate the zoning text amendment petition as noted above.
04/11/2023
Erin Mendenhall, Mayor Date
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTHSTATE SlREET, ROOM406
PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKECITY, UT 84114-5400
WWWSLCGOV
TEL 801-535-7757 FAX 801-535-0174
4. ORDINANCE
________________________
Katherine D. Pasker, Senior Cit
Project Title: Gas Stations Located Near Water Sources
And Sensitive Lands Text Amendment
Petition No.: PLNPCM2023-00260
Version: 1
Date Prepared: May 4, 2024
Planning Commission Action: Recommended 4/10/2024
This proposed ordinance makes the following amendments to Title 21A. Zoning:
Deletes the current gas station standards (Section 21A.40.070);
Adopts new gas station standards to impose a distance requirement between gas stations
and bodies of water as well as new standards related to lot size, vehicle stacking, electric
vehicle parking, screening, and the location of aboveground and underground storage
tanks.
Underlined text is new; text with strikethrough is proposed to be deleted. Modifications made as
part of the Planning Commission recommendation are highlighted in yellow. All other text is
existing with no proposed change.
1 1. Adopts a new Section 21A.36.120 as follows:
2 21A.36.120: RESERVED: REGULATIONS FOR GAS STATIONS AND FUEL
3 DISPENSING FACILITIES WITH UNDERGROUND AND/OR ABOVE-GROUND
4 FUELD STORAGE TANKS
5 Gas Stations and Accessory Uses that have fuel tanks on-site, such as Truck Stops, Fuel
6 Distributors, and Storage uses, as defined in Chapter 21A.62 of this title, shall be allowed in
7 zoning districts provided in Chapter 21A.33 “Land Use Tables”, and are subject to the
8 provisions of this section.
9 A. General Standards:
10 1. All fuel dispensers and fuel storage tanks (above or underground) shall comply
11 with the requirements of this section and all other applicable regulations, including
12 the applicable reference standards and any other applicable regulations of the State of
13 Utah and Federal regulators. In case of conflicting provisions in any of the above-
14 listed rules, the strictest restrictions shall apply.
15 2. Distance from water bodies: All underground and above-ground fuel storage tanks
16 and gas vents shall be a minimum of 350 feet from any existing water bodies (pond,
17 river, stream, canal, etc.), water resources, public parks or open space -that are one
18 acre and greater in size.
1
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date: May 4, 2024
By: _
y Attorney
19 3. Distance from property lines: All underground and above-ground fuel storage
20 tanks and gas vents shall be a minimum of 30 feet from any property line.
21 4. Associated pump islands shall be a minimum of 25 feet from any property line
22 and adjacent buildings.
23 5. Fuel vents: When a canopy is provided, gas vents shall be located at the top of the
24 gas pump canopy.
25 6. New underground fuel storage tanks: All new and replacement fuel storage tanks
26 put underground shall be constructed of non-corrodible material or designed to
27 prevent the release or threatened release of any stored fuel to ensure greater durability
28 and lifespan.
29 7. Leak or surface-runoff contamination: If contamination occurs, the property
30 owner shall be accountable for any cleanup and remediation of the subject property,
31 any City property, and any downstream water or soil contamination.
32 8. Nonconforming status: Fuel tanks and pumps that are unused or out of service for
33 one year or more shall be considered willfully abandoned and will not be eligible for
34 nonconforming status. The use shall not be restored unless it is restored to comply
35 with the standards of this section and all other applicable sections in this title.
36 B. Additional Standards for Gas Stations:
37 1. Minimum Lot size: 30,000 square feet. A gas station may be located on a lot with
38 another principal use when the lot complies with the minimum lot size. For the
39 purposes of this regulation, a lot shall include a site that consists of multiple lots or
40 parcels within a single development when the parking lot and circulation elements are
41 shared across the boundaries of the lots or parcels
42 2. Minimum Lot Frontage: 150 feet along all public streets. For sites described in
43 21A.36.120.C.1, the lot frontage shall be measured for all lots or parcels involved.
44 3. Stacking Lane Standards: These standards ensure adequate on-site maneuvering
45 and circulation areas, ensure that stacking vehicles do not impede traffic on abutting
46 streets, and that stacking lanes will not have nuisance impacts on abutting residential
47 lots.
48 a. Stacking lanes shall be arranged to avoid conflicts with site access points,
49 access to parking or loading spaces, and internal circulation routes to the
50 maximum extent practicable.
51 b. A minimum of 36 feet of stacking lane is required between a curb cut and the
52 nearest gasoline pump.
53 4. Fuel Pump Standards:
2
54 a. Fuel pumps shall be located on the site in a manner that does not interfere
55 with easy access into or egress from the site at established driveway entrances.
56 b. Fuel Pumps shall be located and oriented so all cars in line for motor fuel can
57 be accommodated on-site and not block the sidewalk, the street, or any other
58 portion of the public right of way.
59 5. Electric Vehicle Parking: Gas stations shall provide at least one (1) parking space
60 dedicated to electric vehicles for every ten (10) required on-site parking spaces.
61 Electric vehicle parking spaces shall count toward the minimum required number of
62 parking spaces. The electric vehicle parking space shall be:
63 a. Located in the same lot as the principal use.
64 b. Signed clearly and conspicuously, such as special pavement marking or
65 signage, indicating exclusive availability to electric vehicles; and
66 c. Outfitted with a standard electric vehicle charging station.
67 C. Additional Standards for Fuel Dispensing Facilities:
68 1. Above-ground fuel storage tanks shall:
69 a. Provide a 25-foot clear radius from combustible materials, storage areas,
70 parking/backing areas, and all buildings on the same lot.
71 b. Have a maximum height of 20 feet from the finished grade.
72 2. An obscuring sight fence of six feet in height shall be required surrounding the
73 fuel storage tanks and associated vehicle fueling areas. All required fencing shall be
74 prewoven chain-link with slats, wood, brick, tilt-up concrete, masonry block, stone,
75 metal, composite/recycled materials, or other manufactured materials or combination
76 of materials commonly used for fencing. In addition, the fenced area must be paved
77 with a nonpermeable surface.
78 D. Upgrades to Nonconforming Gas Stations and Fuel Dispensing Facilities:
79 1. Replacing and Updating Tanks and Associated Equipment: An existing gas
80 station may replace existing tanks and associated equipment in substantially the same
81 location without having to comply with the provisions of this section.
82 2. Reconstruction: Existing gas stations that are noncomplying as to lot area, lot
83 frontage, or tank setbacks may be demolished and reconstructed, provided the
84 reconstructed use complies with the other applicable regulations of this section and
85 the tank location is substantially the same.
86 3. The zoning administrator may modify the location of the fuel tanks and associated
87 equipment if federal or state requirements or other legal requirements prevent
88 locating the replacement tanks in a substantially similar location.
3
89 4. The zoning administrator may approve an alternate location for fuel tanks and
90 associated equipment if the applicant can demonstrate that a more efficient and safe
91 location is more appropriate.
92
93 2. Deletes Section 21A.40.070:
94
95 21A.40.070: MOTOR FUEL PUMP REGULATONS RESERVED
96
97 When established pursuant to uses permitted or conditional within the applicable district
98 regulations, all motor fuel pumps shall conform to the requirements below:
99
100 A. Location: No motor fuel pumps or islands shall be erected closer than twelve feet
101 (12') to any lot line, required landscape yard, front or side yard or within any "sight
102 distance triangle" as defined in chapter 21A.62 of this title.
103
104 B. Safety Curbs Required: All uses for which motor fuel pumps or islands shall be
105 made a part, shall erect a safety curb around the perimeter of all paved areas. All such
106 curbs shall be of approved construction. The curbs shall be located so that no vehicle
107 overhangs any public right of way or adjoining property.
108
109 C. Gas Pumps At Convenience Food Stores: In addition to the requirements of
110 subsections A and B of this section, the location of motor fuel pumps at convenience food
111 stores shall be approved by the zoning administrator, where the location of such pumps
112 satisfies the following criteria:
113
114 1. Pumps should be visible to the motorist on the street;
115 2. Pumps should be visible from the store;
116 3. Pumps should be located on the site in a manner which does not interfere with
117 easy access into or egress from the site at established driveway entrances;
118 4. Pumps should be located and oriented so all cars in line for motor fuel can be
119 accommodated on site and not block the sidewalk, the street, or any other portion of
120 the public right of way;
121 5. Pumps should be so located to avoid conflict between cars going to motor fuel
122 pumps and those going to parking spaces. On site circulation should be clearly
123 marked and must reflect established design standards for moving aisles, parking
124 dimensions, and turning radii;
125 6. Pump location, and vehicular access to and exit from pumps, should not conflict
126 with established pedestrian or bicycle approaches to the store; and
127 7. Lighting shall be oriented so as not to cast direct light onto adjacent properties.
128
129 3. Amends the definition of “GAS STATION” in Section 21A.62.040 as follows:
130
131 GAS STATION: A principal building site and structures for selling the sale and dispensing
132 of motor fuels or other petroleum products and the sale of convenience retail.
4
133
134 4.Adopts a new definition “FUEL DISPENSING FACILTY” in Section 21A.62.040, as follows
135 (to be inserted alphabetically into the list of definitions in said section):
136
137 FUEL DISPENSING FACILITY: A stationary facility consisting of one or more fuel storage
138 tanks and associated equipment, which receive, store, and dispense fuel for private use and
139 not for sale to the public.
140
141
142 [END]
5
Item B9
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY25
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke and Sylvia Richards
DATE:October 1, 2024
RE: Budget Amendment Number One of FY2025
MOTION 1 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT TWO ITEMS
I move that the Council close the public hearing and adopt an ordinance amending the Fiscal Year 2025
final budget of Salt Lake City including the employment staffing document only for items as shown on
the motion sheet.
Staff Note: After the September 17th meeting, because of changing circumstances and additional
information, items I-4 funding for additional surveys and I-5 police noise enforcement are being
withdrawn and two new items are being added to Budget Amendment No.1 as follows:
NEW I-8: Additional Funding for Governmental Immunity Claims ($450,000 one-time from
Governmental Immunity Fund)
NEW I-9: Economic Promotion Related to Sugar House Road Construction Mitigation ($50,000 one-
time from General Fund Balance)
MOTION 2 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
I move that the Council close the public hearing and refer the item to a future date for action.
MOTION 3 – CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING
I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future date.
MOTION 4 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND NOT ADOPT
I move that the Council close the public hearing and proceed to the next agenda item.
Page | 1
COUNCIL STAFF
REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY25
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke, Sylvia Richards
Budget and Policy Analysts
DATE: October 1, 2024
RE: Budget Amendment Number 1
of Fiscal Year (FY) 2025
NEW INFORMATION:
On September 17, the Council partially adopted most of the remaining items and set the date to hold a new public
hearing on October 1. There are two new Council-added items (I-8 and I-9 which have write-ups below. Two earlier
Council-added items (I-4 and I-5) have been withdrawn as alternative options are being explored.
I-8: Additional Funding for Governmental Immunity Claims ($450,000 one-time from
Governmental Immunity Fund)
This Council-added item would provide one-time additional funding for the Attorney's Office to address
governmental immunity claims. The City is self-insured for liability claims. There is a dedicated property tax for
governmental immunity as allowed by state law, approved by the Council in FY 2023. Occasionally additional funds
may be required to cover the cost of potential claims against the City.
I-9: Economic Promotion Related to Sugar House Road Construction Mitigation ($50,000 one-time
from General Fund Balance)
This item would provide $50,000 one-time to the Economic Development Department for marketing and economic
promotion activities to support the Sugar House businesses adjacent to current construction projects. There are
multiple road construction projects underway in the business district including on 2100 South and 1100 East /
Highland Drive. There are also impacts from private development construction that impact the public right of way. A
six-week road construction pause is planned to start on November 15 through the end of December. The upcoming
holiday shopping season which represents a disproportionate amount of annual sales revenue for many businesses.
The road construction pause is meant to help customers more easily reach businesses in the area during the holiday
shopping season. The $50,000 would supplement the Economic Development Department’s other efforts to support
the Business District such as the construction mitigation program that provides $3,000 grants to small local
businesses. The FY2025 annual budget included $200,000 for the construction mitigation grant program.
Policy Questions:
Explore Longer-term Assistance Options for Small Local Businesses during Road
Construction – The Council may wish to ask the Administration to explore longer-term assistance for
small local businesses impacted by road reconstructions. This would likely require new funding and either
changes to existing program policies or creation of new programs.
Construction Mitigation Grant Program Evaluation – The Council may wish to ask the
Administration to provide a written report with performance metrics and options for potential program
changes. The Council created the Construction Mitigation Grant Program in FY2022 with $200,000 one-
time in the annual budget. The $200,000 funding level was continued in FY2023 and made ongoing. The
funding level increased to $500,000 in FY2024 and decreased to $400,000 in FY2025.
Project Timeline:
1st Briefing: August 27, 2024
2nd Briefing, Public Hearing & Partial Adoption Vote:
Sept. 3, 2024
3rd Briefing: Sept. 10, 2024
Partial Adoption Vote: Sept. 17, 2024
4th Briefing, Public Hearing & Potential Partial Adoption
Vote: October 1, 2024
Page | 3
Information below this line was provided at earlier briefings
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
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
Page | 4
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
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.
Page | 5
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
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?
Page | 6
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
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:
Page | 7
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.
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
Item B10
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke
Budget & Public Policy Analyst
DATE:October 1, 2024
RE: 2025-2026 U.S. Housing and Urban Development General Community Development
Needs Annual Public Hearing Motion Sheet
Staff note: HUD requires two public hearings annually: one to hear from the community about
"general needs" early in the process and another when the Council is considering specific funding
awards in the spring. This is the first of the two annual public hearings. There is nothing for the
Council to adopt at this stage.
MOTION 1 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
I move that the Council close the public hearing.
MOTION 2 – CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING
I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future date.
Item C1
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:October 1, 2024
RE: Zoning Map Amendment at Approximately 754 South State Street
PLNPCM2022-01109
MOTION 1 (adopt with requirements)
I move that the Council adopt the ordinance subject to the applicant executing the development agreement
attached to the ordinance.
MOTION 2 (reject ordinance)
I move that the Council reject the ordinance.
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:October 1, 2024
RE: 754 South State Street Zoning Map and Text Amendments (Sears Block)
PLNPCM2022-01109
OCTOBER 1, 2024 UPDATE
During the August 27, 2024 follow up briefing, the Council voted on a series of straw polls for a
development agreement that would include: ground floor activation for the proposed hospital, additional
opportunities for public input, and the benefits of a hospital at this location.
Six people spoke at the public hearing that evening and most expressed general support, though one person
felt a hospital does not fit the vision for the area. Ground floor activation, connectivity through the block,
and maintaining access to other businesses on the block were all mentioned. The Council closed the
hearing and deferred action to a future meeting.
Since the August 27, 2024 meetings Planning staff, the Attorney’s Office, Council staff and representatives
from Intermountain Health have been working to draft a development agreement that meets the needs of
the City, Intermountain Health, and the community. This agreement was reviewed by the Planning
Commission at its September 25, 2024 meeting and a public hearing was held at which no one spoke.
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council on
the development agreement, with the following recommendations for the Council to consider:
A minimum of one-acre open space within the block and accessible from the mid-block walkways.
The open space shall include vegetation that covers a minimum of 33% of the open space and
sufficient trees to provide shade for at least 33% of the open space area when the trees are fully
mature.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: July 11, 2023,
August 27, 2024, October 1, 2024
Set Date: June 6, 2023,
July 9, 2024
Public Hearing: July 11, 2023,
August 27, 2024
Potential Action: October 1, 2024
Page | 2
Authorize driveway widths up to 100 feet on 700 South and 800 South and include a minimum
eight-foot-wide sidewalk that does not conflict with the emergency vehicle access.
Require transparent glass for active spaces facing the streets.
The development is required to comply with all other applicable regulations and any modifications
be authorized through the design review process subject to the applicant submitting a complete
design review application.
On October 1, 2024, the Council may consider voting on two ordinances related to the zoning map
amendment and development agreement, and allowing hospitals and ambulance services as a conditional
use in the D-1 zoning district.
AUGUST 27, 2024 UPDATE
Since the July 11, 2023 briefing Council Members have met several times with representatives from
Intermountain Health (Intermountain) to discuss potential ground floor activation uses. Intermountain
created concept massing drawings that show potential ground floor activation uses that will benefit the
community while providing services necessary for an urban hospital.
Potential ground floor active uses proposed by Intermountain include a minimum of one acre of public
open space such as healing gardens and outdoor wellness areas on the property, mid-block walkways
through the property, a year-round food truck park, food market, coffee shop, cancer care salon, and a
community room available to non-profit organizations. Hospital related ground floor activation includes
emergency department/InstaCare/clinic reception, hospital reception and admitting, and an outpatient
pharmacy.
The Planning Division reviewed Intermountain’s concept drawings and noted that some uses such as
walkways, lobbies, and reception areas are not considered active ground floor uses in City code. The
concept drawings do not meet minimum percentages for ground floor activation required in code. Planning
staff is supportive of the proposed food market, but suggested expanding the use to be more of a grocery
store that could support current residents and those who will live in the many housing units coming to the
area.
Planning staff also noted that surface parking lots are not allowed in the downtown districts. Any surface
parking lots would need to be a temporary use.
The City Council will determine whether the zoning map amendment is approved. If a hospital is developed
on the property it would go through the design review process at the Planning Commission where details of
the hospital design, ground floor activation and walkways/green space are determined. As part of the
design review process, the Planning Commission may modify requirements outlined in City code such as
reducing the minimum percentage of ground floor activation.
The City Attorney’s Office suggested a potential option for the Council to consider is a development
agreement with specific requirements such as those proposed by Intermountain listed above if a hospital is
developed on the property.
Some options for the Council to consider include:
Rejecting the ordinances to rezone the property and allow hospitals and ambulance services in the
D-1 (Central Business District) zone. The property would remain zoned D-2 (Downtown Support
District), and development would be required to meet standards for that zoning district.
Page | 3
Adopt the ordinances with a condition that Intermountain enter a development agreement with the
City requiring inclusion of specific features that may include a minimum of one-acre of publicly
available open space such as healing gardens and outdoor wellness areas, a year-round food truck
park, or others if a hospital is developed on the property. The Council could also require that the
ordinances are not published until the development agreement is approved by the Planning
Commission and ratified by the Council.
Adopt the ordinances as currently written with no additional conditions. As a reminder, zoning
runs with the land and if this option is selected, the property could be developed by Intermountain
or other future owners within D-1 zoning regulations in place at the time.
Potential straw polls for the Council to consider:
1. Is the Council supportive of adopting an ordinance subject to the Planning Commission reviewing
the development agreement which includes ground floor activation, open space, and food truck
park as proposed by Intermountain Health, and obtaining necessary design review and other
potential approvals?
2. Is the Council supportive of requiring that the ordinances are not to be published until the
development agreement and any other required processes are approved by the Planning
Commission and ratified by the Council?
3. Is the Council supportive of amending City code to add hospitals (including accessory lodging
facilities) and ambulance services (indoor and outdoor) as conditional uses in the D-1 Central
Business District?
The following information was provided previous Council meetings. It is included
again for background purposes.
The Council will be briefed on a proposed zoning map amendment for ten parcels totaling approximately
nine acres on the block bordered by 700 South, 800 South, State Street, and Main Street as shown in the
image below. This is the former Sears department store location which closed in 2018 and the buildings
have since been demolished. The property is currently zoned D-2 (Downtown Support District), and the
requested zoning designation is D-1 (Central Business District). Intermountain Health owns the property,
and their stated objective is to construct an urban hospital on the site.
Hospitals are not allowed as permitted or conditional uses under the proposed D-1 or current D-2 zoning.
Included with the zoning map amendment, the petitioner also requested a text amendment to section
21A.33.050 Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts found in Salt Lake City Code
to allow hospitals, including accessory lodging facilities, and ambulance services as permitted uses in the
D-1 zoning district. It is worth noting that the Planning Commission recommended the Council adopt the
text amendment to specify that these uses should be conditional rather than permitted. Additional
information follows later in this report.
Nine acres is significantly smaller than a typical hospital development, but the applicant indicated
additional height allowed under the proposed D-1 zoning district would allow them to build up rather than
out, so the site would accommodate their needs. (Building height is limited to 120 feet in the current D-2
zoning district. There is no height limit in the D-1 zone, but buildings taller than 200 feet are subject to
design review and conditions).
It is worth noting that Major Street is a public street entering the site mid-block from 700 South. During
the design process, if the petitioner wants to build over the street property rather than use it as an access
point, a separate street vacation petition would be required.
Page | 4
The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property and the accompanying text amendment.
No formal site plan has been submitted to the City nor is it within the scope of the Council’s role to review
the plans. Because zoning of a property can outlast the life of a building, any rezoning application should be
considered on the merits of changing the zoning of that property, not simply based on a potential project.
The Planning Commission reviewed this proposal at its March 22, 2023 meeting and held a public hearing
at which two people spoke. A representative of the Downtown Community Council expressed general
support and referenced a letter sent to Intermountain (included on pages 31-34 of the Planning
Commission staff report) which includes several requests for the potential hospital site that would be
reviewed later if the project advances. The other commenter shared concerns about potential adverse
effects to nearby neighbors from the hospital and helicopters landing there. When asked about the
anticipated frequency of helicopter landings, the petitioner said the hospital will not be a trauma one center
as are Intermountain Medical Center and the University of Utah Hospital, so helicopter traffic will be light.
Some patients will require transport via helicopter, with a projected average of one to two times per week.
This is based on what LDS Hospital experiences. Heliports are currently allowed as a conditional use in the
D-1 zone.
The Commission voted 7-3 to forward a positive recommendation to the Council amending the zoning map
for the subject parcels from D-2 to D-1, and add the following uses as Conditional within the D-1 district:
Ambulance service (indoor)
Ambulance service (outdoor)
Hospital, including accessory lodging facility.
One Commissioner who voted against the motion previously made a motion to include the above uses as
permitted. A substitute motion was made to include the uses as conditional in the D-1 zoning district,
which a majority of the Commission voted to support. Others who voted against the motion did not specify
why they were opposed.
Page | 5
Vicinity map with the subject parcels outlined in yellow.
Note-other parcels on the block are under separate ownership and not included in this proposal.
Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division.
Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning map and text amendments, determine if the Council
supports moving forward with the proposal.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. The Council may wish to ask the petitioner whether they are planning to provide housing at or near
the proposed hospital site.
2. The Council may wish to ask the petitioner about what ground floor public facing amenities are
anticipated for the site such as retail and food establishments, in order to provide ground floor
activation for pedestrian traffic, as is the goal of other D-1 district parcels.
3. The Council may also with to ask about plans for other public-facing amenities such as open space,
etc. that could provide a benefit to the adjacent community.
4. The Council may wish to discuss policy goals for midblock walkways or other ways to break up the
building(s) and provide a more open feel to the site. As previously stated there is no current site
plan and the Council’s role is not to review site plans, although this could provide policy guidance
for the future as it relates to closure of Major Street, which fall under the Council’s purview.
5. The Council may wish to ask the petitioner if they have plans to provide healthcare services for
those staying at the homeless resource centers, or services not available from other providers.
6. As shown in the map below, if approved, this parcel would be zoned D-1 and would not be
contiguous with other D-1 properties. It would be separated by properties on the north side of 700
South which are zoned D-2. The Council may wish to ask the Planning Division if this is consistent
with best practices (previous concerns have been raised by the Administration and past Councils
about “spot zoning”), or if there are considerations for rezoning those properties in the future. As
noted in Planning’s analysis, the surrounding uses are compatible with the proposal.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
Planning staff identified three key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 4-9 of
the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the
staff report.
Consideration 1-Neighborhood and Citywide Master Plan Considerations
The subject parcels are near the southern edge of the area covered by the Downtown Master Plan, adopted
in 2016. The plan acknowledges ongoing population growth and calls for improved access to services and
amenities that support current and future downtown residents. If the proposed hospital is built it would
provide healthcare and jobs for nearby residents and those in the region.
Existing infrastructure will not accommodate the level of demand a hospital would generate. The developer
will be required to make improvements to offsite water, sewer, and stormwater quality in addition to
nearby water mains. Other needed improvements will be identified if the hospital is built.
The subject parcels are less than one block south of the D-1 zoning district as shown in the area zoning map
below. Although the proposed zoning change to D-1 would allow for higher density development and taller
buildings called for in the Downtown Master Plan, Planning staff found the zoning supports initiatives
outlined in the plan and continues the established development framework.
Page | 6
If approved by the Council, the subject properties would be surrounded by D-2 zoning, but Planning
anticipates these property owners will eventually work toward rezoning their properties.
Planning staff identified the following guiding principles found in Plan Salt Lake (2015) that relate to the
proposed zoning map and text amendments.
Neighborhoods that provide a safe environment, opportunities for social interaction, and services
needed for the wellbeing of the community therein.
A beautiful city that is people focused.
Ensure access to all City amenities for all citizens while treating everyone equitably with fairness,
justice and respect.
A balanced economy that produces quality jobs and fosters an environment for commerce, local
business, and industry to thrive.
Area zoning map with subject property outlined in red.
Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division.
Consideration 2-Development Potential
D-2 zoning limits building height to 120 feet. The requested D-1 zoning does not limit building height, but
buildings taller than 200 feet are subject to conditions and design review. One of the following conditions
would have to be provided as part of the design review process if a building taller than 200 feet is built:
Midblock walkway that exceeds standard requirements by at least five feet,
Affordable housing incentives,
Additional ground floor use and visual interest,
Page | 7
A restrictive covenant for a building older than 50 years and not listed as a local landmark site, or
500 square feet of open space with a shade that covers 60% of the area.
Planning staff anticipates a design review application will be submitted requesting additional building
height.
Consideration 3- Compatibility with Adjacent Properties
As noted above, the subject property is less than one block south of the D-1 district and the Downtown
Master Plan anticipates this district to expand to approximately 900 South. Planning staff believes the
proposed rezone is compatible with development to the north and aligns with the community’s expectation
of downtown expansion. Surrounding businesses are smaller in scale and include restaurants, barber
shops, banks, and car dealerships.
The Central City neighborhood is located to the east of the subject property, and Central 9th is to the west.
Central City is an established residential neighborhood with some of the city’s oldest single-family homes.
Central 9th is also an older single-family residential neighborhood but is transitioning to more medium
density among the older homes. It is Planning staff’s opinion the surrounding community would not be
adversely impacted by the rezone. Additionally, if surrounding property owners work to rezone their
properties as is anticipated, development potential on those properties would be the same.
The subject site is within the Ballpark Community Council boundaries, but is within 600 feet of the Central
9th, Central City, and Downtown community council boundaries. It is within the Ballpark neighborhood,
but not included in the recently adopted Ballpark Small Area Plan. Rather, as noted above, it is located
within the Downtown Master Plan area.
If the proposed hospital is built, there will be a significant increase in area pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
Planning noted that designers would need to consider City plans related to streetscape design, midblock
connections, and activation on State and Main Streets. They also encouraged transit use for employees,
promote active transportation, and to be an example of how an urban hospital can revitalize a site. Those
recommendations would be reviewed if the project develops.
ZONING COMPARISON
The following table includes regulations in the zoning ordinance recently adopted by the Council.
Regulation Existing Zoning (D-2)Proposed Zoning (D-1)
Building Height Maximum height-65 feet by right
Above 65 feet up to 120 feet
subject to design review
Minimum height-100 feet
Maximum Height-no limit
Buildings taller than 200 feet
subject to design review and must
include at least one of the
following:
Midblock walkway
Affordable housing
Exceed minimum ground
floor uses
Restrictive covenant on
historic building to
Page | 8
preserve for at least 50
years
Privately owned publicly
accessible open space of
at least 500 square feet
Yard Requirements Front/corner side yard-no
minimum.
Ten feet maximum.
Buildings with ground floor
residential: Minimum eight-foot
front yard setback, 16 foot
maximum. Provided yard shall
be landscaped and provide at
least one of the following:
Minimum of one bench for
every 500 square feet of
yard space
Landscaping that includes
increase of at least 25% of
total number of required
trees
Awning covering at least
five feet width and length
from all street-facing
building entrances
No minimum
Eight feet maximum. If provided
must include at least one of the
following:
Minimum of one bench for
every 500 square feet of
yard space
Landscaping that includes
increase of at least 25% of
total number of required
trees
Awning covering at least
five feet width and length
from all street-facing
building entrances
Analysis of Factors
Attachment D (pages 25-29) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning map and zoning text
amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal.
Zoning Map Amendments
Factor Finding
Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent
with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of
the city as stated through its various adopted
planning documents.
The proposed amendment is
generally consistent with the goals
and policies of the applicable
master plans.
Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the
specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance.
The proposal generally furthers
the specific purpose statements of
the zoning ordinance.
The extent to which a proposed map amendment will
affect adjacent properties
The change in zoning is not
anticipated to create any
substantial new negative impacts
that wouldn’t be anticipated with
the current zoning.
Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent
with the purposes and provisions of any applicable
overlay zoning districts which may impose additional
standards.
There is no applicable overlay
district that imposes additional
development standards on this
property.
The adequacy of public facilities and services
intended to serve the subject property, including, but
not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational
facilities, police and fire protection, schools,
The redevelopment of the site will
require public facility upgrades.
Page | 9
stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and
wastewater and refuse collection.
Zoning Text Amendments
Factor Finding
Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent
with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of
the city as stated through its various adopted
planning documents.
The proposed amendment is
generally consistent with the goals
and policies of the applicable
master plans.
Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the
specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance.
The proposal generally furthers
the specific purpose statements of
the zoning ordinance.
Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent
with the purposes and provisions of any applicable
overlay zoning districts which may impose additional
standards.
The change in zoning is not
anticipated to create any
substantial new negative impacts
that wouldn’t be anticipated with
the current zoning.
The extent to which a proposed text amendment
implements best current, professional practices of
urban planning and design.
The redevelopment of the site will
require public facility upgrades.
City Department Review
During City review of the petitions, no responding departments or divisions expressed objections to the
proposal, but provided, or stated they would provide, comments that are applicable if the property is
developed.
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
• November 11, 2022-Petition for zoning map and text amendment received by Planning Division.
• November 23, 2022-Zoning map amendment petitions assigned to Amanda Roman, Urban
Designer.
• December 8, 2022-Notice sent to Ballpark, Central City, Central 9th, and Downtown Community
Councils, and Downtown Alliance. Early notification sent to property owners and residents within
300 feet of the proposal.
• December 12, 2022- Proposal posted for an online open house.
• March 10, 2023-Planning Commission public hearing notice sent. Agenda posted to Planning
Commission website and State Public Notice webpage.
• March 22, 2023-Planning Commission public hearing. The Commission forwarded a positive
recommendation to the City Council for the proposed zoning map amendment. The Commission
also forwarded a positive recommendation to add the proposed hospital and ambulance service
land uses to D-1 as conditional rather than the requested permitted uses.
• March 27, 2023-Ordinance requested from Attorney’s Office.
• April 14, 2023-Signed ordinance received from the Attorney’s Office.
• April 27, 2023-Transmittal received in City Council Office.
Item C2
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:October 1, 2024
RE: Text Amendment Adding Hospitals, and Ambulance Services (indoor and outdoor)
as Conditional Uses in the D-1 Zoning District
PLNPCM2022-01109
MOTION 1 (adopt)
I move that the Council adopt the ordinance.
MOTION 2 (reject ordinance)
I move that the Council reject the ordinance.
Items E1 & E2
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Nick Tarbet
Policy Analyst
DATE:October 1, 2024, 2:15pm version
RE: MOTION SHEET:
Resolution: Capital City Revitalization Zone – Final Participation Agreement,
Final Project Area, Project Participant Designation
Ordinance: Capital City Revitalization Zone – Imposing a 0.5% Citywide Sales and
Use Tax
The Council will consider the following items as two separate legal actions.
The intent is for the Council to speak to the motion after Item E1, the participation agreement.
MOTION 1 (Item E1 - participation agreement)
I move that the Council adopt a resolution approving the final Capital City Revitalization Zone Project Area and
Participation Agreement between Salt Lake City and Smith Entertainment Group, LLC, and designating Smith
Entertainment Group, LLC as the project participant.
I further move that as the City Council recognizes the importance of Abravanel Hall as a cultural and
architectural icon in the City's cultural and entertainment scene, and its significant role in the future of the
Sports, Entertainment, Culture and Convention District. The City will continue to collaborate with the County,
SEG, and other stakeholders, and develop a comprehensive plan for the preservation, renovation, and ongoing
operation of Abravanel Hall at its current location.
I further move we recognize the value and importance of Utah Museum of Contemporary Art and look forward
to its continuing contribution to the district.
MOTION 2 (Item E2 - sales tax)
I move that the Council adopt an ordinance establishing, approving, and levying a 0.5% citywide sales and use
tax on eligible transactions identified in Utah Code 59-12-402.5.
MOTION 3
I move that the Council reject the resolution and ordinance.
Items E1 & E2
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Nick Tarbet
Policy Analyst
DATE:October 1, 2024, 2:15pm version
RE: MOTION SHEET:
Resolution: Capital City Revitalization Zone – Final Participation Agreement,
Final Project Area, Project Participant Designation
Ordinance: Capital City Revitalization Zone – Imposing a 0.5% Citywide Sales and
Use Tax
The Council will consider the following items as two separate legal actions.
The intent is for the Council to speak to the motion after Item E1, the participation agreement.
MOTION 1 (Item E1 - participation agreement)
I move that the Council adopt a resolution approving the final Capital City Revitalization Zone Project Area and
Participation Agreement between Salt Lake City and Smith Entertainment Group, LLC, and designating Smith
Entertainment Group, LLC as the project participant.
I further move that as the City Council recognizes the importance of Abravanel Hall as a cultural and
architectural icon in the City's cultural and entertainment scene, and its significant role in the future of the
Sports, Entertainment, Culture and Convention District. The City will continue to collaborate with the County,
SEG, and other stakeholders, and develop a comprehensive plan for the preservation, renovation, and ongoing
operation of Abravanel Hall at its current location.
I further move we recognize the value and importance of Utah Museum of Contemporary Art and look forward
to its continuing contribution to the district.
MOTION 2 (Item E2 - sales tax)
I move that the Council adopt an ordinance establishing, approving, and levying a 0.5% citywide sales and use
tax on eligible transactions identified in Utah Code 59-12-402.5.
MOTION 3
I move that the Council reject the resolution and ordinance.
Item F1
TO:City Council Members
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
FROM: Ben Luedtke, Senior Analyst
DATE:October 1, 2024 UPDATED 5:00:PM
RE: Resolution: Updating Salt Lake City’s Collective Bargaining and Employee
Representation Processes
MOTION 1 – ADOPT
I move that the Council adopt a joint resolution updating the City’s processes for collective bargaining and
employee representation. I further move that the Council requests the Administration provide a public
briefing to the Council clarifying the City’s collective bargaining process, MOUs, state law, and related
legal concepts. The Council intends that the revised collective bargaining resolution does nothing to
invalidate existing MOUs, the opportunity to negotiate new agreements, or other requirements under the
law. Conversations will continue between the City and recognized bargaining units.
Staff note: the City’s current collective bargaining resolution is from 2011. There is a
corresponding item (I-7) in Budget Amendment #1 that provides $25,000 one-time from
General Fund Balance to fund neutral third-party administration for a labor organization
election. The Council adopted that item on September 17 and requested the Administration
develop and recommend proposed language addressing how the cost of administering future
elections conducted in accordance with Article VII shall be allocated.
MOTION 2 – NOT ADOPT
I move that the Council proceed to the next agenda item.
MOTION 3 – DEFER
I move that the Council defer action to a future date.
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
1
Resolution _____ of 2024
Collective Bargaining and Employee Representation Joint Resolution
Adopting a joint resolution acknowledging Salt Lake City’s practice of recognizing the exclusive
representation of certain designated groups of eligible employees by labor organizations for the
purpose of collective bargaining, authorizing the continuation of this practice, and setting forth
the process for collective bargaining between Salt Lake City Corporation (the “City”) and labor
organizations.
WHEREAS, the residents of Salt Lake City are entitled to efficient and effective delivery
of services and the orderly and uninterrupted operation of their government; and
WHEREAS, dialogue with certain designated groups of eligible employees related to the
terms and conditions of their employment (including wages) facilitates the City’s objectives of
promoting fiscal responsibility and stability, maintaining and increasing employee productivity,
and addressing issues pertaining to employee job satisfaction, morale, and retention; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council of Salt Lake City believe the collective
bargaining process promotes cooperative and harmonious relationships between the City and
certain designated groups of eligible employees related to the terms and conditions of their
employment; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council of Salt Lake City believe it is in the best
interest of the City to allow certain designated groups of eligible employees to be represented by
labor organizations for the purpose of collective bargaining; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council of Salt Lake City believe it is in the best
interest of the City to recognize individual labor organizations as the exclusive representative for
certain designated groups of eligible employees for the purpose of negotiating a labor agreement
(i.e. a “Memorandum of Understanding” (“MOU”)) between the City and the labor organization
in accordance with the provisions of this joint resolution; and
WHEREAS, this joint resolution supersedes and wholly replaces Resolution 15 of 2011
(“Collective Bargaining and Employee Representation Joint Resolution”).
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby jointly declared by the Mayor and City Council of Salt
Lake City as follows:
I. DEFINITIONS
As used in this joint resolution:
A. “CITY” means and refers to Salt Lake City Corporation, a municipal corporation
organized under the laws of the State of Utah.
2
B. “LABOR ORGANIZATION” means and refers to an entity (i.e. a labor union or
labor association) that seeks to be recognized as the Exclusive Representative of a Bargaining
Unit for purposes of collective bargaining.
C. “BARGAINING UNIT” means and refers to the three designated groups of
eligible employees referred to in Section II(A) below who may be represented by an Exclusive
Representative for the purpose of negotiating a labor agreement between the City and the
Exclusive Representative.
D. “EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE” means and refers to a Labor Organization
that has been recognized as the sole representative of a Bargaining Unit and, accordingly, is
authorized to engage in collective bargaining with the City for the purpose of negotiating a labor
agreement between the City and the Exclusive Representative.
E. “NEGOTIATION” means and refers to the process by which the City and an
Exclusive Representative meet and confer in good faith regarding the terms and conditions of
employment (including wages), except to the extent such terms and conditions are a management
right (permissive) or prescribed or prohibited by applicable law, and culminates in the execution
of a labor agreement between the City and the Exclusive Representative.
F. “IMPASSE” means and refers to the inability of the City and an Exclusive
Representative to agree upon and execute a labor agreement.
II. CITY RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS
A. The City acknowledges that the following three designated groups of eligible
employees may be represented by an Exclusive Representative for the purpose of collective
bargaining:
i) sworn employees in the Police Department who hold the rank of Police
Officer;
ii) sworn employees in the Fire Department who hold the rank of Firefighter
EMT, Firefighter Specialist, Firefighter Paramedic, Firefighter Captain,
and Medical Response Paramedic and non-sworn employees in the Fire
Department who serve as Fire Logistics Coordinators and Fire Prevention
Specialists; and
iii) employees who serve in the job titles outlined in Appendix A of the most
recent Memorandum of Understanding between the City and Local 1004
of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees.
B. In accordance with applicable law and the provisions of this joint resolution, the
City has the exclusive right to determine the mission and objectives of each of its departments,
divisions, bureaus, boards, commissions, programs, and services.
3
A. The City has the exclusive right to:
i) hire and direct its employees;
ii) impose corrective or disciplinary action on its employees;
iii) classify its employees for compensation purposes;
iv) relieve its employees of duty due to reorganization, restructuring, lack of
funds, lack of work, or other reason not prohibited by applicable law;
v) determine the method, means, and personnel by which City operations are
conducted;
vi) maintain the efficiency and effectiveness of City operations;
vii) promulgate rules and regulations pertaining to Exclusive Representative
activity, including meeting with City administration and management,
using City facilities or equipment, and engaging in Exclusive
Representative activity during business hours; and
viii) take whatever actions it deems necessary, in its sole discretion, to carry
out its responsibilities in an emergency situation.
D. The City intends to:
i) negotiate in good faith with the recognized Exclusive Representative of
each Bargaining Unit; and
ii) compensate its employees in a fiscally-responsible manner.
III. EMPLOYEE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS
A. Unless otherwise prohibited by applicable law or this joint resolution, eligible
employees in a Bargaining Unit have the right to form, join, and participate in activities through
an Exclusive Representative.
B. Eligible employees in a Bargaining Unit have the right to refrain from
participating in any Exclusive Representative and/or Labor Organization activity and Exclusive
Representatives and Labor Organizations are prohibited from coercing eligible employees into
joining, participating, assisting, supporting, or in any other way contributing to the success or
operation of an Exclusive Representative and/or Labor Organization. Eligible employees in a
Bargaining Unit shall not be interfered with, intimidated, restrained, coerced, or discriminated
against because of their exercise of, or refusal to exercise, any of the rights outlined in this joint
resolution.
4
C. This joint resolution does not prevent an eligible employee in a Bargaining Unit
from:
i) bringing personal concerns to the attention of City administration or
management; and
ii) enjoying, without discrimination, all employment rights and benefits
granted by the City.
IV. EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OBLIGATIONS
A. An Exclusive Representative and its officers, agents, and/or employees are
prohibited from:
i) restraining, coercing, or interfering with eligible employees in the exercise
of their rights guaranteed under this joint resolution, including, but not
limited to, attempting to cause the City to discriminate against an eligible
employee in violation of such employee’s rights under applicable law or
this joint resolution;
ii) restraining or coercing the City in its recognition of an Exclusive
Representative for purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of
grievances;
iii) refusing to negotiate in good faith with the City; and
iv) engaging in a strike, or encouraging, aiding, or abetting any eligible
employee of a Bargaining Unit to engage in a strike, which, in addition to
being prohibited, is declared to be illegal.
B. An Exclusive Representative and its officers, agents, and/or employees shall have
an affirmative duty to take immediate, appropriate, and effective affirmative action to end an
employee strike or work stoppage.
V. NEGOTIATION OF LABOR AGREEMENTS
A. The City’s chief negotiator and the Exclusive Representative will meet and
engage in Negotiation. The City and the Exclusive Representative will fully consider any
proposals presented during Negotiation and will attempt to reach an agreement on the subjects of
Negotiation prior to the submission of the Mayor’s recommend budget to the City Council.
B. The scope of collective bargaining between the City and the Exclusive
Representative shall be restricted, shall not include those subjects which the City has no
authority to change, and shall not infringe on the City’s rights outlined in Section II of this joint
resolution. Negotiation will not include any issues already provided for by applicable law and,
similarly, this joint resolution shall not be construed to eliminate, restrict, or otherwise alter any
5
rights provided by applicable law. Moreover, this joint resolution shall not be construed to
invalidate, modify, or otherwise alter any article of any MOU in effect as of the date of adoption
of this joint resolution.
C. If the City’s chief negotiator and the Exclusive Representative reach a tentative
labor agreement, they will jointly prepare a written MOU containing the terms of their
agreement. A written MOU is a joint recommendation which the City’s chief negotiator and the
Exclusive Representative will provide to the Mayor on or before May 15 of the calendar year in
which the existing MOU expires, or at a later date in the event Negotiation continues past May
15.
D. The written MOU will not be binding upon the City or the Exclusive
Representative, either in whole or in part, until the members of the Bargaining Unit have ratified
the MOU by a majority vote and until the City Council:
i) acts by majority vote to approve the MOU;
ii) enacts ordinances or makes other changes required to implement the
MOU; and
iii) appropriates the funds required to implement the MOU for each year of its
existence.
E. If the Bargaining Unit does not ratify the proposed written MOU, the City’s chief
negotiator and the Exclusive Representative will meet within ten (10) business days of the failed
ratification vote to review the basis for the failed ratification and attempt to determine if
additional Negotiation could result in a new labor agreement that could be ratified by the
Bargaining Unit.
F. While the MOU is pending before the City Council for action, the Exclusive
Representative, its individual members, and the Mayor shall not appear before the City Council
or its members to advocate for any amendment, addition, or deletion to the MOU’s agreed-upon
language.
G. Each MOU must contain a provision prohibiting strikes or lockouts. Each MOU
shall have a term of at least one calendar year. It is expressly understood that no MOU may or
can bind succeeding Mayors or City Councils.
H. An MOU will be enforceable when entered into and executed in accordance with
the provisions of this joint resolution. No publication of an MOU shall be required to make it
effective.
I. Nothing in an MOU shall prevent the City and the Exclusive Representative from
mutually identifying and discussing issues related to the terms and conditions of eligible
employees’ employment during the term of an existing MOU.
6
VI. IMPASSE
A. If the City’s chief negotiator and the Exclusive Representative are unable to reach
an agreement by May 15 of the calendar year in which the existing MOU expires, either the City
or the Exclusive Representative may declare Impasse and the matter shall be submitted to the
Mayor and the City Council for review and resolution. The Mayor may recommend that the City
Council:
i) permit the City and the Exclusive Representative to continue Negotiation;
ii) implement a one-year compensation plan, to be proposed by the Mayor,
for the Bargaining Unit; or
iii) adopt the City's last formal offer presented in Negotiation for outstanding
proposals for a term not to exceed one calendar year.
In the event the Mayor recommends any of the foregoing approaches to resolving Impasse, any
existing tentative agreements reached during Negotiation shall stand as agreed upon.
B. In the event of Impasse, the City’s chief negotiator and the Exclusive
Representative may also (but are not required to) jointly ask the City Council for permission to
engage in mediation with an outside mediator. If the City Council grants the joint request to
mediate, the costs associated with any outside mediator shall be borne equally by the City and
the Exclusive Representative. If an outside mediator is engaged, the City’s chief negotiator and
the Exclusive Representative agree to participate in at least two (2) mediation sessions of at least
four (4) hours each within thirty (30) days of the mediator’s engagement. Mediation sessions are
considered closed sessions and, in the event mediation does not result in agreement for a
successor MOU, the provisions of Section VI(A) above apply.
VII. RECOGNITION OF EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE
A. Purpose:
The purpose of this section is to provide a uniform process for a Bargaining Unit to select
an Exclusive Representative.
B. Petition:
If members of a Bargaining Unit allege that their existing Exclusive Representative no
longer represents the interests of the members of the Bargaining Unit, they may file an original
and two copies of a petition with the City Recorder alleging that a new Exclusive Representative
should be recognized. The City has the exclusive right to deny any petition that includes
employees not referred to in Section II(A) above.
7
C. Petition Filing Requirements:
To be considered, a petition must be filed between September 15 and October 15 of the
calendar year immediately preceding the calendar year during which the existing MOU expires.
For calendar year 2024 only, a petition must be filed between October 2 and November 1 to be
considered. A petition filed outside the time periods referenced above will not be considered. In
addition, a petition must contain a statement of interest of at least thirty-three (33) percent of the
total employee count of the classifications within the Bargaining Unit, including: i) a statement
outlining the basis of the petition; ii) a declaration and signature by the person(s) submitting the
petition that the contents of the petition are true and correct; iii) a list of the job classifications
seeking to change the Exclusive Representative; iv) the name and contact information of the
proposed new Exclusive Representative; and v) an affirmation of the numeric count of the
employee members of the Bargaining Unit who have signed the petition.
D. Petition Authentication:
Within ten (10) calendar days of its receipt of a petition, the City will provide a copy of
the filed petition to the existing Exclusive Representative of the Bargaining Unit. Within
fourteen (14) calendar days of its receipt of a petition, the City will evaluate whether the petition
preliminarily complies with the requirements set forth in Section VII(C) above. If the petition
does not comply with the requirements set forth in Section VII(C) above, the City will inform the
person(s) who filed the petition of the deficiencies and afford the person(s) five (5) business days
to rectify the deficiencies and submit a conforming petition.
If a petition (whether an original petition or conforming petition) preliminarily complies
with the requirements set forth in Section VII(C) above, the City will engage the services of a
third-party neutral (“TPN”) to authenticate the petition. The TPN’s initial responsibility is to
validate the required thirty-three (33) percent showing of interest and, in order to do so, the TPN
shall require the person(s) filing the petition to provide “Showing of Interest” forms/cards (in a
form substantially similar to the attached Exhibit A) to the TPN for verification. The City will
not review or otherwise have access to any Showing of Interest forms/cards provided to the TPN.
The City will provide the TPN with a list of current employees in the Bargaining Unit as
of the date the petition was filed. The TPN will authenticate whether at least thirty-three (33)
percent of the total number of current employees within the Bargaining Unit have submitted a
valid “Showing of Interest” form/card demonstrating their interest in being represented by a new
proposed Exclusive Representative as identified in the petition. The TPN has the authority to
invalidate deficient cards that are not complete or not eligible for the petition. If the TPN
authenticates a valid thirty-three (33) percent showing of interest, the matter will proceed to a
majority vote of the Bargaining Unit. If the TPN does not authenticate the petition, the TPN will
inform the City and the person(s) who filed the petition in writing that the petition cannot be
authenticated. A petition that is not authenticated cannot be refiled until the next window period
as set forth in Section VII(C) above.
8
E. Election:
If a petition is authenticated by the TPN, the issue of which Exclusive Representative will
be recognized as the Exclusive Representative of the Bargaining Unit will proceed to a majority
vote of the members of the Bargaining Unit employed as of October 16 of the calendar year
immediately preceding the calendar year during which the existing MOU expires. The majority
vote will be scheduled, noticed, and occur during the time period between October 16 through
November 16 of the calendar year immediately preceding the calendar year during which the
existing MOU expires. For calendar year 2024 only, these dates will be November 2 and
November 2 through November 30, respectively. The vote will be by secret ballot submitted by
mail to the TPN and the form of the ballot will be in a form substantially similar to the attached
Exhibit B. The TPN will authenticate votes and provide the tally of votes in writing to the City,
the person(s) filing the petition, and the existing Exclusive Representative of the Bargaining Unit
by December 10 of the calendar year immediately preceding the calendar year during which the
existing MOU expires. For calendar year 2024 only, the tally of votes will be provided by
December 13.
F. Change in Exclusive Representative:
If the election referenced in Section VII(E) above results in a change of Exclusive
Representative, the change will become effective with the execution of the successor MOU. The
City will, however, initiate negotiations regarding the successor MOU with the new Exclusive
Representative in January of the calendar year during which the existing MOU expires.
VIII. COURT DECLARATION
Should any court declare any provision of this joint resolution void, invalid, illegal, or
unconstitutional, the entire joint resolution shall be deemed rescinded, repealed, and of no effect.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of _______________,
2024.
_________________________________________
Victoria Petro
CHAIR
ATTEST
_____________________________
CITY RECORDER
9
Transmitted to Mayor on the _____ day of _______________, 2024.
_________________________________________
Erin Mendenhall
MAYOR
ATTEST
_____________________________
CITY RECORDER
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Approved As To Form
___________________________
_
Jaysen Oldroyd
Senior City Attorney
10
Exhibit A:
Sample
Showing of Interest for
Exclusive Representation by a Labor Organization
I designate (name of labor organization) as the exclusive representative for the purpose of
collective bargaining with Salt Lake City Corporation. I understand that my signature may be
used to obtain affirmation/certification of the above-named labor organization as the exclusive
representative.
___________________ _______________
Printed Name Signature
Date:
Employee Classification/Job Title:
11
Exhibit B:
Sample
Vote for
Exclusive Representation by a Labor Organization
(box) I vote to continue (name of existing Exclusive Representative) as the exclusive
representative for the purpose of collective bargaining with Salt Lake City.
(box) I vote to change to (name of labor organization) as the exclusive representative for the
purpose of collective bargaining with Salt Lake City.
I understand that my signature may be used to obtain affirmation/certification of the above-
named labor organization as the exclusive representative.
___________________ _______________
Printed Name Signature
Date:
Employee Classification/Job Title:
Item F2
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Austin Kimmel
Public Policy Analyst
DATE:October 1, 2024
RE: ORDINANCE: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND LOAN TO EXOTIC FAST
FOODS, LLC, 55 NORTH REDWOOD RD.
MOTION 1 – ADOPT ORDINANCE
I move that the Council adopt the ordinance approving a $100,000 loan for Exotic Fast
Foods, LLC, from the Economic Development Loan Fund.
MOTION 2 – NOT ADOPT
I move that the Council not adopt the ordinance, and proceed to the next agenda item.
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Austin Kimmel
Public Policy Analyst
DATE:October 1, 2024
RE: ORDINANCE: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND LOAN TO EXOTIC FAST
FOODS, LLC, 55 NORTH REDWOOD RD.
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will consider approving a loan from the City’s Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF) to a
business named Exotic Fast Foods, LLC, at 55 North Redwood Road, for a new Eurasian restaurant. The City’s
Economic Development Loan Committee recommends the Council approve a $100,000 loan at an 8.5% fixed
interest rate over seven years. This loan will assist in the creation of six jobs in the next year and the retention of
three existing jobs. Funds will pay for building renovations, equipment, and working capital.
The interest rate reflects the 8.50% prime rate at the time of the application plus the standard EDLF four
percentage points. However, the project did qualify for a four percentage-point reduction based on location
within a priority area (North Temple), being owned by a socially and economically disadvantaged individual, low
to moderate income, and sustainability (see section B below).
Council staff reminder: EDLF loans are now scheduled for a vote on the same day as the briefing, so this is
scheduled for action on the October 1 formal meeting agenda.
Goal of the briefing: Consider a potential $100,000 loan from the Economic Development Loan Fund to a
business called Exotic Fast Foods, LLC.
ADDITIONAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Item Schedule:
Briefing: October 1, 2024
Public Hearing: N/A
Potential Action: October 1, 2024
Page | 2
A.Interest Rates. For context, the nationwide median small business commercial and industrial loan rates
for the first quarter of 2024 (the most recent data available) were 7.85% for fixed-rate loans at urban banks
and 8.79% for variable rate loans, according to the most recent U.S. Federal Reserve Small Business
Lending Survey.i In the second quarter of 2022, these rates were 4.50% and 5.55% respectively. Interest
rates for EDLF loans consider an assessment of the risk level of different applicants, among other factors,
and include potential interest rate reductions. Interest rates have ranged from 7.25% for nearly all 2022
EDLF loans to an average of 9.55% in 2023 and 2024.
B.Interest Rate Reductions. The bases for potential reductions are as follows:
1.Location within a priority area: RDA Project Area; Opportunity Zone; West of I-15; or
Neighborhood Business Improvement Program (NBIP, previously known as Façade Improvement)
target area.
2.Socially and Economically Disadvantaged Individuals (SEDI)-Owned Businesses: 51%
of the business is owned by at least one SEDI individual.
3.Low Income Business Owner: Income does not exceed 80% of Salt Lake County average
median income (AMI) as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD).
4.Sustainability: Either,
a. Membership in SLC Green’s E2 Business Program; or
b. Loan proceeds will be used for the purchase of electric vehicles, electric vehicle
charging stations and infrastructure, renewable energy including but not limited to
wind and solar, heat pumps, high efficiency equipment, and/or energy efficiency.
The interest rate reductions applied to this application are detailed below:
Exotic Fast Foods, LLC
8.50% prime rate
+ 4% ELDF charge
– 1% for location within a priority area
– 1% for owned by a socially and economically disadvantaged individual
– 1% for low to moderate income
– 1% for sustainability
___________________________
8.50% final interest rate
C.Program. The EDLF is administered by the Department of Economic Development, which is charged with
maintaining the corpus of the EDLF in a manner sufficient to perpetuate the program's goals. Each loan
application is pre-screened, and an underwriting analysis and economic impact statement are completed
before an application may be recommended for Loan Committee (see below) review. Information on
successful applications is transmitted to the Council to consider for final approval.
D.Available balance and amount of outstanding loans. The Department reported that the Fund’s
available balance was $8,300,000 in August 7, 2024. Outstanding loans totaled $3,205,765 on July 30.
E.EDLF Committee Membership. The Department of Economic Development lists nine members of the
EDLF Committee as follows:
Page | 3
i
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. The Council may wish to have a policy discussion with the Administration about interest rates charged by
the City from this and other loan funds and whether it makes sense to reevaluate how interest rates are
determined for lenders, especially since the City typically offers loans as a lender-of-last-resort.
2. The Council may wish to ask the Administration whether the EDLF Committee considered any other unique
information about this business that would help Council Members evaluate how this application compares
to others. For example, are risk factors evaluated for each company, like outstanding loans, years in
business, etc.?
3.What outreach does the Department do to ensure a diverse pool of businesses successfully applies to the
EDLF? Are applications from diverse owners, particularly those whose businesses are located on the
Westside, offered additional support through the application process? Does EDLF staff have ideas for
improving access that would benefit from program changes or additional funding?
4. The Council may wish to request a more general update on EDLF use and processes. This could include the
number of applications, review criteria used, loan program goals, etc.
City Employees Community Volunteers
1. Finance Director, Community and
Neighborhoods Department
2. Salt Lake City Business Advisory Board (BAB)
member
3. Representative of the Mayor’s Office 4. Banker
5. Salt Lake City employee at large 6. Community lender
7. Representative of the Division of Housing
Stability
8. Business mentor
9. Director, Department of Economic
Development
10.
Page | 4
i Source: Small Business Lending Survey, New Small Business Lending Declines as Credit Standards Continue
to Tighten. Consulted on July 1, 2024, at https://www.kansascityfed.org/surveys/small-business-lending-
survey/new-small-business-lending-declines-as-credit-standards-continue-to-tighten/.
Item F3
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Austin Kimmel
Public Policy Analyst
DATE:October 1, 2024
RE: ORDINANCE: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND LOAN TO CITY CAKES SLC,
LLC, AT 1860 SOUTH 300 WEST, SUITE D
MOTION 1 – ADOPT ORDINANCE
I move that the Council adopt the ordinance approving a $100,000 loan for City Cakes, LLC,
from the Economic Development Loan Fund.
MOTION 2 – NOT ADOPT
I move that the Council not adopt the ordinance, and proceed to the next agenda item.
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Austin Kimmel
Public Policy Analyst
DATE:October 1, 2024
RE: ORDINANCE: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND LOAN TO CITY CAKES SLC,
LLC, AT 1860 SOUTH 300 WEST, SUITE D
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will consider approving a loan from the City’s Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF) to a
business called City Cakes SLC, LLC, at 1860 South 300 West, Suite D, for a local bakery specializing in vegan
and gluten-free pastries and wedding cakes. The City’s Economic Development Loan Committee recommends
the Council approve a $100,000 loan at an 8.25% fixed interest rate over seven years. This loan will assist in the
creation of four to six new jobs in the next year and the retention of eight existing jobs. Funds will pay for
acquisition, machinery and equipment, and working capital.
The interest rate reflects the 8.25% prime rate at the time of the application plus the standard EDLF four
percentage points. However, the project did qualify for a four percentage-point reduction based on location
within a priority area (CDBG low/moderate income census tract), being owned by a socially and economically
disadvantaged individual, with low to moderate income, and sustainability (see section B below).
Council staff reminder: EDLF loans are now scheduled for a vote on the same day as the briefing, so this is
scheduled for action on the October 1 formal meeting agenda.
Goal of the briefing: Consider a potential $100,000 loan from the Economic Development Loan Fund to a
business called City Cakes SLC, LLC.
ADDITIONAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Item Schedule:
Briefing: October 1, 2024
Public Hearing: N/A
Potential Action: October 1, 2024
Page | 3
A.Interest Rates. For context, the nationwide median small business commercial and industrial loan rates
for the first quarter of 2024 (the most recent data available) were 7.85% for fixed-rate loans at urban banks
and 8.79% for variable rate loans, according to the most recent U.S. Federal Reserve Small Business
Lending Survey.i In the second quarter of 2022, these rates were 4.50% and 5.55% respectively. Interest
rates for EDLF loans consider an assessment of the risk level of different applicants, among other factors,
and include potential interest rate reductions. Interest rates have ranged from 7.25% for nearly all 2022
EDLF loans to an average of 9.55% in 2023 and 2024.
B.Interest Rate Reductions. The bases for potential reductions are as follows:
1.Location within a priority area: RDA Project Area; Opportunity Zone; West of I-15; or
Neighborhood Business Improvement Program (NBIP, previously known as Façade Improvement)
target area.
2.Socially and Economically Disadvantaged Individuals (SEDI)-Owned Businesses: 51%
of the business is owned by at least one SEDI individual.
3.Low Income Business Owner: Income does not exceed 80% of Salt Lake County average
median income (AMI) as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD).
4.Sustainability: Either,
a. Membership in SLC Green’s E2 Business Program; or
b. Loan proceeds will be used for the purchase of electric vehicles, electric vehicle
charging stations and infrastructure, renewable energy including but not limited to
wind and solar, heat pumps, high efficiency equipment, and/or energy efficiency.
The interest rate reductions applied to this application are detailed below:
City Cakes SLC, LLC
8.25% prime rate
+ 4% ELDF charge
– 1% for location within a priority area
– 1% for owned by a socially and economically disadvantaged individual
– 1% for low to moderate income
– 1% for sustainability
___________________________
8.25% final interest rate
C.Program. The EDLF is administered by the Department of Economic Development, which is charged with
maintaining the corpus of the EDLF in a manner sufficient to perpetuate the program's goals. Each loan
application is pre-screened, and an underwriting analysis and economic impact statement are completed
before an application may be recommended for Loan Committee (see below) review. Information on
successful applications is transmitted to the Council to consider for final approval.
D.Available balance and amount of outstanding loans. The Department reported that the Fund’s
available balance was $8,300,000 on August 7, 2024, and outstanding loans totaled $3,205,765 on July 30.
E.EDLF Committee Membership. The Department of Economic Development lists nine members of the
EDLF Committee as follows:
City Employees Community Volunteers
1. Finance Director, Community and
Neighborhoods Department
2. Salt Lake City Business Advisory Board (BAB)
member
Page | 4
3. Representative of the Mayor’s Office 4. Banker
5. Salt Lake City employee at large 6. Community lender
7. Representative of the Division of Housing
Stability
8. Business mentor
9. Director, Department of Economic
Development
10.
i
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. The Council may wish to have a policy discussion with the Administration about interest rates charged by
the City from this and other loan funds and whether it makes sense to reevaluate how interest rates are
determined for lenders, especially since the City typically offers loans as a lender-of-last-resort.
2. The Council may wish to ask the Administration whether the EDLF Committee considered any other unique
information about this business that would help Council Members evaluate how this application compares
to others. For example, are risk factors evaluated for each company, like outstanding loans, years in
business, etc.?
3.What outreach does the Department do to ensure a diverse pool of businesses successfully applies to the
EDLF? Are applications from diverse owners, particularly those whose businesses are located on the
Westside, offered additional support through the application process? Does EDLF staff have ideas for
improving access that would benefit from program changes or additional funding?
4. The Council may wish to request a more general update on EDLF use and processes. This could include the
number of applications, review criteria used, loan program goals, etc.
i Source: Small Business Lending Survey, New Small Business Lending Declines as Credit Standards Continue
to Tighten. Consulted on July 1, 2024, at https://www.kansascityfed.org/surveys/small-business-lending-
survey/new-small-business-lending-declines-as-credit-standards-continue-to-tighten/.
Item E4
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Allison Rowland
Budget and Policy Analyst
DATE:October 1, 2024
RE: ORDINANCE: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND LOAN TO BOTANIKA SLC,
LLC, AT 353 WEST 200 SOUTH
MOTION 1 – ADOPT ORDINANCE
I move that the Council adopt the ordinance approving a $100,000 loan for Botanika SLC,
LLC, from the Economic Development Loan Fund.
MOTION 2 – NOT ADOPT
I move that the Council not adopt the ordinance, and proceed to the next agenda item.
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Allison Rowland
Budget & Policy Analyst
DATE:October 1, 2024
RE: ORDINANCE: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND LOAN TO BOTANIKA SLC,
LLC, AT 353 WEST 200 SOUTH
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will consider approving a loan from the City’s Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF) to a
business called Botanika SLC, LLC, at 353 West 200 South, for a small-scale grocery selling non-alcoholic wines,
beers, spirits, mixers, and cocktails, along with healthy foods. The City’s Economic Development Loan
Committee recommends the Council approve a $100,000 loan at an 9.5% fixed interest rate over seven years.
This loan will assist in the creation of one new job in the next year, and retention of one existing job. Funds will
pay for renovation, working capital, equipment, furniture and fixtures.
The interest rate reflects the 8.5% prime rate at the time of the application plus the standard EDLF four
percentage points, though the project did qualify for a three percentage-point reduction based on location within
a priority area (CDBG low/moderate income census tract), being owned by a socially and economically
disadvantaged individual, and sustainability (see section B below).
Council staff reminder: EDLF loans are now scheduled for a vote on the same day as the briefing, so this is
scheduled for action on the October 1 agenda.
Goal of the briefing: Consider a potential $100,000 loan from the Economic Development Loan Fund to a
business called Botanika SLC, LLC.
ADDITIONAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Item Schedule:
Briefing: October 1, 2024
Public Hearing: N/A
Potential Action: October 1, 2024
Page | 3
A.Interest Rates. For context, the nationwide median small business commercial and industrial loan rates
for the first quarter of 2024 (the most recent data available), were 7.85% for fixed-rate loans at urban banks,
and 8.79% for variable rate loans, according to the most recent U.S. Federal Reserve Small Business
Lending Survey.i In the second quarter of 2022, these rates were 4.50% and 5.55% respectively. Interest
rates for EDLF loans consider an assessment of the risk level of different applicants, among other factors,
and include potential interest rate reductions. Interest rates have ranged from 7.25% for nearly all 2022
EDLF loans to an average of 9.55% in 2023 and 2024.
B.Interest Rate Reductions. The bases for potential reductions are as follows:
1.Location within a priority area: RDA Project Area; Opportunity Zone; West of I-15; or
Neighborhood Business Improvement Program (NBIP, previously known as Façade Improvement)
target area.
2.Socially and Economically Disadvantaged Individuals (SEDI)-Owned Businesses: 51%
of the business is owned by at least one SEDI individual.
3.Low Income Business Owner: Income does not exceed 80% of Salt Lake County average
median income (AMI) as defined by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
4.Sustainability: Either,
a. Membership in SLC Green’s E2 Business Program; or
b. Loan proceeds will be used for the purchase of electric vehicles, electric vehicle
charging stations and infrastructure, renewable energy including but not limited to
wind and solar, heat pumps, high efficiency equipment, and/or energy efficiency.
C.Program. The EDLF is a program administered by the Department of Economic Development, which is
charged with maintaining the corpus of the EDLF in a manner sufficient to perpetuate the goals of the
program. Each loan application is pre-screened, and an underwriting analysis and economic impact
statement are completed before an application may be recommended for Loan Committee (see below)
review. Information on successful applications is transmitted to the Council to consider for final approval.
D.Available balance and amount of outstanding loans. The Department reported that the Fund’s
available balance was $8,300,000 in August 7, 2024. Outstanding loans totaled $3,205,765 on July 30.
E.EDLF Committee Membership. The Department of Economic Development lists nine members of the
EDLF Committee as follows:
City Employees Community Volunteers
1. Finance Director, Community and
Neighborhoods Department
2. Salt Lake City Business Advisory Board (BAB)
member
3. Representative of the Mayor’s Office 4. Banker
5. Salt Lake City employee at large 6. Community lender
7. Representative of the Division of Housing
Stability
8. Business mentor
9. Director, Department of Economic
Development
10.
iPOLICY QUESTIONS
Page | 4
1. The Council may wish to have a policy discussion with the Administration about interest rates charged by
the City from this and other loan funds, and whether it makes sense to re-evaluate how interest rates are
determined for lenders, especially since the City typically offers loans as a lender-of-last-resort.
2. The Council may wish to ask the Administration whether the EDLF Committee considered any other unique
information about this business that would help Council Members with their own evaluations of how this
application compares to others. For example, are there risk factors that are evaluated for each company, like
outstanding loans, years in business, etc.?
3.What outreach does the Department do to ensure a diverse pool of businesses successfully applies to the
EDLF? Are applications from diverse owners, particularly those whose businesses are located on the
Westside, offered additional support through the application process? Does EDLF staff have ideas for
improving access that would benefit from program changes or additional funding?
4. The Council may wish to request a more general update on EDLF use and processes. This could include the
number of applications, review criteria used, loan program goals, etc.
i Source: Small Business Lending Survey, New Small Business Lending Declines as Credit Standards Continue
to Tighten. Consulted on July 1, 2024, at https://www.kansascityfed.org/surveys/small-business-lending-
survey/new-small-business-lending-declines-as-credit-standards-continue-to-tighten/.
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
9/18/2024 15:37 Mary allison Sutinis 9/17 Formal Meeting Comments Hi there, My name is Mary Allison Sutinis, D3. I won't be attending tonight's formal meeting in person because
masks are not required, but I'd like to comment on the Public Hearing item "Ordinance: City-wide Text
Amendment for Gas Station Standards." I support these new standards to better protect our water and public
spaces, but I’m still concerned by the 2022 statistic that 1 in 4 underground tanks tested were not in compliance
with regulations, with leaks in 7% of tested facilities. I’d like to see more protections for the air and soil around gas
stations even when they are 350 ft from a water source/public space. I know the Mayor’s office has explained that
the Fleet Block murals must be demolished partly because of the contaminated soil beneath. So, I’m thinking
about the future when these gas stations are no longer operating, leaving behind contaminated soil. There are
connections to be made between our gas stations, refineries, environmental racism, and genocide. Today,
Chevron fuels Israel’s genocide of Palestinians. With all of this in mind, I’d like to see CC push for higher standards
of gas station facilities in the future to reduce that 7% leakage statistic mentioned earlier. Best, Mary Allison
Sutinis
9/18/2024 15:39 Bernie Hart Fun stuff... Hi All, Sometimes doing good can be a lot of fun. I am really tired of waiting for "the system" to find a way of helping
the mentally ill and addiction population in Salt Lake City. The inability of the current "we can help you" programs
to get the unhoused into housing and into jobs is making life difficult for just about everyone in Salt Lake. I'll be
creating a temporary solution. This morning I will be starting a new effort. It will focus on helping people living on
the street find ways of panhandling more effectively. We will be starting a "Creative Panhandling Program" and we
will hold sessions in front (dah... dah) of SLCPD. We take referrals, Bernie
9/18/2024 15:41 Heather Wilkins Giving homeless poeple free beer on the street? We already have a huge drug issue, prostitution issue. But really free beer. The guy just opens his truck and asks
the homeless women what she wants? This city dies not manage their resources, police or miney very well at all.
9/19/2024 11:20 Joe Jacoby Homeless Camps, Abandoned buildings
affecting my business.
To whom this may concern, We are running a small business downtown, Jacoby Architects. I am hoping for your
assistance in a civil enforcement & planning matter. We have developing concerns about homeless encampments
that have been growing in frequency in front, and adjacent, to our property. Each morning we arrive to trash, rude
language, intimidation by campers, human excrement, and more. This has been negatively impacting our business
now for the past year, and it's only getting worse. Clients feel uncomfortable visiting our office. One of the main
reasons we see these homeless encampments is the abandoned building at 421 South 400 East, which is a
magnet for the campers as there are many hiding spots and space to spread out. The appearance of the building
has deteriorated. The size of the graffiti increasing. One potential solution that we see, is to expedite approvals on
demolition of the neighboring abandoned building (421 South 400 East) and installing a tall perimeter fence the
moment it's demolished. In the meantime, on our end, we are currently working with the police department to get
official no-trespassing signage through the trespassing affidavit application. We kindly ask for your assistance -
this is now negatively affecting our business every day. Much appreciated and Thanks, Joe Jacoby
9/19/2024 13:45 Erik OBrien 900S Bike path railway crossing Good Afternoon! I noticed that the bike corral before the crossing at the 900S railway line has been removed
during the current construction project. As a daily commuter on the 9 line I hope that the corral does NOT make a
return as the openness allows for easier movement over the trax line. Thanks to whomever OK'd its removal! -- Erik
O'Brien Phone
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
9/19/2024 16:37 Bernie Hart Old horses can only do what old horses can do ... Katherine, I am often asked what I think about the new jail/mental health bond. It used to be that when the County
or Salt Lake City decided to build a new shelter or mental health anything for the "poor" homeless almost everyone
applauded and were all in. This time everyone seems to be asking more and more questions, or in the case of N
Salt Lake rejecting more of the same old. I let those who ask know my opinion is that we are just building a new
barn for an old horse. It is not the barn that does the work, it is the horse and an old horse will only do what an old
horse can do. To expect more just gets us mad at the horse for not being able to do what we wanted or needed it to
do.... and what we are asking it to do just can't be done by our old horse. Building new barns for old horses and
expecting them to plow more fields because we built the barn is what ... I was about to say "The Utah Way", but I
won't say it... Whose decision was it to build the barn? Surely not the horse's. Bernie
9/19/2024 16:39 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
9/23/2024 9:47 Joseph Crook Walkablility I don't live in Salt Lake, but I work there. I absolutely love the design of Main Street. I like the trees, I like the
walkability, I like the good design. I just wanted to thank whomever needs to be thanked, and say I would love more
of this.
9/23/2024 15:51 Keiko Jones Thanks Dear city council members: I just want to express my thanks for coming to the west side last week. And thanks for
your generosity to provide dinner for everyone. Ale, thanks for making this happen and making it an annual event.
This gave many west side residents an opportunity to come in a somewhat more relaxed setting and express their
concerns. It was important. Thanks again. Keiko Jones P.S. My only regret is that we couldn’t see Darin dance this
year. 😂
9/24/2024 6:32 AM Karen Ellis Please oppose the sports district I strongly oppose subsidizing a sports district by taxing Salt Lake City residents. Please vote no on this.
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
9/24/2024 13:26 Jennica Krummenacher
1/3
Plea for Help Defending Low Income Individuals
Against Proposition 11
The addition of apartment buildings in the central 9th area have brought many elements into the community. The revitalization
of abandoned buildings and increased number of residents in this area has promoted the growth and addition of local
businesses, drastically increased property value for homeowners, decreased an alarming amount crime and loitering including
theft, drug use, and violence, decreased litter such as used drug syringes and discarded items, contributed to an aesthetic,
fresh, and welcoming environment, aided in the distribution of population in utah, and has transformed a once crime ridden,
deteriorating section of the city into an up and coming neighborhood. It cannot statistically be denied that homeowners in this
area have benefited by the addition of our apartment. However, they want these benefits without the draws that come with
these benefits: the new residents *of this same exact neighborhood* using public parking. There are certain areas that parking
restrictions are imposed to benefit the neighborhood, such as around colleges, as this prevents individuals who are NOT
residents of the neighborhood to disrupt the area or not use the private parking provided by the institution. In the case of guests
to the neighborhood, this case makes sense. However, this proposition would be directly discriminating against individuals in
their own neighborhood. By passing this proposition, you would be perpetuating the idea that lower income individuals who
cannot afford property do not deserve the same rights in public areas as higher income individuals who can afford property. This
is an insult to equality within our nation, state, city, neighborhood, and individual self. This promotes the idea that even though
we are all tax paying citizens who all contribute to our neighborhood, certain members of the neighborhood are denied their
rights to the public land that their taxes help pay for and maintain. It is giving public land that we all pay for to private individuals.
This is a disgusting disgrace to democracy. Within this proposition, homeowners of this neighborhood would receive a total of 5
parking spaces. 3 personal spaces and 2 guest spaces. Not only does this show a clear favor for higher income individuals who,
within this proposition, would be in a place that they could have not one, but three vehicles, it also shows that the city cares
more for the guests of these individuals more than residents of the actual neighborhood. It does not make logical sense that
guests, who do not contribute to this neighborhood, are allowed more rights than the individuals residing within the
neighborhood. Again, this perpetuates the idea that lower income individuals that can only afford apartments deserve less
rights than not only homeowners, but also homeowners guests. With nearly all of the local apartment units being between 200-
500 square feet, it is a misuse of power to let these private individuals claim public land that we are already so desperately in
need of. Additionally, it is the responsibility of the homeowner to understand the environment that they are purchasing. Salt
Lake City became the capital of Utah in 1896. It is common knowledge that the capitals of states typically contain an elevated
population. The population and further development of Salt Lake City specifically has been increasing since the 1980’s. That is
30 years of steady and then 14 years of exponential growth, totaling 44 years of an increasing population and city. As a potential
home owner, it is the responsibility of the homeowner to understand the environment that they are living in. If they are unhappy
with the environment, homeowners have the right to sell their property and find a location that matches their desires. Again, this
is the responsibility of the homeowner to make these decisions. This responsibility also includes knowing that they are
purchasing property that does NOT have private parking, does not include a private driveway, and that the road in front of their
residence is public parking that the public can use and does not belong to them.
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
9/24/2024 13:26 Jennica Krummenacher
2/3
CONTINUED!! Plea for Help Defending Low
Income Individuals Against Proposition 11
With the knowledge that the homeowner is within a growing city and knowing that conditions change, they have the right to
create private parking for the individual within the limits of their private property. They do not reserve the right to revoke public
parking access from fellow residents, which they knew to be a public parking area when purchasing their residence. They should
not be able to punish the neighbors around them with restrictions due to their own personal choice in housing location and
property features. Within these individuals property lines includes an area of road behind their house that some have utilized as
private parking for their residence. If homeowners want private parking within their neighborhood, they reserve the right to
create private parking within their property borders. However, they do not reserve the right to discriminate against others and
claim public land paid for by tax payers due to their own unhappiness with their houses features. Additionally, this proposition
will be harming far more individuals that those it is benefiting. To simplify this issue, I will be indicating the clearly sectioned
neighborhood which includes the two proposed areas and those reflected over 900 south, who then are backed by a barrier to
the central 9th district via the freeway. This is the location that is most populous and is subject to parking limitations. Within
these 4 blocks, approximately 626 apartment units and multiple houses and condos currently have access to parking in these
areas as well. Additionally, there are at least 15 businesses that also reside in this area, who also utilize the public parking in the
surrounding streets. The proposed areas are the only areas available with public 45° parking, which allows for many cars to be
parked in the public street. Some limited 90° parking exists along the furthest South-West block. There are a few 2 hour 45°
parking spots along 900 South intended for patrons of the local businesses. Other than this, all additional spots are parallel
parking along the road or privately owned parking. Additionally, numerous areas of parallel parking are not available due to fire
lanes and the Trax line running through this area. It does not logically make sense to distribute rights over public land via
approximately 250 parking spots to 50 households, while 714+ households within the apartment buildings alone receive none.
That is at least 714+ individuals paying the same taxes as at least 50, yet giving the benefits of this to only those 50. That is giving
approximately 70% of the available parking to approximately 6% of the population in just an area of 4 blocks. This is clearly an
uneven distribution of public services that caters to a specific group of individuals within our neighborhood if this was
implemented. This proposed parking restriction do not make any logical sense when evaluating the parking needs of the
neighborhood. I understand that even with this evidence, it is unlikely that my voice will be listened to. I know that the majority of
this power is unfortunately left to home owners. However, YOU have an opportunity to create a proposal that better fits the
needs of this community while still following law. My proposition that I feel is fair and beneficial is to remove the overnight
restrictions proposed, as this is a time where individuals in the community are in the greatest need of parking, and guests are
likely to have left the neighborhood, leaving 2/5 of the parking empty while lower income, apartment residing individuals
continue to struggle. With 3 private and 2 guest parking spots per house allotted to a small concentration of the community,
overnight restrictions being removed would recognize the core issue present and at least demonstrate an understanding of our
community needs. Additionally adding marked parking in these streets to allow lawful, organized parking and reduce parking
spaces being too tight
9/24/2024 13:26 Jennica Krummenacher
3/3
CONTINUED!! Plea for Help Defending Low
Income Individuals Against Proposition 11
. I think it would be beneficial to consider the addition of 45° parking along Washington street between 9th and 10th to create
more parking for residents and patrons of the local businesses. It is highly unlikely that, if required parking limits were checked,
it would be found that these areas do not meet the minimum parking requirements. If you truly are serving our community to
improve our great city and state, I implore you to look at the statistics and evidence within this proposition and improve our city
using this concrete evidence instead of deciding this based on the opinion of several homeowners who do not want the public to
use public land. Throughout the beliefs of this nation, it has been a core value that all men are created equal. We are residents
of this neighborhood too. We are citizens too. We pay for the taxes that create and maintain this street parking. We deserve
equal rights as homeowners when it comes to public land. It would be a disservice to our great nation to go against this core
belief. Jennica Krummenacher
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
9/24/2024 15:21 Murry Mullenax against sports district proposal / D5 Hi Darin – I would like to re-iterate my opposition to the proposed sports district and the accompanying sales tax
hike. If Smith Entertainment Group wants to threaten Salt Lake City with moving their sports teams out of the city -
I say good riddance. I’d rather not have the added congestion, infrastructure wear-and-tear, and air pollution
associated with them. Plus, I’m tired of getting a tax increase for seemingly everything. The anonymous online
survey the Salt Lake Tribune recently reported is an example of how the public is being hoodwinked on this deal.
Please vote against this proposal; it is not in the best interest of city residents. Thank you – Murry Mullenax
9/24/2024 16:13 Lynn Pershing Against proposed increased city sales tax Dear Council I strongly urge you to VOTE NO on any proposed increase in SLC sales tax to support the proposed
Smith Sports complex Our downtown has always been more than just a “sports district” and it should continue to
be so. Creating a vibrant downtown requires a diverse combination of cultural arts, exciting expositions for
different age groups, and restaurants with insured public safety for all. Key to attracting ALL of residents is use of
our TRAX public transportation to alleviate parking headaches and providing diverse fees for those many diverse
attractions. increasing the attendance at ALL attractions should be encouraged. Top tier sports have very
expensive ticket prices which many “city residents” will not be able to afford. If a sales tax is needed to support
this “sports district” it should be paid by those who attend, not just SLC Lynn K. Pershing, Ph.D.
9/24/2024 16:20 Anonymous Constituent Phone call to City Council Hi, I'm calling in regarding the demolish the old salt lake building (Fleet) I'm concerned that the criminal pictures
that's been painted on it. All these young kids see them as their heroes, I just want to make sure that this memorial
arts is going with it because if not, I'm afraid it will cause a problems. Thank you!
9/24/2024 16:26 Anonymous Constituent Voicemail to City Council I'm calling to see if there's more lighting down here at 400 S and 1200 W and pacific ave and we need more lights,
I've called a couple time and nobody's fixed anything but please put more lights. Thank you!
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
9/25/2024 9:15 Margaret Holloway (EXTERNAL) UTA Benches It was a good interview and article... Kevin did an awesome job along with the reporter. He came to my house
looking for help in this article..I sent him to Kevin. . I mentioned the brackets needing to be removed at least one of
them,. I understand you don;t get it about the brackets. I was looking out for the people needing to sit down...
Kevin mentioned it for me, But the examples of UTA not providing the promised covers and benches is always a
hassle. We understand the pick up and riders numbers.... but that still doesn;t get them off the hook. But to bring
up the fact that people are afraid of homeless using them... It just gives them an excuse to put them off from
installing. then. I have yet to see any kind of quantity of persons misusing them. Have you can you give me a spot?..
I wish you hadn;t brought that up.. It takes away from our need of them ..for everyone else.... You could have
supported the need to remove one of the brackets like I have been begging you to do... But because I ask you and
have asked you to ask them... to remove one not both. for people who maynot fit. I just don't get it. I have NEVER
asked for things that didn't help other people.. I see a need an ON the ground NEED and bring it up..... but is never
goes anywhere. because you are too busy looking at things that are so large that the it is not going to effect our
everyday living .... the port is being run by the state, they are not building it like they thought it is being sent out to
the counties. The Millers are going to build what they want, how is it going to effect everyday people You gave them
permission. the Smith group is going to build what they want. NONE of that helps everyday citizens use benches at
the bus stop. Not benches in the park... But to keep bringing up how we have homeless we know that and the river
path is not being monitored. the dead trees are allowed to stay for months along with the tall weeds on NT. The
parks department laughed at the fact they hadn't paid attention to the redoing on 300 west and the irrigation
system... So the trees are having a hard time. These are the things we as westsiders see and want fixes because
these things effect us. Not an Inland Port out west. Not the promise of a stadium at least years years out. We want
the weeds pulled on NT the potholes filled, yes maybe a few extra resources in OUR part of the city.,.... What they
do downtown is downtown.... Everyone knows we have homeless situation but you could make it a bit better....
Margaret Holloway
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
9/25/2024 15:35 Nathan Starley 1/2 *Urban Forestry & Housing
Concerns/Suggestions
Hello, all! I hope everyone is having a great Wednesday. I wanted to cc several departments including the Mayor and the
council, since this email is not only about urban forestry, it's also about a larger picture that includes housing, and the future of
our city. I hope you can all thoughtfully consider my suggestions and have us work solutions out. I'm also happy to jump on a call
and/or meet with anyone in-person to discuss solutions in more detail. --- Subject: Proposal for Communicating Vegetation
Requirements and Water Conservation to Our Community/ Housing Concerns I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to
discuss a critical issue concerning our neighborhood vegetation regulations and the need for effective communication with our
community. Our current regulations mandate that properties must maintain at least 33% vegetation coverage, even if residents
choose not to have traditional grass lawns. This vegetation still requires regular watering and maintenance. It is imperative that
we address the issue of residents cutting down grass and leaving areas with dead weeds, as this poses fire hazards, creates
unsightly appearances, and violates city regulations. Additionally, it has come to our attention that neglecting water to parking
strips is causing significant harm to our trees. Many trees now have dead leaves, dead branches, and some are even dying. This
not only negatively impacts our local environment but also contributes to increased temperatures in our area. Properly watering
and maintaining both grasses and trees can help mitigate these issues, leading to cooler temperatures and a healthier, more
attractive neighborhood. Furthermore, the deterioration of many of the city’s parking strips and overall lawn care is devaluing
homes and neighborhoods in surrounding areas, making them less desirable places to live. This affects everyone in our
community. When did it become an option to care and maintain a home? To address this, we need to push for more primary
home ownership and also lowering the cost of public water, and absolutely pushing to take care of our existing green spaces,
which includes our public spaces, but also our homes/neighborhoods before we build a giant “Greenloop”. This ties heavily into
homeownership, and people who own their homes typically take better care of their property, fostering pride and morale in
home ownership. If a home is rented, we need to enforce regulations against negligent landlords, and must have them verify
their business license, take the Good Landlord class, and educate them on how to maintain a yard while renting it. Many owners
that are renting out their single-family homes are the ones with the most neglected homes. This also ties into the issue of having
too many rentals in the city. We must mandate that any new developers prioritize primary home ownership within their builds,
and we need to be regulating rentals much better. To support our community’s desire to conserve water, we now have the
option of planting Utah State-approved hybrid Bermuda grass. This type of grass can go up to six weeks without water and still
remains green and dense. Promoting this grass is likely our best option, as it allows us to maintain green spaces that reduce
temperatures while also conserving water. There are better options to conserve water and help save our planet than simply
letting lawns die. In addition, with our city recently announced as the host of the 2034 Winter Olympics, we have a unique
opportunity to set a global example. The eyes of the world will be on us, and we can showcase how to merge conservation of
natural resources with maintaining a high quality of life, including beautiful, well-maintained yards. Over the next decade, we
should strive to be world leaders in innovative landscaping and sustainable practices, reflecting our pioneering spirit and
commitment to new ideas.
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
9/25/2024 15:35 Nathan Starley 2/2 CONTINUED!! *Urban Forestry & Housing
Concerns/Suggestions
To ensure compliance and community safety, I propose that we begin distributing clear and comprehensive information to all
neighborhoods, and must be sent to anybody ripping out their lawns. Our communications should emphasize the following
points: 1. Mandatory Vegetation Coverage: Even without traditional grass, properties must have at least 33% vegetation that
requires regular watering and upkeep. 2. Prohibition of Dead Weeds: Cutting down grass and leaving dead weeds is not
acceptable due to fire hazards and aesthetic concerns. 3. Alternative Landscaping Options: Provide information on drought-
tolerant grasses, including the Utah State-approved hybrid Bermuda grass, and other plants that comply with our regulations. 4.
Realistic Maintenance Expectations: Clarify that removing a lawn does not eliminate the need for maintenance and watering.
Property ownership involves ongoing upkeep regardless of landscaping choices. We must clarify “Zero-scaping” vs.
Xeriscaping: a.) Xeriscaping (the correct term) refers to landscaping that reduces or eliminates the need for supplemental water
from irrigation. The goal is to use drought-tolerant plants, native species, and efficient irrigation practices to conserve water,
and not ripping out all life and putting just rocks in a yard. b.) “Zero-scaping” is often mistakenly used to mean the same thing,
but in reality, it’s not a recognized term. Many people associate it with barren, lifeless landscapes devoid of plants, which is not
the goal of xeriscaping. 5. Environmental Impact: Highlight the importance of watering and caring for trees and grasses to
prevent tree death and reduce local temperatures, creating a win-win situation for our community. 6. Enforcement and
Accountability: Make it clear that residents who do not adhere to these regulations will be fined and held accountable. Recent
grants encouraging the removal of grass have led to unsightly, unkempt parking strips and neighborhoods that appear
neglected. It is crucial to communicate what is acceptable and what is not to maintain the aesthetic and safety standards of our
community. 7. Water Conservation Alternatives: For residents concerned about water usage, provide information on more
impactful measures, such as reducing the consumption of animal products. The majority of water usage in the country is
attributed to animal agriculture, far exceeding the water used for lawn care. By adopting a diet with reduced agricultural
consumption, residents can make a significant impact on water conservation. 8. Promotion of Home Ownership: Emphasize the
importance of primary home ownership in maintaining property values and neighborhood desirability. We need to encourage
more home ownership to foster community pride and ensure proper property maintenance. Any new developments must
prioritize primary home ownership to help maintain values and enhance the overall community. 9. Opportunity to Lead: With the
upcoming 2034 Winter Olympics, we have a chance to demonstrate how to balance environmental conservation with
maintaining a beautiful living environment. This is a critical moment for us to innovate and set an example for the world in
sustainable and aesthetically pleasing urban landscaping. By proactively providing resources, design options, and guidelines,
we can help residents make informed decisions and maintain their properties in a manner that aligns with our community
standards. It is crucial to convey that the cost and effort of maintaining alternative vegetation will not significantly differ from
traditional lawn care. I believe this approach will foster better understanding and compliance within our community, ultimately
enhancing the safety and appearance of our neighborhoods. Thank you for considering this proposal. I look forward to
discussing how we can effectively implement this communication strategy. Best regards,
9/25/2024 15:40 Bill Davis Abravanel Hall Dear City Council I am writing in support of preserving and retaining Abravanel Hall in the proposed Sports and
Entertainment District. Isn't a symphony and a performing arts venue a form of entertainment!!!! I'm confused that
this is even being discussed. In addition to a performance venue, it is a tribute to Maurice Abravanel. You cannot
duplicate history and heritage. I am aware that you will be discussing the Participation Agreement soon. I have
been attending symphony performances there for decades now. Please vote to preserve this lovely piece of history
for future generations! Bill Davis SLC, Utah
9/25/2024 16:28 Anonymous Constituent Millcreek Canyon Many of us who enjoy the Millcreek canyon and I don't know why it's been a couple years that they are trying to
winding the road. when you are doing that is gonna make people more speeding when they are already speeding. I
don't know why you don't representing us but pocket money for the developer.
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
9/25/2024 20:52 Laura Horiuchi Gaddie Japantown’s revitalization Recently I had the definition spelled out to me. It was explained it’s not really a “town” but simply a street. It’s
considered historic because it houses the last remnants of Japantown. As a child I visited Japantown frequently
because it was a community center. It housed the fish market, the manju shop, City Cafe, Aloha Cafe, Dawn
Noodle House, Star Pool Hall, Pagoda Restaurant, fruit and vegetable market, plus many more Japanese run
businesses. The community was vibrant and energetic. Now two churches are left. Eminent domain vanquished
the culture. My vision to honor this bygone era is to beautify the street with cherry blossom trees or a pedestrian
garden.
9/26/2024 10:28 Chris Barker Trails plan Thanks Dustin, Tyler and Councilman Wharton, I appreciate you gathering up and sending this information. I went
through all of it to refresh my memory. I think my overall frustration is we seem to be doing a second round of
expensive planning that's covering a lot of the same ground - and three years is a lot of trail building seasons lost. I
get that some of the new trails don't look great, particularly the hiking trails along the rim of City Creek Canyon, but
we were building in an arid environment in a drought. And I think you did a great job on the sorely needed downhill-
only 19th Avenue MTB trail - I took a guy from Flagstaff (outdoor Mecca) on that the other day and he couldn't stop
talking about how great it was. I like the idea of enforcement - I'm disappointed by the amount of people with
multiple off-leash dogs who are roaming far and wide. No way that waste is being picked up, and it is intimidating
for others. Here are a few questions: I'm not seeing a lot of plans for trailhead parking expansion, beyond the
expansion of the Popperton Park trailhead (maybe I missed it?). I think if you're refocusing on more beginner-level
trails, which makes sense, most people can't ride up to access without having to drive up and park. Are there plans
to expand trailhead parking beyond Popperton? I am a fan of dogs and I get how happy they are to run free but I feel
like the entire area is currently treated as an off-leash dog park, particularly post pandemic after more people got
pets. So I worry that despite the presence of off leash areas like City Creek and Lindsay Gardens, it's going to be
hard to change that behavior. Is there a plan to offer specific off-leash dog areas for hiking, with enforcement? Do
you have consistent participation/representation from the mountain bike community in the process, particularly
the high school teams, in the process? Finally, when will trail building start? Thanks again for engaging with me on
this topic. It's an incredible resource I want to hand over to my kids and their kids in good shape. Chris
9/26/2024 10:31 Margaret Morin preserve and protect Abravanel Hall for future
generations.
Hello Chris Wharton, 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 should 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
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
9/26/2024 16:21 Dennis Bangerter Rezoning M-1A Northpoint Dear Council Members, My concern with the Push for the rezoning is to appease a few developers and Business
men to profit from this. Without a clear cut lay out for Power easement (not all over head) & alternate Roads and
not a 25' wide Fire access road they slid in 6 months after a project had started, which is now their main business
access for 2420 N. Making it unsafe for 5 homes to exit their driveways safely.. 2200 West can not handle this
Development from both sides of the road. This (Large)area. And a freeway overpass 2100N. is already overloaded
with traffic from all directions. Please let us have a Clear cut path for Alternate Power, Roads, and safety. for the
People that live here.. Thank You for your time, Dennis Bangerter
9/27/2024 9:17 Jen Stewart SLC needs ownership stake for SEG investment /
D5
Hello Darin, I think the city should get an ownership stake for their $900 million investment in SEG. Why is the
council not pushing for an ownership stake? If I am paying for it, I want an ownership stake. I also want the benefit
of "a permanent exclusion from taxable income of capital gains from the sale or exchange of an investment in a
qualified opportunity zone fund, if the investment is held for at least 10 years."
https://www.slc.gov/ed/businessresources/salt-lake-citys-opportunity-zone-incentives/ That is huge and would
be qualified right after the 2034 Olympics. Meaning that if SEG sells after that, they keep all of the gains, no tax and
no benefit for the people. An ownership stake would give the people a piece of that. As it is, we are paying with
more than money and they keep the gains. I suspect the expiration of this extremely valuable capital gains
exclusion from the federal Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017 is why there is rush to get this done and why they did not
decide to build south of the city. As my council representative and with your history as a planner and developer, I
expect you to negotiate for a fair percentage for this investment. Please seriously consider getting me and my
fellow residents a rightful stake for this investment which is near 30% of the purchase price of the 2 sports
franchises. Sincerely, Jen Stewart
9/28/2024 10:19 Karen Kido Preserving Japan town Japan town long ago was a bustling area of shops, restaurants and open air markets. I remember as a child the
scent of fish market. There was the Pagoda located downstairs, Dawn Noodle which was operated by my uncle
and a pool hall. I think if a plaza is made, can it not include the Japanese Church of Christ and the Buddhist
church? I can see the Obon dance and the Spring festival (Hana Matsuri) being held in the plaza and being a
wonderful way to include these historic cultural spiritual celebrations. There are many fans in Salt Lake of these
events that is evident by the large attendance. It would make so much sadness to eliminate them from this
particular location. Please consider this inclusion. Sincerely. Karen Kido
9/29/2024 14:56 Alan Jones Save Abravanel Hall Tearing down Abravanel Hall would be a monumental mistake! No amount of money can guarantee that we can
replicate the musical experience of Abravanel Hall with a new building. Many modern concert halls have fallen
short of the remarkable acoustics we have in the landmark building we have enjoyed far more often than any of the
sports venues in Salt Lake City -- and I'm an athlete and a sports fan. Do you want to be remembered as the
council member that destroyed an irreplaceable landmark, or the council member who saved it?
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
9/30/2024 13:07 Dave ILTIS 1700 S Canal Trail and Westside Trails Plan Dear Councilpersons Petro and Puy, I am writing to see what you can do on opening and creating more trails in
your council districts. The first and easiest trail to open is the Canal Trail by Glendale Park. This would only take
opening up a gate to make this a connection. This is so simple yet hasn’t happened. Additionally, I would like to
propose a Salt Lake City West Side Trails Plan for soft-surfaced trails that would include the canal trail, the Jordan
River trail on the opposite side of the river from the paved trail, the canal trails and other such trails in the NW area
by the water treatment plant, the trails in the 2200 N area/3600 W area between the airport and the lake, and some
of the roads/trails in the west side by the prison/Inland Port. A Salt Lake City West Side Trails Plan would give west
side residents a chance to connect with nature on soft surface trails (which bring one closer to the earth) nearby
rather than having to drive to the foothills. Please consider adding trail signage in the area around the water
treatment plant and the canals on the NW side of SLC. If you look at Google Maps, there are tons of opportunities
for a network of soft surface trails on the west side. This would be a great amenity to west side residents and given
that the trails are in existence now, this would be an easy and great win. Please let me know your thoughtsthe
canal trail gate opening and the Salt Lake City West Side Trails Plan. Thanks Dave Iltis
9/30/2024 14:23 Jeannine Marlowe Stolen Harris Glad Mr. Dugan, Last night our Harris-Walz sign was stolen from our front yard. We had two small American Flags
attached that were thrown on the ground. I walked around the blocks and no other signs were taken. We had been
handing out yard-size American Flags to people with like signs hoping the message that the American Flag belongs
to everyone. No other signs were taken as far as I can tell (except for one possibly on Military Way. I want to report
this to the police who cover our area. Can you tell me who this is? Along with the terrible Bonneville vandalism I
feel very uncomfortable in the neighborhood. Jeannine Marlowe
9/30/2024 15:01 William Hewitt Jr City Council Meeting Dear Ms. Petro: I had fully intended to attend and participate in the SLC City Council meeting on 20 September at
the Sorenson Unity Center. Unfortunately, I have contracted a bad head cold and did not feel up to it. I work as a
para-professional at the Meadowlark Elementary school, and so I probably caught it from one of the kids. Such are
the risks of working with small children. If you get the time, you should come by and see the great work that is
being done with the children. Anyway, what I had intended to bring up is two questions: First, 1000 North from
Redwood Road to 900 West. It is in deplorable condition and feels like a "washboard" when you drive over it. I have
checked into the City Streets department website and see if it is on the schedule for repaving. I see nothing. I have
e-mailed them and (when they answer) all I get is "we are aware of ther issue." I know it is too late this year for any
work to be done. But, can you look into this and find out when and IF 1000 north is scheduled to be repaved?
Second, I have recently noted a lot of abandoned shopping carts in our area from the Lucky Market on Redwood
Road near 700 North. Many years ago, Mayor Anderson addressed this problem. You may remember the many
shopping carts from Smith's and the Lucky Market that were abandoned in our area. To his credit, Mayor Anderson
somehow forced the stores in SLC to install anti-theft technolgy that prevented shopping carts from being taken
from their parking lots. The system at Smith's on 600 North sometimes works too well if you park too near a parking
lot exit, which causes the cart wheels sometimes lock up before you can get to your car. But, the system worked
well for sveral years and the problem seemed to be solved in Rose Park, Morton Meadows, and West Pointe. But
now the problem has returned. I see many carts from the Lucky Market littering the area in the streets near the
store. I asked the manager of the store if he was aware of the problem and he said yes. I asked him why the anti-
theft system was no longer working. He said it is broken and he has no idea if it will ever be repaired. Is there
anything that can be done to eliminate this eyesore in our neighborhood? Sincerely: William E. (Bill) Hewitt Jr
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
9/30/2024 16:02 Scott Johnson 1/2 Urgent Request to Delay Sales Tax Vote and
Expedite Further Economic Analysis
Dear Salt Lake City Council, Comments for Submission to the Public Record I am writing to formally submit
comments to the Public Record for the "Capital City Revitalization Zone PA" portion of both the Tues., Oct. 1
Council Work Session and Formal Meetings. The main objective of my comment is to request a delay in the vote on
the proposed SLC sales tax increase by +0.5%. My request stems from my analysis leveraging my professional
experience in understanding and influencing consumer and retailer behavior at companies such as Kraft-Heinz
and PepsiCo. Based on 1) my own consumer behavior, 2) very heavy influence from my professional background
and 3) an initial assessment for my current involvement in a data-analytics project through the University of
California-Berkeley extension, I believe this increase poses meaningful risks to Salt Lake City’s revenue. This was
reinforced in a recent conversation I had with a Harvard Economics Professor regarding the analytical framework I
am using to consider the impact of this increase. This consultation has further validated concerns about the
potential risks, including the Tax Elasticity of Border Sales (TEBS) effect, which could result in sales declines in
SLC due to purchases shifting to outlying communities, especially immediately bordering ones like NSL, SSL,
WVC, Murray, etc. if not fully considered. Key Concern: Risk of Revenue Loss Due to TEBS It is well established that
sales tax increases can drive both local residents and nonresidents to shift their purchases to surrounding areas
with lower tax rates—a phenomenon known as the Tax Elasticity of Border Sales (TEBS). Given that nonresidents
and businesses currently account for a significant portion of Salt Lake City’s sales tax revenue, these spending
patterns could be at risk if the proposed tax increase goes through. If Salt Lake City’s sales tax becomes 1% higher
than that of neighboring cities (as will be the case if pending increases take effect), the city could experience a
substantial revenue loss as both local residents who shop outside the city and nonresidents who avoid higher
taxes shift their spending elsewhere. This could undermine the very revenue the city hopes to generate through the
tax increase, especially since Salt Lake City is so dependent on nonresident contributions, at least according to
the analysis by Natalie Gochnour and the Kem Gardner Institute. Request for Data and Assistance to Complete
Analysis In order to fully assess these risks and provide a robust analysis of the TEBS effect, I am urgently
requesting the City Council's assistance in accessing critical data needed for the analysis and demanding the
state's cooperation in providing this data. I will do everything possible to facilitate the requests but will be looking
for data sources such as : • (Mandatory) Historical sales tax revenue broken down by sector (e.g., retail,
hospitality, construction materials) • (Mandatory) Consumer spending data specific to Salt Lake City • (Desirable)
Any existing studies or reports that analyze how much of Salt Lake City’s tax burden is exported and how much
local businesses might shift that burden back onto residents. My team and I are eager to conduct this analysis in a
timely manner as part of a project deadline in mid-October.
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
9/30/2024 16:02 Scott Johnson 2/2 CONTINUED!! Urgent Request to Delay Sales Tax
Vote and Expedite Further Economic Analysis
I believe the results will be highly beneficial in understanding the broader implications of the proposed tax
increase, and I would appreciate your urgent cooperation in sourcing this data. Analysis of the 2019 Tax Increase
and the Missing TEBS Impact In the 2018 analysis leading up to Salt Lake City's 0.5% sales tax increase, the split
between resident and nonresident contributions was estimated at 40%/60%. However, the Gardner Institutes
estimates now place the split at 25%/75%, a dramatic shift that hasn’t been fully explained. One potential
explanation for this shift is the Tax Elasticity of Border Sales (TEBS) effect, where local residents—being more
aware of the tax increase—have already begun shifting their purchases outside the city to avoid higher taxes.
Nonresidents, meanwhile, may be less sensitive to the difference, contributing to a larger share of the city’s tax
base. This raises an important concern: if Salt Lake City is so dependent on nonresident spending, what happens if
these nonresidents begin to avoid the city due to the proposed tax increase? Pushing the tax rate even higher
could further accelerate revenue leakage, leading to unintended consequences for the city’s long-term financial
health. The Moral Hazard: Why the State and SEG Aren’t Worried It's no wonder neither the state legislature nor
SEG seem worried about the potential revenue risks from the existing 'Funding Our Future' 0.5% increase. the
state won’t notice if Salt Lake City’s sales leak to North or South Salt Lake, West Valley City, or
Millcreek—because the state will still collect its full portion of the overall sales tax revenue. Legislators
representing suburban districts, like those who sponsored the tax, may even benefit from more spending in their
areas. As for SEG, their funding is secured through bonding, making them largely immune to the potential financial
impacts on Salt Lake City. That leaves you, the City Council, as the only ones truly responsible for protecting Salt
Lake City’s revenue and long-term financial stability. I urge you to delay the vote until a proper analysis is
conducted to ensure the best outcome for the city. Potential Legal Risks Additionally, I would like to raise the
concern that moving forward with the vote before these critical analyses are complete could open the city to
constitutional challenges. With the recent Utah Supreme Court findings of unconstitutionality in cases involving
legislative overreach, including the proposed Amendments A and D, the legal risks of implementing this tax
without full analysis are heightened. In particular, Section VI, Article 29 of the Utah Constitution may expose the
city and state to lawsuits if the tax is shown to disproportionately harm city residents without providing clear
benefits. My expertise is in consumer behavior and spending, not the law, but I submit that any reduction in the
city's infrastructure spending from potentially decreased "Funding Our Future" revenue due to leakage from this
tax could provide legal standing for citizens to challenge the tax. Thank you for considering these important points.
I urge the Council to delay the vote until these risks—both economic and legal—can be fully evaluated. I stand
ready to help you analyze the potential risks of the increase to city revenue ASAP. Sincerely, Scott Robert Johnson
MBA, Carnegie Mellon University MS, Northeastern University
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
9/30/2024 16:03 Mercedes Smith OPPOSE Sales Tax To Our City Council Members, I am strongly opposed to the Capital City Revitalization sales tax. Why hold another
public hearing on the sales tax? Is this to give SEG a chance to pack the room with pro-tax voices, since they’ve
struggled to rally support so far? A Deseret/Hinckley poll last month showed that 54% of people oppose this tax.
Suspicious after last week's push poll, I read every public comment received by phone and email, which are
available here. What I found was staggering: 96% of the comments you received are against the tax. Have you read
them? If so, there's no need for another hearing. The message is clear: OPPOSED: 416, MAYBE: 10, IN FAVOR: 7.
(Here’s how I counted: those marked 'OPPOSED' specifically spoke against the tax or asked for it to be put to a
public vote. I didn’t count comments primarily about saving Abravanel Hall or Japantown—if I had, the opposition
would have doubled. The few 'MAYBE' comments were supportive of revitalizing downtown, but only if 0% went to
SEG or the arena. Those 'IN FAVOR' were clearly in favor and often revealed how they'd benefit personally, such as
UMOCA board members wanting a new building.) Perhaps you dismiss the 96% as anti-tax grumbling, but many
commenters thoughtfully cited decades of data showing that public subsidies for stadiums don’t work. Yet, you’re
ready to funnel $525M directly into a privately-owned arena and another $375M to privately-held surrounding
development. Chris, you’ve said your hands are tied, that the legislature forced this bill on the council. But at the
same time, Victoria was advocating for it on Capitol Hill. Eva, you nearly convinced me that losing the Jazz could
cause a tax revenue shortfall so severe the city might have to cut services. You promised to share those numbers,
but after repeatedly asking, I’ve received nothing. I can only assume those numbers don’t hold up—otherwise,
you'd have led with them, right? And as for the legislature stepping in if you don't—at this point, I might trust them
more. At least they read and responded to public comments about preserving Abravanel Hall, despite not owning
or operating it. Next, most of the public does agree that the convention center's layout is problematic. Reject this
deal and work with the county on a smaller tax for rebuilding a multi-level convention center on the old post office
lot. The public voted for a tax to build Abravanel Hall, so there’s a chance they’ll support something similar here
and new development will still indirectly help support the arena. There are ways to fix the convention center
problem and create win-wins for everyone without directly subsidizing a billionaire. And if the teams leave, no,
downtown won’t turn into a ghost town: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/keyarena-turns-a-bigger-
profit-than-it-ever-did-with-the-sonics/ Finally, numerous public records requests have been made for documents
we know exist yet the city claims there are no responsive records. This, along with your continued unanimous
support for this tax, despite overwhelming evidence against it, is raising suspicion among many voters that
something corrupt might be at play. There is still time for you to do the right thing. -Mercedes Smith, Resident,
District 3
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
9/30/2024 16:05 Lori Wike OPPOSE sales tax increase for Capital City
Revitalization Zone
Dear Council Members, I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the sales tax increase for the Capital City
Revitalization Zone. This tax increase is estimated to generate 1.2 billion dollars of taxpayer money, 900 million of
which goes to a billionaire to renovate a privately-owned sports stadium and to additional private developments
around the stadium that will generate additional money for SEG. What is ASTONISHING and headline-worthy is the
fact that 96% of public comments have been opposed to this sales tax increase and yet our City Council
representatives have unanimously supported this plan, over and over, and will doubtless do so again in this vote to
adopt the sales tax increase. Please consider your duty to represent your constituents and change course. Please
do not cite the “public benefits” as reason for why you support the sales tax increase. The Revitalization Zone
Committee specifically mentioned that approval of the public benefits account from the ticket tax is outside the
scope of their approval. That’s because the public benefits come from an ENTIRELY SEPARATE AND ADDITIONAL
TICKET TAX that this council is trying to claim as benefits of the 0.5% sales tax increase. Which they most certainly
are not. Do you think your hands are tied and that this will happen with or without your approval (and are you using
that as justification for your support)? Well, ask yourself if a state government body can impose a municipal tax
increase. No, that is not possible. Your constituents OVERWHELMINGLY oppose this sales tax increase. Please
vote against it. Or vote to put it to the voters. Sincerely, Lori Wike Salt Lake City resident, District 5
9/30/2024 16:06 Richard Steiner Gift to Ryan Smith Council members, Approving the sales tax hike for the sake of a billionaire is an outrage. I for one will be sure to
make all high price purchases outside of SLC and will avoid shopping within city limits to the best of my ability. No
money for park improvements (SLtrib article), curtailing trail building but taxing those least likely to be able to
afford the "amenities" of the entertainment district is a dereliction of duty. At the very least please advocate for not
making the tax applicable to food. Taxing food purchases is already placing a burden on the least affluent in our
community. Richard Steiner
9/30/2024 16:41 Jeffrey Wood Pedestrian bridge at Cottonwood dog park
barricade issues and increase in drug use.
. Hello, I wanted to reach out to you and recommend a review of the Parks department's strategy for closing the
pedestrian bridge. The current measures are clearly ineffective; someone has already removed the fencing, and
people are consistently ignoring the closure signage. This morning, my partner had to reprimand a man for ignoring
the detour with his dog. If the bridge is unsafe, there needs to be a more permanent closure until it's repaired. The
high traffic in the area, even among dog park visitors, demonstrates the need for a more effective barrier.
Additionally, I'd like to express my concern about the escalating drug use on the trail. Yesterday evening, we
encountered two individuals injecting drugs and another group smoking fentanyl. This all seems to be a focal point
around the people's garden. This morning there are two individuals next to the detour sign at 39 m smoking
fentanyl. This morning, we found evidence of drug use near trail marker 39m, and there were several individuals
congregating near the People's Garden with their belongings strewn about, potentially engaged in drug-related
activity. Probably 36 tiny pieces of tin foil of black streaks across them. Yesterday I picked up for syringes. Despite
calling police both yesterday and today. It's disheartening to see the progress made on the trail seemingly
reversed. The situation feels out of control, and it's incredibly frustrating. I urge you to address these issues to
ensure the trail remains safe and enjoyable for everyone. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
9/30/2024 21:11 Kavindra Malik Opposed to public funding for the Ryan Smith
sports entertainment district and tax increase
As stated, I wish to express my opposition to public funding for the Sports Entertainment District and the tax hike
on the residents of SLC for this venture. If the mayor and the city council feel it is in the best interest of the city,
they ought to have the courage to let the citizens vote on this issue.
10/1/2024 6:02 Brigitte Allison Eberly Hospital at old sears site I am a 38 year Home owner on 800 south, and I am in support of a hospital at the old sears site. I feel it would be of
great benefit to the neighborhood and community at large. I am in support of any zoning that would be needed to
have this occur. I do not feel that any hospital should have to do some percent of some sort of ground floor
requirements. This is a medical facility for patients. I am a retired nurse. The safety of the patients and staff needs
to be the priority. The security needs to be able to control who is on the campus, especially at night. Food trucks
don't belong on a hospital campus, I'm sorry, I listened to the previous council work session, and I didn't feel the
council expressed any understanding of what it's like to keep a hospital campus secure or safe. Please don't delay
this project any longer. I am in support of what ever patient housing, parking, height is needed, for the community
to have this asset to 800 south.
10/1/2024 9:14 Wilma Odell SEG We spoke about my resistance to subsidizing Smith EG. The average resident cannot afford tix to the Jazz or
Hockey & should not have to pay more tax (which could harm business for local enterprise). Don't let Smith bully
us!
10/1/2024 9:15 Debra Anderson sales tax increase and ryan smith's robbery City Council Members and Mayer Mendenhall, I am expressing my position on the .05% sales tax increase that the
legislature and you are so ‘generously’ offering to BILLIONAIRE Ryan Smith. This is unconscionable for many
reasons. As citizens you and the legislature have circumvented the voters who have every right to have had this put
to a vote for the people to decide if they want to fund a BILLIONAIRES billion dollar project. Raising the sales tax for
those in Salt Lake City is a penalty put upon us that the rest of the valley/state does not have to shoulder. Many
lower income folks just cannot sustain another tax increase with recently raising your salaries, utility cost going
up, cost of groceries and gas, and property taxes increasing! This is insulting that you are gifting $900,000 of
taxpayers money without our consent to a BILLIONAIRE! Your claims that this will benefit all is absurd. The ’sports
and entertainment district’ will benefit the wealthy and the developers. Trickle down economics has been proven a
fallacy. I am so very angry about this whole debacle!! Put this to a vote for the people to decide. Anymore, between
the mayor, city council and the legislature, the will of the people and respect for the people are being ignored!!
Make the right honest decision of putting this to a vote to the people! Debra Anderson
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
10/1/2024 9:15 Ben Grant Williams Opposition to SECC Sales Tax Good morning, Mr. Wharton - I am a resident of the Avenues neighborhood and one of your constituents (who
happened to vote for you). I am writing today to express my opposition to the proposed 0.5% sales tax to fund the
Sports Entertainment Culture & Convention District currently under consideration by city council. I am a strong
proponent of investing in our city and of the development needed to make it truly world-class. Local government
plays a vital role in advancing projects like affordable housing, parks, public services, the arts, transportation, etc.
and will always have my support as projects like these directly serve our citizens and the public at large. While at a
high level I support the proposed SECC district, I must emphatically oppose the proposed tax increase tied to it
though. Subsidizing non-essential, private development like this places an unfair burden on the citizens of Salt
Lake City and will undoubtedly hamper our overarching economic goals for the city. I believe it is fundamentally
unfair to create a new tax specifically for the purpose of funneling taxpayer money into a private stadium whose
revenues won't come back to Salt Lake, but go instead into the already massive coffers of Smith Entertainment
group. Smith Entertainment has no shortage of revenue, capital, and investors, any of which it could leverage to
fund and advance this project on its own - without forcing SLC-ers like us to foot the bill. I strongly urge you to
oppose the proposed sales tax to fund the SECC district, or if nothing else, at least allow Salt Lake voters to vote
on this directly. Thank you for your time & consideration! - Ben Williams
10/1/2024 9:16 Thomas Lombardi please vote NO on proposed 0.5% sales tax
increase for Capital City Revitalization Zone
Members of the Salt Lake City Council, I am a resident of Sale Lake City. I am writing to ask that you VOTE AGAINST
the proposed 0.5% sales tax increase for the Capital City Revitalization Zone at the vote that is scheduled for
October 1, 2024. I find it offensive that a regressive taxing mechanism is being proposed for a development which
seems to disproportionately benefit the more well-off in our society (SEG, developers, and those who can afford to
purchase services at the proposed zone). It is strange that a single city is being asked to support funding an entity
that benefits the entire Wasatch Front. Also, it is disappointing that citizens of Salt Lake are not allowed to vote
directly on this matter as part of an election. I am hopeful that you will take my concerns into consideration.
Sincerely, Tom
10/1/2024 9:18 Jim Ngo Vote NO on the tax increase for the billionaire's
sports district
He owns the Delta Center. He has his own wealth. He has access to the worldwide capital market. To put $1 Billion
on city businesses and residents to pay for a billionaire's benefit is unconscionable. If the capital market thinks it's
a money making idea, they will be lining up to fund it. If it is a losing idea, then you are socializing the losses and
risk by taking our money and giving it to him. I encourage all Salt Lake City council members to vote no on the tax
increase proposal. Sincerely, Jim Ngo
10/1/2024 9:20 Anonymous Constituent Email to City Council As a registered voter living in Salt Lake City, I find it troubling that the SLC council would consider both a bond to
rebuild West High School and Highland High Schools and also a 0.5 % sales tax hike to support the SEG Group.
Although the bond would substantially increase my property taxes, I feel supporting our public schools is the
resposibility of the general public and I am willing to vote in favor of it in November. The increase in sales tax,
however, appears to be a cost to SLC residents that is without warrant. I would urge the SLC council to vote no on
this and will await to see who on the council votes for and againt this increase. Also, I find it troubling that both
hearings for the Sprort, Entertainment, Culture and Convention District and the bond for the rebuilding of the high
schools is on the same day and time. A concerned citizen.
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
10/1/2024 9:29 Anonymous Constituent Voicemail to City Council Hi, I am a concerned citizen wondering why on earth SLC is passing a .05% sales tax increase for a new sports
stadium when none of us voted on that. I would love an answer from City Council and will probably be calling back
a couple more times. I feel like it would be wise to release a statement on the matter. Thanks.
10/1/2024 9:35 Zachary Novack Phone call to City Council I urge the City Council to vote no on the SEG tax increase. This should be a ballot initiative. Having a private vote is
taxation without representation. Shame on the Council If they vote yes. Why are we giving money to billionaires?
The citizens can not afford more increases. Vote no and stop thinking of yourselves over what is best for
constituents. Also, shame on you for voting on your own salary. That should also be a ballot initiative.
10/1/2024 12:23 Lynne Olson Capital City Revitalization Zone Participation
Agreement
I would like to comment on item B1) Capital City Revitalization Zone Participation Agreement, Project Area, and
Citywide 0.5% Sales and Use Tax Has anyone disclosed where the Utah Jazz will play and practice while the Delta
Center is being demolished and replaced with the proposed new downtown sports/entertainment project? Does
the owner expect the new (presumably temporary) location to attract the same crowds of fans that are coming to
the Delta Center? If so, for what reason would the owner then go to the trouble/expense of returning the team to
the downtown SLC location? Would the NBA encourage them to return to the downtown venue? It’s not easy to
relocate a franchise that is selling out most of their games. Lynne Olson
10/1/2024 13:56 Anonymous Constituent No new Sales Tax Let the sports revenues themselves generate any additional money needed for any future redevelopment. Then
and only then when they raise the necessary funds should the redevelopment begin. Those of us who are not
sports or other entertainment or arts fans should not be taxed any further than the taxes we already pay in the SLC
city and county. Enough is enough. Many of us are already on a tight budget and have limited income, and we
cannot even "splurge" to go on an occasional art or sports event whose seats are already expensive, even if we
wanted to! If you are going to tax us, then give each city resident who pays the sales tax a FREE ticket annually for
an up-close seat to a concert, basketball or hockey game etc to show your REAL appreciation!!!
10/1/2024 15:23 Sasha Zaharoff Zaharoff Vote no on the 0.5% sales tax increase / D5 Voicemail transcription: Hi Darin, this is Sasha Zaharoff, one of your constituents in District 5. Just calling on
behalf of all of my neighbors and community members here in trying to vote against and not approve the half
percent sales tax increase. I know groceries are exempt, but there are so many other goods out and I have
neighbors in apartment buildings whose rent is probably similar to folks with mortgages in the neighborhood, and
half a percent definitely adds up for them. They definitely won't be getting any benefit from buying expensive
sporting tickets so I know you've considered it and have kind of been a voice for these kinds of things, but please
stand strong and don't approve the half percent sales tax increase.
10/1/2024 15:48 Ryan Timme Vote No on the Sports District Sales Tax Increase
/ D5
Hi Darin, You are my city councillor. Thanks for representing our portion of the city. I understand that you will be
voting on the sales tax increase today to help fund the sports and entertainment district. I ask that you please vote
no. Why are public funds going to subsidize a multimillionaire? Study after study have shown that publicly-funded
professional sports stadiums are drains on cities and do not positively contribute to the economy. Let's focus our
public funds on helping the public through public education, public transit, funding small businesses, and
building a safe walkable city (not just for cars). Thanks! Ryan Timme
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
10/1/2024 15:56 Patrick Zunk Opposition to Sales and Use Tax Increase Councilmember Petro, I am writing your office as your constituent to voice my opposition to the proposed
increase of sales and use tax for the development of the Revitalization Zone. It is absurd to ask the working- and
middle-class members of this city, who may not even have an interest in pro sports or the Zone’s other offerings, to
pay for this project. Despite the alleged benefits of this project, I remain unconvinced that a sales tax increase is
the right way to fund it. I do not believe such a measure would pass if put up for a vote from the city’s residents,
and this ordinance should not be adopted. Regards, Patrick Zunk District 1 voter
10/1/2024 17:11 Brent Koga Sports Entertainment Culture Convention There is still more to do to make the Salt Lake Buddhist temple and the Japanese Church of Christ thriving and
functioning utilities on Japan town Street. As previously stated packing is not adequately addressed, minimizing
loading and unloading should be eliminated not minimized. SEG updating the Japan town community sounds like
no voice only telling the community what war does to them the previous 6 months. This sounds like the tail
wagging the dog. Approving projects with little detail sounds like the city is not in charge.
10/1/2024 17:32 Eldon Montgomery General Comment Compensate drivers $10/day for the traffic diversion No oh wow the horrible impatient drivers even 45 mph in 20
zone Even passing on the right and left Item #2 Convict + imprison the drug users and dealers on the Jordan River
please
10/1/2024 17:55 Tony Guzman General Comment Mayor and Engineer Staff: Side-walks and streets. Please take a serious look at a sidewalk across Rice Eccles
Stadium and the U of U. It needs to be replaced. Looks like a block of cement protruding above ground level. I
crossed this block on my bike at High speed downhill!! After I went flying off my bike and ended up in VA Hospital
with fractured hip and arm. Please respond, thank you! Tony Guzman
10/1/2024 18:01 Jennifer Madrigal General Comment I'm hoping for an update on the plans for the Riley Elementary land which borders my property - we're already
seeing trash-dumping & overnight stays % I don't want the closure to negatively impact my neighborhood. I also
want to know what is going to happen to the land so that I can make my own developments to my property. I will
also put in a quick 2 cents - I support Glendale High at this location, regardless of whether it can be opened as a
full-sized school. We don't need a fancy school for our kids, we need access to a school for the development of the
future leader of our community! XOXO thank you!
10/1/2024 18:16 Brittany Reynolds General Comment Two subjects: First, my neighbor is in trouble. He has Multi-Personality Disorder, and many homeless and other
unsavory persons know this and are taking advantage of it. They live out of his house, eat his food and cause
damage to property. He is becoming scarily thin and malnourished. He came up to me saying there are weird
people in his home. But when police come he only babbles nonsense and the police can't kick the homeless out. I
also see them exchange what I assume are drugs from his house. Second, a long term fix for the homeless we
could really benefit having a prison camp for the homeless. Just a plot of land that they are sent to when they break
the law. It would be locked up and patrolled so they can't leave until they are sober and ready to try and live as a
member of society. There are a lot of other parts to this plan. How could I start something like this?
10/1/2024 18:48 West side Public Public/General Comment Safety along the JRN River Trail! Remove the homeless along the JRN River Trail - Please!!! :) Sure nice when the
drug dealers and users are not on the Jordan River. Thank for all drivers paid $10/day for inconvenience from 4
months traffic diversion Redwood Rd and 300 N