HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/01/2024 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
WORK SESSION
October 1, 2024 Tuesday 2:00 PM
Council meetings are held in a hybrid meeting format. Hybrid meetings allow people to join online or in
person at the City & County Building. Learn more at www.slc.gov/council/agendas.
Council Work Room
451 South State Street, Room 326
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
SLCCouncil.com
7:00 pm Formal Meeting
Room 315
(See separate agenda)
Welcome and public meeting rules
In accordance with State Statute and City Ordinance, the meeting may be held electronically. After 5:00 p.m., please enter the
City & County Building through the main east entrance.
The Work Session is a discussion among Council Members and select presenters. The public is welcome to listen. Items
scheduled on the Work Session or Formal Meeting may be moved and / or discussed during a different portion of the Meeting
based on circumstance or availability of speakers.
The Website addresses listed on the agenda may not be available after the Council votes on the item. Not all agenda items will
have a webpage for additional information read associated agenda paperwork.
Generated: 09:42:21
Note: Dates not identified in the project timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. Item start
times and durations are approximate and are subject to change.
Work Session Items
1.Informational: Updates from the Administration ~ 2:00 p.m.
15 min.
The Council will receive information from the Administration on major items or projects
in progress. Topics may relate to major events or emergencies (if needed), services and
resources related to people experiencing homelessness, active public engagement efforts,
and projects or staffing updates from City Departments, or other items as appropriate.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Recurring Briefing
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
2.Capital City Revitalization Zone Participation Agreement,
Project Area, and Citywide 0.5% Sales and Use Tax Follow-up ~ 2:15 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive a follow-up briefing 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
3.Ordinance: Salt Lake City International Center Maximum
Fence Height Zoning Text Amendment ~ 2:45 p.m.
10 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend various sections of
Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to 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.
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
4.Ordinance: Zoning Map Amendment at Approximately 754
South State Street Follow-up ~ 2:55 p.m.
15 min.
The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about a proposal that would amend the
zoning of property at approximately 754 South State Street (former Sears site) from D-2
(Downtown Support District) to D-1 (Central Business District). The purpose of the
proposed amendment is to allow for the redevelopment of the property with an urban
hospital. The Council will also consider an ordinance that would amend the text of
Section 21A.33.050 of the Salt Lake City Code to add Hospitals (including accessory
lodging facility), and Ambulance Services (indoor & outdoor) as Conditional Uses in the
D-1 Central Business District. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to
another zoning district with similar characteristics. Petitioner: Kirton McConkie.(This
item is related to the proposed zoning text amendment for the D1 zone).
For more information on this item visit https://tinyurl.com/754StateStreetRezone.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, July 11, 2023; Tuesday, June 11, 2024; 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
5.Ordinance: Street and Alley Vacation and Subdivision
Amendment at Brooklyn Avenue ~ 3:10 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the Brooklyn and
Dolan subdivisions in order to vacate a portion of Brooklyn Avenue and an adjacent City-
owned alley. If approved, the section of Brooklyn Avenue would be divided and sold to
the property owners of 1005 and 1007 South 500 West according to the approved plat at
fair market value. The alley property would be sold at fair market value to the owner of
1007 South 500 West. The project is located within Council District 5. Petitioner: Jonah
Hornsby of Jodah One, LLC.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, October 1, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, October 15, 2024
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, November 12, 2024 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 19, 2024
6.Ordinance: Zoning Map Amendment at 1816 South State
Street ~ 3:30 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the zoning of the
property at 1816 South State Street from BP (Business Park) to CC (Corridor
Commercial). The proposal would allow the building at this site to be leased for
additional commercial uses. The request is supported by the Central Community Master
Plan. The project is located within Council District 5. Petitioner: Tiffanie Price, property
owner.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, October 1, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, October 15, 2024
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, November 12, 2024 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 19, 2024
7.Tentative Break ~ 3:50 p.m.
20 min.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -
Set Public Hearing Date -
Hold hearing to accept public comment -
TENTATIVE Council Action -
8. 2025-2029 Housing and Urban Development Consolidated
Plan Update and Timeline ~ 4:10 p.m.
45 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about creating the City’s next five-year Consolidated
Plan for 2025-2029 as required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD). The Consolidated Plan details the City’s goals and objectives that
prioritize how to spend four federal grants: Community Development Block Grants
(CDBG), Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG), Home Investment Partnerships, and
Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA).
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 - n/a
9.Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.1 for Fiscal Year 2024-25
Follow-up ~ 4:55 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about Budget Amendment No.1 for the
Fiscal Year 2024-25 Budget. Budget amendments happen several times each year to
reflect adjustments to the City’s budgets, including proposed project additions and
modifications. The proposed amendment includes three new full-time employee
positions in the Attorney's Office related to restructuring and moving the City
Prosecutor's team, Fleet Block pre-development work and demolition, a new line of
credit for the Airport Redevelopment Project, additional funding to several parks capital
improvement projects and new ongoing funding for maintenance of Public Lands
properties, among other items.
For more information visit tinyurl.com/SLCFY25.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, August 27, 2024; Tuesday, September 3, 2024; 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
10.Ordinance: Economic Development Loan Fund - Botanika
SLC, LLC ~ 5:15 p.m.
5 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about 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
11.Ordinance: Economic Development Loan Fund - Exotic Fast
Foods, LLC ~ 5:20 p.m.
5 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about 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
12.Ordinance: Economic Development Loan Fund - City Cakes
SLC, LLC ~ 5:25 p.m.
5 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about 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
13.Board Appointment: Planning Commission – McCall
Christensen ~ 5:30 p.m.
5 min
The Council will interview McCall Christensen prior to considering appointment 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
14.Board Appointment: Cultural Core Finance Committee – Seth
Brown ~ 5:35 p.m.
5 min
The Council will interview Seth Brown prior to considering appointment 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
15.Board Appointment: Library Board – Polina Konuchkova ~ 5:40 p.m.
5 min
The Council will interview Polina Konuchkova prior to considering appointment 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
Standing Items
16.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair -
-
Report of Chair and Vice Chair.
17.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director -
-
Report of the Executive Director, including a review of Council information items and
announcements. The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to
City Council business, including but not limited to:
•Mixed Use Zones; and
•Scheduling Items.
18.Tentative Closed Session -
-
The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session. A closed meeting described
under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including, but not limited to:
a. discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental
health of an individual;
b. strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining;
c. strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation;
d. strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property,
including any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the
transaction would:
(i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration; or
(ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best
possible terms;
e. strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water
right or water shares, if:
(i) public discussion of the transaction would:
(A) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration; or
(B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best
possible terms;
(ii) the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be
offered for sale; and
(iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body
approves the sale;
f. discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and
g. investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct.
A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to
Utah Code § 78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent
requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act.
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
On or before 2:00 p.m. 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.
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 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.
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: Brooklyn Avenue Street Vacation, Alley Vacation, and Subdivision Amendment
(PLNPCM2022-00068, PLNPCM2022-00349, PLNSUB2023-00493)
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will be briefed about a proposal to vacate an approximately 0.61-acre portion of Brooklyn
Avenue between 500West and the West Temple viaduct in City Council District Five. The road segment is
adjacent to the petitioner’s property at 1007 South 500 West as shown in the image below. In their
application, the petitioner cited a lack of maintenance, homeless encampments, and waste dumping as
reasons for the request. They also indicated a desire to develop their adjacent properties at some point in
the future.
During review of the street vacation application, Planning staff determined a City owned alley dividing the
petitioner’s property would need to be included in the request, since vacating the section of Brooklyn
Avenue would isolate the alley right-of-way.
In addition, a subdivision amendment is required when vacating a public right-of-way dedicated by a
subdivision. Planning staff discovered that vacating the street would require amendments to the Brooklyn
and Dolan subdivisions since the street is within both. The result is a combination of the street vacation,
alley vacation, and subdivision amendments for Council consideration. Each of these will be reviewed
separately in the additional information section below. Current area zoning is CG (General Commercial)
and the requests would not change that.
Vacating property such as a public street or alley removes the public interest in and ownership of that
right-of-way. The vacated property is then sold or transferred to private ownership. In this case, if
approved by the City Council, the street segment and alley would be sold to the adjacent property owners at
fair market value—which is determined by the Real Estate Services Division.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: October 1, 2024
Set Date: October 1, 2024
Public Hearing: October 15, 2024
Potential Action: November 5, 2024
Page | 2
The Planning Commission reviewed this petition at its December 13, 2023 meeting and held a public
hearing at which one person spoke in opposition citing concern about the ability for large trucks to turn
around without using Brooklyn Avenue. The Commission voted unanimously to forward positive
recommendations for all three petitions with the following recommendations.
Before a final plat is recorded, the applicant will record a 15-foot-wide perpetual easement along
the property lines abutting the storm sewer lines along the edge of the West Temple Viaduct right
of way as directed by the Department of Public Utilities.
After Brooklyn Avenue is officially vacated, City staff will record additional necessary sections of
the easement within the vacated right of way prior to the official transfer of ownership to the
applicant.
The applicant will enter into an agreement with the City (through whatever method the City
Council deems appropriate) that, upon any development of the Brooklyn Avenue right of way, they
will install curb and gutter, streetlights, and sidewalks along the property frontages of 500 West
and Fayette Avenue according to Street Typology 8 (found in the Street and Intersection Typologies
Design Guide).
The applicant will enter into an agreement with the City (through whatever method the City
Council deems appropriate) that, upon any development of the area within the Brooklyn Avenue
right of way, they will install a turnaround that meets the fire code requirements at the time of
development.
On the Final Plat, the lot line dividing Lot 1 and Lot 2 shall be adjusted so that Lot 2 (1007 South
500 West) meets the minimum lot width requirement of 60 feet within the CG General Commercial
Zoning District.
Aerial image showing proposed street vacation shaded in yellow and the alley in red.
The petitioner’s properties on either side of the alley are outlined in dark green, and adjacent property in blue.
Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division
Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed street and alley closures and subdivision amendments,
determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal.
Page | 4
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. The Council may wish to discuss the benefits and drawbacks of vacating the street and alley.
2. Is the Council supportive of the proposed requirements recommended by the Planning Commission
to be included in a development agreement?
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Street Vacation
The subject section of Brooklyn Avenue is approximately 198 feet long at its center point, and 85 feet wide.
Planning staff reviewed historical aerial photographs and stated “…it appears the right of way has remained
unimproved and unpaved since at least 1964, when I-15 was under construction.”
Brooklyn Avenue and 500 West both end near the petitioner’s properties and have very little vehicular
traffic. It should be noted that the segment of 500 West that connects to Brooklyn Avenue is not included
in the proposed street closure and would remain a City-owned right-of-way if the Brooklyn Avenue street
segment is vacated by the Council. Additionally, a different section of 500 West connects to Fayette Avenue
and continues south under Interstate-15 as shown in the lower left corner of the image above.
The street vacation process is dictated by Section 10-9a-609.5 Utah State Code which is included at the end of
this report for reference.
Alley Vacation
The subject alley is approximately 110 feet long and 13.25 feet wide, or about 1,450 square feet. During
review of the proposals, Planning staff analyzed historical aerial photographs and noted that the alley
appears to have existed only on paper and has not been used since at least 1999 and has essentially been
incorporated into the adjacent lots, though it is City property.
If the segment of Brooklyn Avenue is vacated, the alley would be surrounded by the petitioner’s property
on three sides, and the West Temple viaduct on the fourth, blocking access and rendering it unusable.
Alley vacations must satisfy one of the following policy considerations: Lack of Use, Public Safety, Urban
Design, and Community Purpose. The subject alley vacation request satisfies the Lack of Use policy
consideration.
Alley vacations are outlined in Section 14.52 of Salt Lake City Code which is included at the end of this
report for reference.
Subdivision Amendment
As discussed above, a subdivision amendment is required if a public right-of-way within a subdivision is
changed or removed. The subject section of Brooklyn Avenue was created from both the Brooklyn and
Dolan Subdivisions. The north 33 feet of the street (yellow section highlighted in the image below) was
platted in the Brooklyn Subdivision, and the south 33 feet (pink highlighted section) from the Dolan
Subdivision. That leaves 21 feet in the middle (blue highlighted section) that was not created from a
subdivision. It remains part of the Big Field Survey Plat and not included in a subdivision.
Planning staff worked with the City Surveyor to determine how the middle section of the road was not
included in a subdivision but could not definitively conclude how it happened. They surmised there was an
error when one of the subdivisions was created and this section was left out.
At the time the application was submitted, Chapter 20.28 Article III of Salt Lake City Code was applicable
to subdivision amendments involving streets. It is included at the end of this report for reference.
Page | 4
Salt Lake County plat map of Brooklyn Avenue right-of-way
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
Planning staff identified six key considerations during analysis of these proposals which are found on pages
6-9 of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis please see
the staff report.
Consideration 1 – Conditions Requested by Other City Departments
The following departments and divisions expressed concerns with the proposals. The petitioner worked
with City staff to mitigate these concerns and the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission
satisfy them.
Public Utilities – The street is necessary to access to storm sewer facilities located on the edge of the West
Temple Viaduct. To resolve the concerns, the petitioner and Public Utilities agreed that before the final plat
is recorded vacating the street, easements will be recorded along the edge of the West Temple Viaduct.
Engineering – The Engineering Division noted that the Brooklyn Avenue and the section of 500 West it is
connected to lack basic street infrastructure. The street surface is poor, and stormwater has nowhere to go.
The petitioner met with Engineering staff and agreed to install curb and gutter, streetlights, and sidewalks
on the property frontages of 500 West and Fayette Avenue upon development of Brooklyn Avenue. This
addresses Engineering’s concerns.
Fire and Transportation – Both the Fire Department and Transportation Division noted vacating Brooklyn
Avenue would leave the abutting segment of 500 West without an area for fire trucks and other large
vehicles to turn around. Dead end streets longer than 150 feet and necessary for fire truck access are
required by State code to have a turnaround that complies with the code. (Diagrams of compliant
turnarounds are found on page 7 of the Planning Commission staff report.)
Page | 5
The petitioner met with City staff and agreed to install a turnaround the meets fire code requirements upon
development of Brooklyn Avenue. This satisfies concerns raised by the Fire Department and
Transportation Division.
Consideration 2 – Features of Brooklyn Avenue
The Brooklyn Avenue features discussed in this consideration are outlined in the “Subdivision
Amendment” section above.
Consideration 3 – State Code Regarding Street Vacations
Utah State Code grants cities the authority to vacate streets. The City Council must determine good cause
exists for the vacation and that the public interest or any person will not be materially injured by the
vacation. Planning staff reviewed aerial images of the area which show the street has not been maintained
for at least 60 years. It is Planning staff’s opinion vacating the street will remove a maintenance burden
from the City in exchange for selling the street segment at market rate.
Consideration 4 – Factors to Consider
As noted above, the request to vacate the subject section of Brooklyn Avenue required three different
applications – street vacation, alley vacation, and subdivision amendment. Each application has its own
applicable factors or standards.
Planning staff reviewed standards for the CG (General Commercial) zoning district, street vacation, alley
vacation, and subdivisions. These are found on pages 44-57 of the Planning Commission staff report. It is
Planning’s opinion that the requests meet or will meet all applicable conditions if the Planning
Commission’s recommendations are requirements of approval.
Consideration 5 – Master Plan Compatibility
Planning staff reviewed the proposals’ alignment with the following City plans:
Downtown Master Plan (2016) Note: the Ballpark Station Area Plan defers long range planning in
the Granary District (where the properties are located) to the Downtown master Plan).
Plan Salt Lake (2015)
Transportation Major Street Plan (2018)
Transportation Master Plan (1996)
Given the subject street and alley location in the center of the freeway viaduct, there is little potential for
mid-block crossings and connectivity via alleys and other pedestrian rights-of-way called for in some of the
above listed plans.
It is Planning staff’s opinion that while the proposed street and alley vacations are not specifically
supported by the plans, they are not in opposition to the goals and initiatives outlined in the plans.
Consideration 6 – Compliance with Zoning Standards
Planning found that the proposed subdivision amendment meets all zoning standards except one: the
minimum lot width in the CG district. As noted above, the petitioner’s parcel at 1007 South 500 West is
divided into two lots by the alley proposed to be vacated. The eastern lot does not meet the minimum width
required in the CG district. The Planning Commission’s recommendation to adjust the lot line dividing the
lots so the eastern lot meets the minimum will resolve this issue.
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
February 2, 2022 – Petition to vacate the south half of Brooklyn Avenue submitted.
February-April 2022 – Planning staff worked with the applicant to remedy application deficiencies,
including submittal of the alley vacation petition.
April 6, 2022 – Petition deemed complete by Planning staff.
April 13, 2022 –
Page | 6
o Petition circulated to relevant City departments and divisions for review.
o 45-day notice sent to community councils.
o Early notification sent to neighbors within 300 feet of the development.
o Proposal posted on the online open house webpage.
May 11, 2022 – 45-day comment period for recognized organizations ends.
July-August 2022 – Applicant indicated the property owner to the north of Brooklyn Avenue would like
to join the petition and updated the request to include the entire street right-of-way.
August 1, 2022 – Updated materials submitted by applicant.
August 23, 2022 –
o Petition circulated to relevant City departments and divisions for review.
o Planning staff sent the 45-day required notice for recognized community organizations to the
community councils.
o Neighbors within 300 feet of the development were provided early notification.
o The online open house post was updated.
October 14, 2022 – Department of Public Utilities expressed concern over the proposed vacation.
November-December 2022 – Applicant and Public Utilities negotiated proposals for new easements.
February 2, 2023 – Applicant sent draft easement proposals to Public Utilities for review.
May 8, 2023 – After working with the City Surveyor to understand how Brooklyn Avenue was originally
created, Planning staff determined that a subdivision amendment (preliminary plat) must be included
with this request.
June 22, 2023 – Applicant submitted preliminary plat application for the subdivision amendment.
October 19, 2023 – Planning staff confirmed there is no opposition from relevant City departments to
the street or alley vacation.
October-November 2023 – Planning staff report development.
November 30, 2023 –
o Planning Commission public hearing notice mailed.
o Planning Commission public notice posted on City and State website and Planning Division
listserv.
December 1, 2023 – Public hearing notice sign posted on the property.
December 3, 2023 – Legal notice published in Salt Lake Tribune.
December 13, 2023 – Planning Commission held a public hearing and forwarded a unanimous positive
recommendation to the City Council for the proposed amendments.
December 2023-February 2024 – Draft ordinance developed by Planning staff.
February 2024 – Draft ordinance requested from Attorney’s Office.
o Planning staff noted during this time capacity in 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.
May 4, 2024 – Draft ordinance received from Attorney’s Office.
August 1, 2023 – Transmittal received in City Council Office.
STREET CLOSURE PROCESS
The street closure process is dictated by Section 10-9a-609.5 Utah State Code which is included below for
reference.
10-9a-609.5. Petition to vacate a public street.
(1)In lieu of vacating some or all of a public street through a plat or amended plat in accordance with
Sections 10-9a-603 through 10-9a-609, a legislative body may approve a petition to vacate a public
street in accordance with this section.
Page | 7
(2)A petition to vacate some or all of a public street or municipal utility easement shall include:
(a)the name and address of each owner of record of land that is:
(i)adjacent to the public street or municipal utility easement between the two nearest public
street intersections; or
(ii)accessed exclusively by or within 300 feet of the public street or municipal utility easement;
(b)proof of written notice to operators of utilities and culinary water or sanitary sewer facilities
located within the bounds of the public street or municipal utility easement sought to be vacated;
and
(c)the signature of each owner under Subsection (2)(a) who consents to the vacation.
(3)If a petition is submitted containing a request to vacate some or all of a public street or municipal
utility easement, the legislative body shall hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 10-9a-
208 and determine whether:
(a)good cause exists for the vacation; and
(b)the public interest or any person will be materially injured by the proposed vacation.
(4)The legislative body may adopt an ordinance granting a petition to vacate some or all of a public street
or municipal utility easement if the legislative body finds that:
(a)good cause exists for the vacation; and
(b)neither the public interest nor any person will be materially injured by the vacation.
(5)If the legislative body adopts an ordinance vacating some or all of a public street or municipal utility
easement, the legislative body shall ensure that one or both of the following is recorded in the office of
the recorder of the county in which the land is located:
(a)a plat reflecting the vacation; or
(b)(i)an ordinance described in Subsection (4); and
(ii)a legal description of the public street to be vacated.
(6)The action of the legislative body vacating some or all of a public street or municipal utility easement
that has been dedicated to public use:
(a)operates to the extent to which it is vacated, upon the effective date of the recorded plat or
ordinance, as a revocation of the acceptance of and the relinquishment of the municipality's fee in
the vacated public street or municipal utility easement; and
(b)may not be construed to impair:
(i)any right-of-way or easement of any parcel or lot owner;
(ii)the rights of any public utility; or
(iii)the rights of a culinary water authority or sanitary sewer authority.
(7)(a)A municipality may submit a petition, in accordance with Subsection (2), and initiate and
complete a process to vacate some or all of a public street.
(b)If a municipality submits a petition and initiates a process under Subsection (7)(a):
(i)the legislative body shall hold a public hearing;
(ii)the petition and process may not apply to or affect a public utility easement, except to the
extent:
(A)the easement is not a protected utility easement as defined in Section 54-3-27;
(B)the easement is included within the public street; and
(C)the notice to vacate the public street also contains a notice to vacate the easement; and
(iii)a recorded ordinance to vacate a public street has the same legal effect as vacating a public
street through a recorded plat or amended plat.
Page | 8
(8)A legislative body may not approve a petition to vacate a public street under this section unless the
vacation identifies and preserves any easements owned by a culinary water authority and sanitary
sewer authority for existing facilities located within the public street.
ALLEY CLOSURE PROCESS
The alley closure process is dictated by Chapter 14.52 Salt Lake City Code which is included below for reference.
14.52.010: DISPOSITION OF CITY'S PROPERTY INTEREST IN ALLEYS:
The City supports the legal disposition of Salt Lake City's real property interests, in whole or in part, with
regard to City owned alleys, subject to the substantive and procedural requirements set forth herein. (Ord.
24-02 § 1, 2002)
14.52.020: POLICY CONSIDERATIONS FOR CLOSURE, VACATION OR ABANDONMENT OF
CITY OWNED ALLEYS:
The City will not consider disposing of its interest in an alley, in whole or in part, unless it receives a
petition in writing which demonstrates that the disposition satisfies at least one of the following policy
considerations:
A. Lack Of Use: The City's legal interest in the property appears of record or is reflected on an applicable
plat; however, it is evident from an on site inspection that the alley does not physically exist or has been
materially blocked in a way that renders it unusable as a public right-of-way;
B. Public Safety: The existence of the alley is substantially contributing to crime, unlawful activity,
unsafe conditions, public health problems, or blight in the surrounding area;
C. Urban Design: The continuation of the alley does not serve as a positive urban design element; or
D. Community Purpose: The petitioners are proposing to restrict the general public from use of the alley
in favor of a community use, such as a neighborhood play area or garden. (Ord. 24-02 § 1, 2002)
14.52.030: PROCESSING PETITIONS:
There will be three (3) phases for processing petitions to dispose of City owned alleys under this section.
Those phases include an administrative determination of completeness; a public hearing, including a
recommendation from the Planning Commission; and a public hearing before the City Council.
A. Administrative Determination Of Completeness: The City administration will determine whether or
not the petition is complete according to the following requirements:
1. The petition must bear the signatures of no less than seventy five percent (75%) of the neighbors
owning property which abuts the subject alley property;
2. The petition must identify which policy considerations discussed above support the petition;
3. The petition must affirm that written notice has been given to all owners of property located in the
block or blocks within which the subject alley property is located;
4. A signed statement that the applicant has met with and explained the proposal to the appropriate
community organization entitled to receive notice pursuant to title 2, chapter 2.60 of this Code; and
5. The appropriate City processing fee shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule has been
paid.
B. Public Hearing And Recommendation From The Planning Commission: Upon receipt of a complete
petition, a public hearing shall be scheduled before the Planning Commission to consider the proposed
disposition of the City owned alley property. Following the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning
Commission shall make a report and recommendation to the City Council on the proposed disposition of
the subject alley property. A positive recommendation should include an analysis of the following factors:
1. The City Police Department, Fire Department, Transportation Division, and all other relevant City
departments and divisions have no reasonable objection to the proposed disposition of the property;
2. The petition meets at least one of the policy considerations stated above;
3. Granting the petition will not deny sole access or required off street parking to any property adjacent
to the alley;
4. Granting the petition will not result in any property being landlocked;
5. Granting the petition will not result in a use of the alley property which is otherwise contrary to the
policies of the City, including applicable master plans and other adopted statements of policy which
address, but which are not limited to, mid block walkways, pedestrian paths, trails, and alternative
transportation uses;
Page | 9
6. No opposing abutting property owner intends to build a garage requiring access from the property,
or has made application for a building permit, or if such a permit has been issued, construction has been
completed within twelve (12) months of issuance of the building permit;
7. The petition furthers the City preference for disposing of an entire alley, rather than a small segment
of it; and
8. The alley property is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to residences or for accessory
uses.
C. Public Hearing Before The City Council: Upon receipt of the report and recommendation from the
Planning Commission, the City Council will consider the proposed petition for disposition of the subject
alley property. After a public hearing to consider the matter, the City Council will make a decision on the
proposed petition based upon the factors identified above. (Ord. 22-19, 2019: Ord. 58-13, 2013: Ord. 24-11,
2011)
14.52.040: METHOD OF DISPOSITION:
If the City Council grants the petition, the City owned alley property will be disposed of as follows:
A. Low Density Residential Areas: If the alley property abuts properties which are zoned for low density
residential use, the alley will merely be vacated. For the purposes of this section, "low density residential
use" shall mean properties which are zoned for single-family, duplex or twin home residential uses.
B. High Density Residential Properties And Other Nonresidential Properties: If the alley abuts
properties which are zoned for high density residential use or other nonresidential uses, the alley will be
closed and abandoned, subject to payment to the City of the fair market value of that alley property, based
upon the value added to the abutting properties.
C. Mixed Zoning: If an alley abuts both low density residential properties and either high density
residential properties or nonresidential properties, those portions which abut the low density residential
properties shall be vacated, and the remainder shall be closed, abandoned and sold for fair market value.
(Ord. 24-02 § 1, 2002)
14.52.050: PETITION FOR REVIEW:
Any party aggrieved by the decision of the City Council as to the disposition of City owned alley property
may file a petition for review of that decision within thirty (30) days after the City Council's decision
becomes final, in the 3rd District Court. (Ord. 24-02 § 1, 2002)
SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT PROCESS
CHAPTER 20.28: SUBDIVISION AMENDMENTS
Staff Note: this section of City code was applicable at the time the application was submitted.
ARTICLE III. SUBDIVISION AMENDMENTS INVOLVING STREETS
20.28.100: PURPOSE AND AUTHORIZATION:
If the amendment petition involves closure, vacation (in whole or in part), alteration or amendment of any
public street, right of way, or easement, or the dedication of a private street to a public street, the
amendment petition shall be processed pursuant to the provisions of this article. (Ord. 7-14, 2014)
20.28.110: CITY INTERNAL REVIEW:
A. The planning director or designee shall transmit a copy of the preliminary plat to, and request
comments from, city departments and divisions that are part of the subdivision review process, as
determined by the planning director.
B. The division of transportation may, if the division determines that the proposed amendment
petition may have an adverse material impact on traffic, require the applicant to submit a
professionally prepared traffic impact study prior to the hearing on the application.
C. The departmental comments shall be transmitted to the petitioner. (Ord. 7-14, 2014)
20.28.120: PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING:
Page | 10
A. The planning commission shall hold a public hearing to consider the amendment petition and shall
provide a recommendation to the city council to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the
amendment according to the standards for preliminary plats set forth in section 20.16.100 of this
title.
B. Notice of the planning commission hearing shall be provided in accordance with noticing
requirements in chapter 20.36 of this title. (Ord. 7-14, 2014)
20.28.130: CITY COUNCIL HEARING:
A. The city council shall hold a public hearing to consider the amendment petition and shall either
approve, approve with conditions, or deny the amendment according to the standards for
preliminary plats set forth in section 20.16.100 of this title, and in the case of dedication of street
from private ownership to public ownership, according to the policies and standards found in title
14,c hapter 14.54 of this code.
B. A notice of public hearing before the Salt Lake City council shall be provided in accordance with
noticing requirements for public hearings ofc hapter 20.36 of this title. (Ord. 7-14, 2014)
20.28.140: RECORDABLE INSTRUMENT:
If the amendment petition is approved by the council, the final amended subdivision plat and such other
documents as may be required shall be executed by the planning director. The plat and documents shall be
recorded in the office of the county recorder either by the applicant or by the planning director. (Ord. 7-14,
2014)
20.28.150: APPEALS OF CITY COUNCIL DECISION:
Refer to chapter 20.48, "Appeals", of this title for information and regulations regarding filing an appeal of
a decision on subdivision amendments. (Ord. 7-14, 2014)
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: 1816 South State Street Zoning Map Amendment
PLNPCM2024-00033
The Council will be briefed about a proposal to amend the zoning map for an approximately 0.54-acre
parcel at 1816 South State Street from its current BP (Business Park) to CC (Corridor Commercial) zoning
district. A 5,700 square foot building is on the site and currently used as a vocational school for tattooing
and piercing.
The petitioner is not planning to redevelop the site but indicated a desire to lease the building for
additional commercial uses such as retail sales or a restaurant which are not allowed under current BP
zoning district unless they are approved as part of a business park planned development or when located
within a principal building and operated primarily for the convenience of employees.
This proposed zoning map amendment was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its April 24, 2024
meeting and a public hearing was held at which no one spoke. Planning staff recommended and the
Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council.
As shown in the map below, area zoning is predominately CC and BP for properties fronting State and
Main Streets. The subject parcel is adjacent to the O.C. Tanner campus to the south, and a single-story
office complex immediately to the west which are both in the BP zoning district. Properties on the south
side of Coatsville Avenue are zoned CC for commercial use, but with one exception, all are single-family
homes.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: October 1, 2024
Set Date: October 15, 2024
Public Hearing: November 12, 2024
Potential Action: November 19, 2024
Page | 2
Area zoning map with the subject parcel outlined in blue.
Note: the lavender shaded PL (Public Lands) parcel is the Salt Lake County Government campus.
Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning map amendments, determine if the Council supports
moving forward with the proposal.
POLICY QUESTION
1. The Council may wish to discuss rezoning the property to the proposed Corridor Commercial
zoning district and the potential for the property to be rezoned again in the near future with the
proposed citywide zoning consolidation. (Under the proposed zoning consolidation properties
zoned Corridor Commercial would be zoned MU-5 which has similar height and setback
requirements. A comparison of Corridor Commercial and the potential MU-5 zoning is available on
the information sheet at this link.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Page | 4
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 two key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 5-6 of the
Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the staff
report.
Consideration 1 – Compliance with General Plan Policies
Planning staff found that the proposed zoning map amendment supports initiatives in the Central
Community Master Plan (adopted in 2015, 10 years after the property was zoned BP). The plan designates
the subject property as “Community Commercial” to “provide for the close integration of moderately sized
commercial areas with adjacent residential neighborhoods.” It is Planning staff’s opinion that rezoning
the parcels to CC would be consistent with the plan’s guidance.
Consideration 2 – Community Benefit Policy
The subject zoning map amendment petition was deemed complete before the City Council adopted the
community benefit policy on March 5, 2024 so the petition is not subject to the new ordinance.
Attachment D (page 13) of the Planning Commission staff report includes a table comparing the zoning
districts. It is replicated below for convenience.
BP (Current)CC (Proposed)
Maximum Building Height 60 feet 30 feet by right, (45 feet
through design review)
Front Setback 30 feet 15 feet
No front yard setback is
required in the South State
Street Corridor Overlay district.
Corner Side Yard Setback 30 feet 15 feet
Interior Side Yard Setback 20 feet None required
Rear Setback 25 feet 10 feet
Minimum Lot Area 20,000 square feet 10,000 square feet
Minimum Lot Width 100 feet 75 feet
Buffering 30-foot landscape buffer
required when abutting a
residential district.
7-foot landscape buffer required
when abutting a residential
district.
Parking 1-2 off-street parking spaces 1-2 off-street parking spaces per
Page | 5
per dwelling unit required for
most housing types.
2 off-street parking spaces per
1,000 square feet required for
most commercial uses.
dwelling unit required for most
housing types.
2 off-street parking spaces per
1,000 square feet required for
most commercial uses.
Design Standards
Building Entrances -X
Parking Lot Lighting X X
Analysis of Standards
Attachment E (pages 16-18) 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.
Complies
The adequacy of public facilities and services
intended to serve the subject property, including, but
not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational
facilities, police and fire protection, schools,
stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and
wastewater and refuse collection.
Complies
City Department Review
During City review of the petitions, no responding departments or divisions expressed concerns with the
proposal but stated additional review, permits, and utility upgrades would be required if the property is
developed.
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
Page | 5
• January 10, 2024 – Application for zoning map amendment received by Planning Division.
• February 13, 2024 – Application deemed complete.
• February 22, 2024 – Petition assigned to Planning staff.
• February 29, 2024-
o Notice sent to Ballpark Community Council. 45-day comment period for recognized
community organizations begins. The community council did not provide comments.
o Early notification sent to residents and property owners within 300 feet of the project site.
• April 11, 2024 – Public hearing notice mailed and posted on City and State websites, and Planning
Division listserv.
• April 12, 2024 – Public hearing notice posted on the property.
• April 24, 2024 – The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal and held a public hearing. The
Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation of approval as proposed.
• April 25, 2024-Ordinance requested from City Attorney’s Office.
• May 7, 2024-Planning received signed ordinance from the Attorney’s Office.
• June 4, 2024-Transmittal received in City Council Office.
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke, Senior Analyst
DATE:October 1, 2024
RE: 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan for U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development
(HUD) Grants
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The four HUD annual grant programs are some of the most significant ongoing funding sources the City receives
from the Federal Government. HUD requires the City to update the consolidated plan every five years. The
Administration estimates that the City could receive $27 million across the four grants during the 2025-2029
Consolidated Plan period, and several million dollars of program income could also be generated.
The initial briefing on October 1 will provide an update the Council on the process for creating the 2025-2029
Consolidated Plan and an opportunity to provide feedback and policy guidance before a draft plan is developed.
The final adopted plan must be provided to HUD by May 15, 2025. The Council may wish to review and provide
policy guidance on the preliminary goals and underlying strategies (determine program and project eligibility to
receive the HUD grant funds), the proposed target area changes, and increasing the minimum funding award.
These three topic areas are explored in more detail below.
After the briefing, the next steps are to incorporate feedback from the Council, internal and external
stakeholders, community comments, and survey responses. The Administration anticipating transmitting a draft
consolidated plan to the Council early next year. The Council could review that draft plan before or in tandem
with the FY2026 annual HUD grants applications.
Preliminary Goals and Supporting Strategies; Balancing Specificity vs Flexibility
(See Attachment 1 Comparing 2020-2024 and Preliminary 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan Goals & Strategies)
The annual Council appropriations in the spring (One Year Action Plan) for the four grants should advance the
goals and supporting strategies in the consolidated plan. If a city does not adequately fund applications
advancing the five-year plan, then HUD could view the program as underperforming, lower future grant award
amounts, and/or audit the city’s program. The goals are broad policy categories and have several supporting
strategies as ways to achieve those goals. The strategies try to balance specific achievable and measurable
performance with flexibility to meet evolving community needs. The Council may wish to discuss with the
Administration whether the preliminary goals achieve the right balance between specificity vs flexibility.
Overall, there are more preliminary strategies for 2025-2029 than in the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. There is
one new proposed goal for Business and Workforce Development. The Behavioral Health goal is proposed to be
removed. However, the behavioral health services could still be covered under the Housing strategy #1 (Improve
and expand tenant resources and services), and Homeless Services strategy #6 (Invest in programs offering
wraparound services beyond the shelter system), including medical and dental care.
Project Timeline:
1st Briefing: October 1, 2024
2nd Briefing: TBD
Potential Adoption Vote: TBD / Spring 2025
Page | 2
Some strategies are proposed to shift between goals. For example, the façade improvement program would shift
from the Community Resiliency goal to the new Business and Workforce Development goal as strategy #6.
Similarly, rent assistance would shift from the Housing goal to the Homeless Services goal as strategy #1.
Some strategies are new in response to community needs after the pandemic. For example, Business and
Workforce Development strategy #5 would support neighborhood-level small businesses and nonprofits through
subsidized lease programs. Also new is Transportation strategy #2 that would fund 50/50 sidewalk programs for
businesses and expand ADA curb cuts on more streets to improve accessibility.
Proposed Target Area Expansion
The Council has flexibility to set target areas as narrowly or broadly as desired. Similarly, the Council could
select different target areas for different goals or strategies. At the time of publishing this staff report, the
Administration was preparing a map (expected to be available for the October 1 briefing) to show the 2020-2024
target area, the proposed 2025-2029 target area, and the CDBG eligible low-to-moderate-income census tracts.
Attachment 1 identifies which strategies would be subject to the target area as shown in the right-most column.
The Administration is proposing to expand the target area with the following boundary adjustments:
- Expand from 300 North to 1000 North
- Expand from Redwood Road to Interstate 215 (I-215)
- Slight expansion from 2100 South to the southern city limit between I-215 and the Surplus Canal
- Slight expansion from a staggered boundary along State Street / 200 East to instead run along 300 East
from 2100 to 1300 South
- Removing parts of the Central Ninth and Granary District between 400 South and 900 South
- Adding parts of western downtown and the Marmalade neighborhoods
The target area creates geographic boundaries for funding physical improvements such as for economic
development and public infrastructure. Historically, these applications were included in the CDBG
Neighborhood Improvements category on the funding log. Examples of these project types includes small local
business façade improvement grants, sidewalk repair / replacement, bus stop amenities, and creation of ADA
ramps. The geographic target area does not apply to housing, public services, or homeless services category
applications.
The 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan target area focused resources in the Central Ninth, North Liberty Wells, and
Poplar Grove neighborhoods. The 2020-2024 target area expanded to include the Glendale, Ballpark, and
Fairpark neighborhoods. These neighborhoods were identified through an extensive process that analyzed local
poverty rates, low and moderate-income households, neighborhood conditions, and available resources.
Focusing federal grants in these target areas was intended to maximize community impact and stimulate
investments from other entities into the neighborhoods.
Increasing the $30,000 Minimum Funding Award
The Council requested the Administration explore raising the minimum funding award during annual grant
award deliberations in the spring. The current minimum of $30,000 was established several years ago after
consultations with applicants. At the time, HUD recommended a $35,000 minimum. The intent of this policy is
to balance the burden for the Administration and recipient organizations to manage grant funds with
maximizing delivery of community benefits. The Administration has not yet recommended a specific
minimum funding award increase and welcomes feedback from the Council on where is best
within the $30,000 - $80,000 range identified from a survey of grant recipients. The midpoint
between this range is $55,000.
The Housing Stability Division surveyed all current and recent HUD grant recipients. At the time of publishing
this staff report the survey had received 34 responses. The vast majority of survey responses supported some
increase to the minimum funding award. The responses provided a range from keeping the current minimum
funding award of $30,000 to increasing it to $80,000. Some recipients preferred no increase to the minimum to
allow smaller awards to more agencies. It’s important to note that the City’s total CDBG, ESG, and HOME
annual grant funding from HUD have been flat for years and this trend is likely to continue. Therefore, raising
the minimum funding award without a corresponding increase in the total grant awards would result in large
awards to fewer recipients. Other recipients preferred more than doubling the minimum to help agencies with
greater operating costs to account for the impacts of inflation since the current minimum was established several
years ago. The Administration plans to recommend a higher minimum funding award as part of the draft 2025-
2029 Consolidated Plan early next year.
Page | 3
POLICY QUESTIONS
1.Goals and Strategies Add, Remove, or Modify – The Council may wish to discuss whether the
proposed goals and strategies reflect the community needs of today and over the next five years? Are any
needs missing, should be removed, or should the proposed language be modified?
2.Target Area Boundary Changes – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration whether
the expanded target area causes potential geographic equity impacts. For example, a smaller target area
concentrates benefits for low-to-moderate-income residents while a broader area could dilute those
benefits for more residents across a wider area. The Council may also wish to ask the Administration why
the Central Ninth and Granary District between 400 South and 900 South are proposed to be excluded
from the target area.
3.Higher Minimum Funding Award – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration
whether and by how much to raise the $30,000 minimum funding award. The Council requested the
Administration explore raising the minimum funding award during annual grant award deliberations in
the spring.
4.Transportation Strategy #2: Fund 50/50 sidewalk programs for businesses and expand
ADA curb cuts on more streets to improve accessibility – The Council may wish to discuss
whether the strategy should be limited to businesses and/or income qualified residential property owners.
The Council previously discussed in CIP a preference for the City’s 50/50 sidewalk program to allow
income-qualified residents to have CDBG cover some or all the resident’s 50% cost share. The strategy as
currently written does not include residents and would instead use CDBG to cover 50% of the cost for
businesses sidewalk repair and replacement costs. The City’s 50/50 sidewalk cost share program is
currently only available to residents. Commercial properties are 100% responsible for the costs. Changing
this may require amending City Code. The Council may also wish to discuss whether ADA curb cuts should
be subject to the target area or not.
5.Consolidating Community Services Strategies #2 and #3 for Childcare, Afterschool
Programs, and Parental Support – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration
consolidating Community Services strategies #2 and #3 and adding afterschool programs. The Council in
recent policy discussion highlighted childcare as a high priority community need. Strategy #3 could be
considered overly vague which states “help parents support the care they need.” Some Council Members
have also commented that afterschool programs double as childcare and learning and social education for
children.
6.Commercial Assistance Gaps & Overlaps between Department Programs – The Council may
wish to discuss to ask the Administration for a status update on identifying gaps and overlaps between the
City’s several existing and proposed commercial assistance programs. The Council received a recent
briefing about the RDA’s five commercial assistance programs (two are pending creation and two existing
are pending policy changes), the Economic Development Loan Fund or EDLF, and programs offered by
other levels of government. The preliminary Business and Workforce Development goal includes multiple
strategies that would provide commercial assistance. Some appear to fill a gap while others could
duplicate other programs.
7.Transition Year – The Council may wish to ask the Administration how the application and funding
award process will be different during the current transition year. Applications to receive funds under the
2025 – 2029 Consolidated Plan are being submitted before the Council adopts that new plan, and it is
possible that some will end up ineligible for future awards based on the final consolidated plan. This
situation also occurred when the last two consolidated plans were updated. At that time the
Administration identified specific non-profit organizations that would be impacted by the shift to
geographic target areas, and helped them identify either alternative funding sources, or tailor applications
to fit within that geographic target area.
8.Evaluating the 2020 – 2024 Consolidated Plan – The Council may wish to ask the Administration
how the City performed under the 2020 – 2024 Consolidated Plan’s goals and objectives, and what
metrics are used. HUD requires a Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) to
look at goals and outcomes which could help inform what elements of the current plan were successful or
should be changed.
ADDITIONAL INFO AND BACKGROUND
Page | 5
Timeline to Develop 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan
The Housing Stability shared the below tentative timeline for creating the new plan:
- March 2024 through July 2024 – Data collection and analysis
- May 2024 – Begin community engagement (ongoing for several months)
- June 2024 – Begin public, community partner agency consultations
- July & August 2024 – Convene internal and external stakeholder groups for in-depth discussions
(ongoing for a few months)
- October 2024 – Midpoint check in briefing with Council on preliminary goals, strategies, and
policies
- Winter 2024 / 2025 – Create a draft plan incorporating consultations and community input
- April 2025 – Adoption of Consolidated Plan in tandem with annual grant award allocations
Amending a Consolidated Plan Midway through the Five-years Term
The Administration provided the below timeline summarizing steps to amend a consolidated plan during the
five-year term. The total number of days is 133. Some of these days could overlap and some items could be
processed faster or slower depending on circumstances. The timeline does not reflect Council briefings which
could lengthen the time to update a plan depending on the number of Council policy discussions needed.
- 30 days: HAND write up the Substantial Amendment
- 30 days: Public Comment Period
- 14 days: Council Public Hearing
- 14 days: HAND staff compiling info for submittal to HUD
- 45 days: HUD Approval of Substantial Amendment
Summary of the Four Annual HUD Grants
Below are short summaries of the four grants. Note that each grant category allows a small percentage of funds
to be awarded to City departments for costs related to managing the programs. The four grant categories guided
by the consolidated plan are:
Community Development and Block Grant (CDBG)
CDBG funds focus on community development with an emphasis on physical improvements. The Community
Development & Capital Improvement Programs Advisory Board (CDCIP) submits funding recommendations for
this grant. CDBG funds are allocated to organizations in four categories:
- City Administration (limited to 20% of the annual grant award)
- Housing
- Neighborhood Improvements: transportation and economic development infrastructure (subject to
target area)
- Public Services (limited to 15% of the annual grant award)
Public Services
This category is directed to services for individuals in need and not necessarily to physical improvements. This is
typically the most competitive category. Funding is awarded to non-profits and governmental entities that
provide programming to meet the Consolidated Plan’s goals. This category is limited to 15% of the annual CDBG
award. Typically, the Mayor recommends funding requests that add up to the 15% maximum. As a result, if the
Council would like to allocate money to any application beyond the Mayor’s recommended funding in this
category, then those funds must be shifted from another public services application. This category is the most
impacted by the minimum funding award constraint.
Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG)
ESG funds focus on preventing homelessness and providing services to persons experiencing homelessness. The
Community Development & Capital Improvement Programs Advisory Board (CDCIP) submits funding
recommendations for this grant. ESG funds are allocated to organizations providing services in three categories:
- City Administration (limited to 7.5% of the annual grant award)
- Street Outreach and Emergency Shelter (Part 1 and limited to 60% of the annual grant award)
- Homelessness Prevention, Rapid Re-Housing, Homeless Management Information Systems (HMIS)
(Part 2)
Page | 6
HOME Investment Partnership
HOME Investment Partnership focuses on expanding the supply of quality affordable housing for low-to-
moderate-income residents. The Community Development & Capital Improvement Programs Advisory Board
(CDCIP) submits funding recommendations for this grant. HUD mandates 15% of the annual grant award go to
community housing development organizations (CHDO). There are several requirements for CHDO status
including annual certification with the City, be a private nonprofit organization, and who serves on the
governing board. The requirements are sometimes perceived as onerous such as an annual recertification
process. No new agencies have been certified as a CHDO in recent years. This challenge has been observed
nationally and is not unique to Salt Lake City. Partially in response to these challenges, Congress has suspended
the 24-month spending deadline for CHDO funds. The Council provided policy guidance for CHDO funds to be
added to the RDA’s annual affordable housing development NOFA to try and help utilize the funding. No
qualifying applications applied in the last NOFA. If CHDO funds are unable to be awarded to qualifying
organizations within 24 months, then the funds can be recaptured and made available the following program
year for use on the broader HOME-eligible expenses.
Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA)
HOPWA is the only federal program dedicated entirely to the housing needs of people living with HIV/AIDS.
The Community Development & Capital Improvement Programs Advisory Board (CDCIP) submits funding
recommendations for this grant.
Program Income
CDBG and HOME funding is used for a few programs that generate income typically repayment of low or no
interest loans. The amounts can fluctuate such as when someone decides to payback a loan early. The programs
that generate income include downpayment assistance, first-time homebuyer mortgages, and certain
rehabilitation programs. Program income is still subject to HUD regulations and the City’s consolidated plan.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Comparing 2020-2024 and Preliminary 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan Goals and Strategies
ACRONYMS
AMI – Area Median Income
CDBG – Community Development Block Grant
CDCIP – Community Development and Capital Improvement Programs Advisory Board
CHDO – Community Housing Development Organization
ESG – Emergency Solutions Grant
FTE – Full time employee
FY – Fiscal Year
HOME – HOME Investment Partnership Program
HOPWA – Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS
HUD – U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
LMI – Low-to-Moderate Income
NOFA – Notice of Funding Availability
RDA – Redevelopment Agency
TBRA – Tenant-Based Rental Assistance
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 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/.
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/.
City Council Announcements
October 1, 2024
For Your Information
A. Updated Mixed Use Zones Info Sheets
The Planning Division has updated information sheets on the six proposed
mixed-use zones. They, along with other information about the project including
an interactive map, can be found at www.bit.ly/MUconsolidation.
:
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
SWORN STATEMENT SUPPORTING CLOSURE OF MEETING
I, , acted as the presiding member of the Salt Lake Council, which met on
in an electronic meeting pursuant to Salt Lake City Proclamation.
Appropriate notice was given of the Council's meeting as required by §52-4-202.
A quorum of the Council was present at the meeting and voted by at least a two-thirds vote, as detailed in the minutes of
the open meeting, to close a portion of the meeting to discuss the following:
§52-4-205(l)(a) discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of anindividual;
§52 -4-205(1)(b) strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining;
§52-4-205(l)(c) strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation;
§52-4-205(l)(d) strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property, including
any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the transaction would: (i) disclose the
appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (ii) prevent the public body from
completing the transaction on the best possible terms;
§52-4-205(l)(e) strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water right
or water shares if: (i) public discussion of the transaction would: (A) disclose the appraisal or estimated
value of the property under consideration; or (B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction
on the best possible terms; (ii) if the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be
offered for sale; and (iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body approves the
sale;
§52-4-205(1)(f) discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and
§52-4-205(1)(g) investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct.
A Closed Meeting may also be held for Attorney-Client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah Code
§78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of the Utah Open andPublic Meetings Act.
Other, described as follows:
The content of the closed portion of the Council meeting was restricted to a discussion of the matter(s) for which the
meeting was closed.
With regard to the closed meeting, the following was publicly announced and recorded, and entered on the minutes of the
open meeting at which the closed meeting was approved:
(a)the reason or reasons for holding the closed meeting;
(b)the location where the closed meeting will be held; and
(c)the vote of each member of the public body either for or against the motion to hold the closed meeting.
The recording and any minutes of the closed meeting will include:
(a) the date, time, and place of the meeting;
(b)the names of members Present and Absent; and
(c) the names of all others present except where such disclosure would infringe on the confidentiality
necessary to fulfill the original purpose of closing the meeting.
Pursuant to §52-4-206(6), a sworn statement is required to close a meeting under §52-4-205(1)(a) or (f), but a record by
electronic recording or detailed minutes is not required; and Pursuant to §52-4-206(1), a record by electronic recording
and/or detailed written minutes is required for a meeting closed under §52-4-205(1)(b),(c),(d),(e),and (g):
A record was not made.
A record was made by: Electronic recording Detailed written minutes
I hereby swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the above information is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge.
Presiding Member Date of Signature
October 1, 2024Victoria Petro
Victoria Petro (Dec 5, 2024 14:52 MST)
Sworn Statement October 1, 2024 Work
Session
Final Audit Report 2024-12-05
Created:2024-11-04
By:STEPHANIE ELLIOTT (STEPHANIE.ELLIOTT@slc.gov)
Status:Signed
Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAAw4JpgVuaL0wcQD9NI8GuFydE9hVeZisW
"Sworn Statement October 1, 2024 Work Session" History
Document created by STEPHANIE ELLIOTT (STEPHANIE.ELLIOTT@slc.gov)
2024-11-04 - 5:26:14 PM GMT
Document emailed to victoria.petro@slcgov.com for signature
2024-11-04 - 5:27:18 PM GMT
Email viewed by victoria.petro@slcgov.com
2024-11-05 - 5:15:01 AM GMT
STEPHANIE ELLIOTT (STEPHANIE.ELLIOTT@slc.gov) added alternate signer victoria.petro@slc.gov. The
original signer victoria.petro@slcgov.com can still sign.
2024-11-05 - 11:04:09 PM GMT
Document emailed to victoria.petro@slc.gov for signature
2024-11-05 - 11:04:10 PM GMT
Email viewed by victoria.petro@slc.gov
2024-11-07 - 7:34:31 PM GMT
Email viewed by victoria.petro@slc.gov
2024-11-08 - 5:39:08 AM GMT
Email viewed by victoria.petro@slc.gov
2024-11-09 - 0:16:15 AM GMT
Email viewed by victoria.petro@slc.gov
2024-11-11 - 12:32:07 PM GMT
Email viewed by victoria.petro@slc.gov
2024-11-17 - 6:58:13 PM GMT
Email viewed by victoria.petro@slc.gov
2024-11-18 - 3:03:56 PM GMT
Email viewed by victoria.petro@slc.gov
2024-11-19 - 12:24:33 PM GMT
Email viewed by victoria.petro@slc.gov
2024-11-20 - 4:09:19 AM GMT
Email viewed by victoria.petro@slc.gov
2024-11-25 - 4:41:50 AM GMT
Email viewed by victoria.petro@slc.gov
2024-11-26 - 4:46:19 AM GMT
Email viewed by victoria.petro@slc.gov
2024-11-27 - 1:58:48 PM GMT
Email viewed by victoria.petro@slc.gov
2024-11-28 - 7:14:53 PM GMT
Email viewed by victoria.petro@slc.gov
2024-11-30 - 5:22:59 AM GMT
Email viewed by victoria.petro@slc.gov
2024-12-02 - 9:56:41 AM GMT
STEPHANIE ELLIOTT (STEPHANIE.ELLIOTT@slc.gov) added alternate signer Chris Wharton
(Chris.Wharton@slc.gov). The original signer victoria.petro@slc.gov can still sign.
2024-12-02 - 6:51:09 PM GMT
Document emailed to Chris Wharton (Chris.Wharton@slc.gov) for signature
2024-12-02 - 6:51:09 PM GMT
Email viewed by Chris Wharton (Chris.Wharton@slc.gov)
2024-12-03 - 6:39:42 AM GMT
Email viewed by Chris Wharton (Chris.Wharton@slc.gov)
2024-12-04 - 7:56:09 AM GMT
Email viewed by Chris Wharton (Chris.Wharton@slc.gov)
2024-12-05 - 7:23:48 AM GMT
Signer victoria.petro@slc.gov entered name at signing as Victoria Petro
2024-12-05 - 9:52:02 PM GMT
Document e-signed by Victoria Petro (victoria.petro@slc.gov)
Signature Date: 2024-12-05 - 9:52:05 PM GMT - Time Source: server
Agreement completed.
2024-12-05 - 9:52:05 PM GMT