HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/04/2025 - Formal Meeting - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
REVISED AGENDA
FORMAL MEETING
February 4, 2025 Tuesday 7:00 PM
Council meetings are held in a hybrid meeting format. Hybrid meetings allow people to join online or in person at
the City & County Building. Learn more at tinyurl.com/SLCCouncilMeetings.
Council Chambers
451 South State Street, Room 315
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
SLCCouncil.com
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Chris Wharton, Chair
District 3
Alejandro Puy, Vice Chair
District 2
Victoria Petro
District 1
Eva Lopez Chavez
District 4
Darin Mano
District 5
Dan Dugan
District 6
Sarah Young
District 7
Generated: 08:58:03
Please note: Dates not identified in the FYI - Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet
determined.
WELCOME AND PUBLIC MEETING RULES
A.OPENING CEREMONY:
1.Council Member Darin Mano will conduct the formal meeting.
2.Pledge of Allegiance.
3.Welcome and Public Meeting Rules.
4.The Council will approve the work session meeting minutes of January 7, 2025 as
well as the formal meeting minutes of November 19, 2024; December 3, 2024;
and December 10, 2024.
5.The Council will consider adopting a joint ceremonial resolution with Mayor
Mendenhall recognizing February as Black History Month in Salt Lake City.
B.PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Items B1 – B10 will be heard as one public hearing.
1. Grant Application: Low Carbon Transportation Materials Grant
The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the
Department of Engineering to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Low-Carbon
Transportation Materials (LCTM) program. If awarded, the grant objective is to support
the use of construction materials, products, and treatments that have much lower levels
of carbon associated with the production stage as compared to industry averages of
similar materials or products.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - n/a
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, February 4, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent
agenda.
2. Grant Application: Restoration of Wetlands, Utah Pollinator Habitat
Program
The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the
Department of Public Lands to Housing and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.
If awarded, the grant would fund the Increase of floral resources for Monarchs and
Bumble Bees with the Utah Pollinator Habitat Program.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - n/a
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, February 4, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent
agenda.
3. Grant Application: Utah Department of Natural Resources, Forestry Fire
and State Lands Grant
The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the
Department of Public Lands to the Utah Department of Natural Resources/Forestry Fire
and State Lands. If awarded, the grant would fund the Jordan River invasive species
control and restoration project.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - n/a
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, February 4, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent
agenda.
4. Grant Application: Wakara Way Reconstruction Surface Transportation
Program
The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the
Department of Public Services to the Wasatch Front Regional Council. If awarded, the
grant would fund reconstruction that will address poor pavement and street flooding,
while adding safer bikeways and more continuous sidewalks.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - n/a
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, February 4, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent
agenda.
5. Grant Application: Highland Roundabout
The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the
Department of Transportation to the Wasatch Front Regional Council. If awarded, the
grant would fund the conversion of a traffic signal at 1700 East and 2100 South to a
roundabout to reduce speeds, delays, emissions, and air pollution, and to provide a better
connection to a future shared-use path on the southwest corner.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - n/a
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, February 4, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent
agenda.
6. Grant Application: GREENBike Capital Care
The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the
Department of Transportation to the Wasatch Front Regional Council. If awarded, the
grant would fund the replacement of five GREENbike stations and 58 eBikes.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - n/a
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, February 4, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent
agenda.
7. Grant Application: Carbon Reduction Program
The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the
Department of Transportation to the Wasatch Front Regional Council. If awarded, the
grant would fund the addition of water-wise street trees and plants along blocks of the
City's 9-Line Trail, which would help to reduce carbon dioxide.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - n/a
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, February 4, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent
agenda.
8. Grant Application: Beehive Bikeways
The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the
Department of Transportation to the Wasatch Front Regional Council. If awarded, the
grant would fund a comprehensive, destination-based, way-finding approach to ensure
that bicyclists know how to get to where they want to go.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - n/a
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, February 4, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent
agenda.
9. Grant Application: Better Connections for a Great Street – South Temple
The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the
Department of Transportation to the Wasatch Front Regional Council. If awarded, the
grant would fund the improvement of crossings and rights-of-way at offset intersections
between the Avenues neighborhood and areas to the south. South Temple’s role in the
Green Loop will also be evaluated.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - n/a
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, February 4, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent
agenda.
10. Grant Application: Assistance to Firefighters Grant
The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Fire
Department to FEMA, Department of Homeland Security. If awarded, the grant would
fund the replacement of five AED devices and seven CPR devices, bringing the
department into compliance with the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
standards.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - n/a
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, February 4, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent
agenda.
11. Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.3 for Fiscal Year 2024-25
The Council will accept public comment and consider an ordinance amending the final
budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year
2024-25. The proposed amendment includes infrastructure development on the Fleet
Block, several vehicles for various City operations, including a Justice Bus (mobile
courtroom), and protecting the Great Salt Lake watershed, among other items.
For more information visit tinyurl.com/SLCFY25.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, January 21, 2025 and Tuesday, February 4, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, January 21, 2025
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, February 4, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, February 18, 2025
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
C.POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS:
NONE.
D.COMMENTS:
1.Questions to the Mayor from the City Council.
2.Comments to the City Council. (This is a one-hour time slot for the public to
comment on any City business not scheduled for a public hearing. Each person
will have two minutes to talk. General comment registration closes at 7:30 p.m.)
E.NEW BUSINESS:
1. Ordinance: Economic Development Loan Fund - Himalayan Kitchen
The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would approve a $350,000 loan for
Gorkha Enterprises, doing business as Himalayan Kitchen at 1388 South 300 West, Suite
350 from the Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF). Himalayan Kitchen is a
downtown restaurant specializing in Indian and Nepali food. This loan will assist in the
creation of 15 new jobs in the next year and the retention of five current jobs.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, February 4, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, February 4, 2025
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
F.UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
1. Resolution: Collective Bargaining for the Salt Lake City Public Library Board
The Council will consider approving the collective bargaining resolution adopted by the
Salt Lake City Public Library on December 16, 2024 January 29, 2025. The resolution
would enable the Library to begin a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) process with
a union following a vote by employees to form a union formally.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, January 21, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, February 4, 2025
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
G.CONSENT:
1. Ordinance Confirmation: Zoning Map Amendments at Approximately 2760,
2800, and 2828 North 2200 West
The Council will confirm the adoption of Ordinance 33 of 2024 as filed with the City
Recorder’s office that would amend the zoning of properties at approximately 2760,
2800, and 2828 North 2200 West from AG-2 (Agricultural District) to M-1 (Light
Manufacturing District). The development agreement execution condition outlined in
Ordinance 33 of 2024 is hereby reset to February 4, 2026.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - n/a
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, February 4, 2025
Staff Recommendation - Approve.
2. Board Appointment: Business Advisory Board – Alyn Toalepai
The Council will consider approving the appointment of Alyn Toalepai to the Business
Advisory Board for a term ending December 31, 2029.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, February 4, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, February 4, 2025
Staff Recommendation - Approve.
H.ADJOURNMENT:
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
On or before 3:00 p.m. on Monday, February 3, 2025, 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.
KEITH REYNOLDS
SALT LAKE CITY RECORDER
Final action may be taken in relation to any topic listed on the agenda, including but
not limited to adoption, rejection, amendment, addition of conditions and variations
of options discussed.
The City & County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests for
reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary
aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request,
please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slc.gov, 801-535-7600, or relay service
711.
JOINT RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING FEBRUARY 2025 AS BLACK HISTORY
MONTH IN SALT LAKE CITY
WHEREAS, Black History Month is a time to celebrate the far-reaching contributions
made by Black Americans throughout our country’s history, that have
shaped our nation and our city for the better; and
WHEREAS, in 1926, Dr. Carter G. Woodson and the Association for the Study of Negro
Life and History, which he co-founded, planted the seeds of Black History
Month when they declared the second week of February “Negro History
Week;” and
WHEREAS, building upon the work of Dr. Carter G. Woodson, Black educators,
students, and the Black United Students group at Kent State University first
proposed Black History Month in 1969. In 1970, they organized the first
celebration of Black History Month; and
WHEREAS, in 1976, President Gerald Ford recognized Black History Month as a time for
Americans to “honor the too-often neglected accomplishments of Black
Americans in every area of endeavor throughout our history;” and
WHEREAS, contributions by Black Americans have influenced all facets of society. From
culture to religion, from education to business and public service, our nation
has been shaped by their efforts; and
WHEREAS, recognizing Black History Month must not change based on political or
social trends; and
WHEREAS, we are honored to recognize and celebrate the heritage, perseverance, and
achievements of Black Americans in our nation's history. Their struggle is
an American struggle, and we recognize that at its core, this struggle
reflects upon our society; and
WHEREAS, in Salt Lake City and Utah, we have many heroes to admire and learn from.
From the trailblazers of the past to the leaders of the present, and even the
luminaries of the future.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
that Salt Lake City recognizes the month of February as Black History
Month and the importance of Black History Month as an opportunity to
reflect on the complex history of the United States while approaching the
future with confidence and optimism.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED
that the Salt Lake City Council and Mayor of Salt Lake City remain
unwavering in our commitment to dismantling racial inequality while
advancing equity and justice for all.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED
that Salt Lake City is committed to expanding upon the progress made
throughout Black history to ensure a positive Black future. History is in the
making, and if we work together to make our today better than yesterday,
our tomorrow will be that much brighter.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED
the theme for Black History Month 2025 is “African Americans and Labor.”
We have the opportunity and responsibility to not only reflect on the
adversity overcome, but to also make the present a time where Black
Americans equitably excel and thrive in the workforce and all aspects of life.
Adopted this _____ day of February 2025.
Items B1 – B10
Page 1
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst
DATE:February 4, 2025
RE: MOTION SHEET FOR PUBLIC HEARING
________________________________________________________________________________
The Council will conduct a Public Hearing and may consider the following motion:
Motion 1 – Close and Refer
I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and refer Item B-1 and B-10 to a
future Consent Agenda for action.
Project Timeline:
Public Hearing: February 4, 2025
NEW GRANT APPLICATIONS
February 4, 2025 PUBLIC HEARING
City Match
Required?
Number of
FTEs
Requested
Grant Title Grant Purpose Status Annual
Grant
Total Grant
and FTE
Amount
Funding
Agency
Requested By
1.No.3 New
FTE’s
Leading the Way:
Developing Low-
Carbon
Transportation
Materials for Salt Lake
City
Fund efforts to
mainstream the use of
low-carbon
transportation materials
in Utah.
Needs
Public
Hearing
No.$19,119,105 Federal
Highway
Administra
tion
Engineering
2.Yes. $341,343
Source: Most
likely from
Complete
Street
Reconstruc-
tion
None.Wakara Way – #1
WFRC Surface
Transportation
Program
Fund replacement of
deteriorated roadway,
address rainwater
flooding, create safer
pathways for
pedestrians and
bicyclists, and prepare
for TRAX Orange line
opening in next ten
years
Needs
Public
Hearing
No $4,700,657 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Public Services
3.Yes. $75,743
Source: most
likely from
part of a
Traffic Signal
Replacement
as this would
replace a
traffic signal
None.Highland Roundabout
#3 WFRC Congestion
Mitigation/Air Quality
Program
Fund the conversion of a
traffic signal at 1700 East
and 2100 South to a
roundabout to reduce
speeds, delays,
emissions and increase
pedestrian safety.
Needs
Public
Hearing.
No $1,043,057 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Transportation
with a
roundabout.
City Match
Required?
Number of
FTEs
Requested
Grant Title Grant Purpose Status Annual
Grant
Total Grant
and FTE
Amount
Funding
Agency
Requested By
4.Yes. $57,545
Source:
Transporta-
tion made a
request in
FY26 CIP for
match. The
Admin. plans
to ask again
next year.
None.GREENBike Capital
Care - #2 WFRC
Transportation
Alternatives Program
Of 50 bikeshare stations
in SLC, 23 are at the end
of their lifespan; parts
are no longer available
for repairs. Grant funds
would replace 5
bikeshare stations and
58 e-bikes.
Needs
Public
Hearing.
No $792,455 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Transportation
5.Yes. $43,000
Source: if
awarded,
Admin.
anticipates
requesting
match in the
FY27 CIP
round using
General
Funds or
Park Impact
Fees.
None.Carbon Reduction
Program on 9-Line
Trail
Fund purchase of
waterwise street trees &
plants along hottest
blocks of SLC’s 9-Line
Trail to reduce
emissions.
Needs
Public
Hearing.
No $592,000 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Transportation
6. Yes. $20,000
Source:
(FY26)
Planning and
Design for
Future CIP
applications
None.Beehive Bikeways
Transportation Land
Use Connection
Program
Fund comprehensive
way-finding approach to
ensure bicyclists know
how to get where they
want to go.
Needs
Public
Hearing
No $180,000 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Transportation
7.Yes. $12,500
Source: FY26
Planning and
Design for
Future CIP
Applications
None.South Temple: Better
Connections for a
Great Street - #4
Transportation Land
Use Connection
Program
Fund improvements to
crossings and clearer
rights-of-way at
intersections between
the Avenues & areas to
the south. South
Temple’s role in the
green loop will also be
evaluated.
Needs
Public
Hearing
No.$162,500 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Transportation
8.Yes. $12,239
Source:
Existing Fire
Department
budget
None.Assistance to Fire-
fighters Program
5 AED and 7 CPR devices
will be replaced to
comply with Nat’l Fire
Protection Assoc.
standards
Needs
Public
Hearing
Yes.$122,394 FEMA/Dept
of Home-
land
Security
Fire Dept.
9.Yes. $50,000
using existing
staff hours
None.Restoration of
Wetlands: Increasing
floral resources for
Monarch butterflies
and bees.
Fund identification of
native plants attractive
to pollinators, and
seedling production. The
City is a subrecipient.
Public
Hearing
No.$85,356 National
Fish &
Wildlife
Foundation
Public Lands
10.Yes. $64,000
using Public
Lands staff
labor for
planting &
producing
additional
plants.
None.Utah Dept. of Natural
Resources/Forestry
Fire & State Lands
Fund vegetation
improvement, species
control & restoration
projects.
Public
Hearing
No.$63,255 Utah Dept.
of Natural
Resources/
Forestry
Fire &
State Lands
Public Lands
The Administration has provided the information below in response to Council staff’s questions.
1.Leading the Way: Low Carbon Transportation Materials Grant Program
a.Which departments / divisions are involved with the low carbon transportation materials grant
program? The request is listed as from Public Lands but the use of the grant funds is for street
reconstruction projects which would be the Engineering Division.
Sustainability Department, Energy & Environment Division and Public Services, Engineering Division.
b.Would the new FTE Sustainability Program Manager be housed in the Sustainability Department? Yes.
c. Would the new FTE Engineering Project Manager be housed in the Engineering Division? Yes.
d. Please define the word region in the following statement from the grant (page 2): "SLC will build a
team of internal and external people. Internal staff includes an LCTM program manager, contract admin,
sustainability engineer, procurement, region and other staff. External includes consultants and universities.
The team will be most involved in the first years of the program and level off somewhat over time,
especially when it comes to development of procedure and IT-support. A summary of SLC's ambition is
presented here based on the sum of hrs by task."
This program would serve Salt Lake City proper, but we would lend our newfound LCTM expertise to
projects in the wider region, defined as Salt Lake County and adjacent municipalities. The extent of the
regional partnership would be any stakeholders in our wider region who are involved or otherwise
support local construction of transportation projects. We also expect the pilot program to result in
specifications for transportation materials that could be adopted and used widely in construction
throughout Utah, and perhaps adopted in states with similar climates. The grant-funded staff would
participate and may facilitate learning sessions for a wider stakeholder audience to share results. The
grant-funded staff would also work closely with concrete suppliers and local batch plants to identify
efficiencies in streamlining LCTM production and establishing cost-effective and competitive pricing
compared to existing concrete mixes for what is anticipated to be an ever-increasing demand for
projects utilizing LCTM.
2. #1WFRC STP Wakara Way Grant – Surface Transportation
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
STP funds are programmed out 7 years (2031), so we anticipate providing match from a future CIP
budget allocation using Class C, 4th Quarter, or General Funds. The most likely source would be
Complete Street Reconstruction.
b. Are there any other city construction projects or improvements planned for the same area that
might create efficiencies if completed during the same timeframe?
TechLink changes to the Wakara/Arapeen intersection are likely to overlap with this area. Depending on
funding sources and partnerships, there is a possibility that these two projects may end up being
combined. This is likely to be determined in the next 3-5 years. One or two years prior to beginning
design, we will do a “concept report” which will include an analysis of all potential overlapping projects,
and determination of how the projects can be designed / constructed to be complementary and
possibly combined.
c. Could you please elaborate how this project will support the TRAX expansion through Research Park
as part of a new orange line (widening / setting aside space for a new station and terminus, placing
infrastructure / utilities, potentially combine the street reconstruction with constructing the new TRAX
route, etc.)? Is there a risk that the TRAX expansion after reconstructing the street could require tearing
up relatively new pavement?
This project will provide enhanced walk and bike infrastructure, improving connections to the planned
TRAX station. The TRAX line is planned
to run along Arapeen Drive, so it will intersect Wakara Way, and have minimal impact to Wakara
itself. It is anticipated that the two projects may happen about the same time.
d.If this grant is awarded, then would the project be fully funded?
The local match will likely be requested in FY29 for 2031 construction.
3. #3 WFRC CMAQ Highland Roundabout Grant
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
STP funds are programmed out 7 years (2031), so we anticipate requesting match from a future CIP
budget allocation using Class C, 4th Quarter, or General Funds. The most likely source would be part of
a Traffic Signal Replacement ask, as this location would replace a traffic signal with a roundabout.
b. Are there any other city construction projects or improvements planned for the same area that might
create efficiencies if completed during the same timeframe?
There is the potential that this could be combined with 1700 East reconstruction, following on the
rebuilding of Highland High School.
C. In Budget Amendment #5 of FY2024, the Council requested the Administration recommend guidance
to create a policy for where roundabouts should be placed taking into consideration air quality and
areas with greater pedestrian traffic. Is there a status update that could be shared on efforts to draft the
policy? What criteria were considered to conclude that a roundabout is the best option for this
intersection?
We have a rough draft for the roundabout policy and would be happy to provide a briefing if that is
desired. For this location, we think a roundabout would be a good fit for a few reasons:
Roundabouts have a better safety track record than signalized intersections, and this is particularly
important given the proximity to the high school and the park,
Roundabouts are helpful when the legs of an intersection don’t line up very well, as is the case here,
and
There is already adequate right of way, given the large footprint that this intersection already occupies.
4. #2 WFRC TAP GREENbike Capital Care Grant
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
Transportation made a request in the FY26 CIP for match, and we plan to make an ask again next year.
b. The description indicates 5 bikeshare stations will be replaced. Is the City also asking for five
additional stations, depending on available funding? If so, what are the proposed locations?
This ask is just for replacement.
C. Are the 58 e-bikes replacing manual (non-electric) bikes? Or expanding the total number of bikes in
the fleet?
GREENbike has said that they are planning to transition to an all-electric fleet, and will be phasing out
the manual bikes as they wear out.
5. Carbon Reduction Program Grant (Waterwise Trees on 9-Line)
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
Carbon Reduction Program (CRP) funds are programmed out 2 years (2027). If this grant is successful,
we anticipate a request for match in the FY27 CIP round using General Funds or Park Impact Fees.
b. Could you please elaborate on what segments of the 9-Line Trail will receive the new trees? The
description mentions the section of the trail that aligns with the Green Loop (approximately between
500 West and 200 East). Some prior analysis identified sections of the trail on the Westside as having
low levels of trees and shade. In addition, sections of the 9-Line on the Westside have lost trees that
died in recent years and have not been replaced.
This grant would add greening to selected tree-less sections of the 9-Line along the 900 South
reconstruction project (600 West to 500 East). This area has been selected in part due to its likelihood
of scoring better for this funding source. The funding level available through this program is insufficient
to address more than a couple blocks. The 9-Line corridor could use several million dollars for street
greening. The administration will continue to seek opportunities to add greening to all sections of the
9-Line.
6. #6 WFRC TLC Beehive Bikeways Grant
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
The match is likely to come from the Fiscal Year 2026 (FY26) Planning and Design for Future Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) applications, an annual CIP-adjacent program that is part of the FY26
budget requests.
b. Could you please elaborate how this is different than what the Pedestrian & Bicycle Master Plan
recommends and existing wayfinding signs in the City’s urban trail network such as the Jordan River, 9-
Line, and McClelland (standardizing wayfinding signs, replacing existing, adding new, etc.)?
While Salt Lake City anticipates keeping the branding for the individual routes, this will layer on a
comprehensive, destination-based, wayfinding approach that unifies the various facility types.
Consequently, bicyclists traveling on a particular route can be more fully aware of the interconnected
bike lanes, trails, and neighborhood byways. For example, the destination-based element could help
someone traveling along the Jordan River Parkway who may not be aware of nearby amenities,
including food or services. Additionally, this effort will identify system gaps that require connection
through either quick-build designs or permanent facilities, thereby leading to a more cohesive bicycling
network.
7. #5 WFRC TLC South Temple – Better Connections for a Great Street Grant
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
Match is likely to come from the FY26 Planning and Design for Future CIP Applications, an annual CIP-
adjacent program that is part of the FY26 budget requests.
(Council staff had no questions for grants 8-10.)
Items B1 – B10
Page 1
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst
DATE:February 4, 2025
RE: MOTION SHEET FOR PUBLIC HEARING
________________________________________________________________________________
The Council will conduct a Public Hearing and may consider the following motion:
Motion 1 – Close and Refer
I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and refer Item B-1 and B-10 to a
future Consent Agenda for action.
Project Timeline:
Public Hearing: February 4, 2025
NEW GRANT APPLICATIONS
February 4, 2025 PUBLIC HEARING
City Match
Required?
Number of
FTEs
Requested
Grant Title Grant Purpose Status Annual
Grant
Total Grant
and FTE
Amount
Funding
Agency
Requested By
1.No.3 New
FTE’s
Leading the Way:
Developing Low-
Carbon
Transportation
Materials for Salt Lake
City
Fund efforts to
mainstream the use of
low-carbon
transportation materials
in Utah.
Needs
Public
Hearing
No.$19,119,105 Federal
Highway
Administra
tion
Engineering
2.Yes. $341,343
Source: Most
likely from
Complete
Street
Reconstruc-
tion
None.Wakara Way – #1
WFRC Surface
Transportation
Program
Fund replacement of
deteriorated roadway,
address rainwater
flooding, create safer
pathways for
pedestrians and
bicyclists, and prepare
for TRAX Orange line
opening in next ten
years
Needs
Public
Hearing
No $4,700,657 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Public Services
3.Yes. $75,743
Source: most
likely from
part of a
Traffic Signal
Replacement
as this would
replace a
traffic signal
None.Highland Roundabout
#3 WFRC Congestion
Mitigation/Air Quality
Program
Fund the conversion of a
traffic signal at 1700 East
and 2100 South to a
roundabout to reduce
speeds, delays,
emissions and increase
pedestrian safety.
Needs
Public
Hearing.
No $1,043,057 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Transportation
with a
roundabout.
City Match
Required?
Number of
FTEs
Requested
Grant Title Grant Purpose Status Annual
Grant
Total Grant
and FTE
Amount
Funding
Agency
Requested By
4.Yes. $57,545
Source:
Transporta-
tion made a
request in
FY26 CIP for
match. The
Admin. plans
to ask again
next year.
None.GREENBike Capital
Care - #2 WFRC
Transportation
Alternatives Program
Of 50 bikeshare stations
in SLC, 23 are at the end
of their lifespan; parts
are no longer available
for repairs. Grant funds
would replace 5
bikeshare stations and
58 e-bikes.
Needs
Public
Hearing.
No $792,455 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Transportation
5.Yes. $43,000
Source: if
awarded,
Admin.
anticipates
requesting
match in the
FY27 CIP
round using
General
Funds or
Park Impact
Fees.
None.Carbon Reduction
Program on 9-Line
Trail
Fund purchase of
waterwise street trees &
plants along hottest
blocks of SLC’s 9-Line
Trail to reduce
emissions.
Needs
Public
Hearing.
No $592,000 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Transportation
6. Yes. $20,000
Source:
(FY26)
Planning and
Design for
Future CIP
applications
None.Beehive Bikeways
Transportation Land
Use Connection
Program
Fund comprehensive
way-finding approach to
ensure bicyclists know
how to get where they
want to go.
Needs
Public
Hearing
No $180,000 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Transportation
7.Yes. $12,500
Source: FY26
Planning and
Design for
Future CIP
Applications
None.South Temple: Better
Connections for a
Great Street - #4
Transportation Land
Use Connection
Program
Fund improvements to
crossings and clearer
rights-of-way at
intersections between
the Avenues & areas to
the south. South
Temple’s role in the
green loop will also be
evaluated.
Needs
Public
Hearing
No.$162,500 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Transportation
8.Yes. $12,239
Source:
Existing Fire
Department
budget
None.Assistance to Fire-
fighters Program
5 AED and 7 CPR devices
will be replaced to
comply with Nat’l Fire
Protection Assoc.
standards
Needs
Public
Hearing
Yes.$122,394 FEMA/Dept
of Home-
land
Security
Fire Dept.
9.Yes. $50,000
using existing
staff hours
None.Restoration of
Wetlands: Increasing
floral resources for
Monarch butterflies
and bees.
Fund identification of
native plants attractive
to pollinators, and
seedling production. The
City is a subrecipient.
Public
Hearing
No.$85,356 National
Fish &
Wildlife
Foundation
Public Lands
10.Yes. $64,000
using Public
Lands staff
labor for
planting &
producing
additional
plants.
None.Utah Dept. of Natural
Resources/Forestry
Fire & State Lands
Fund vegetation
improvement, species
control & restoration
projects.
Public
Hearing
No.$63,255 Utah Dept.
of Natural
Resources/
Forestry
Fire &
State Lands
Public Lands
The Administration has provided the information below in response to Council staff’s questions.
1.Leading the Way: Low Carbon Transportation Materials Grant Program
a.Which departments / divisions are involved with the low carbon transportation materials grant
program? The request is listed as from Public Lands but the use of the grant funds is for street
reconstruction projects which would be the Engineering Division.
Sustainability Department, Energy & Environment Division and Public Services, Engineering Division.
b.Would the new FTE Sustainability Program Manager be housed in the Sustainability Department? Yes.
c. Would the new FTE Engineering Project Manager be housed in the Engineering Division? Yes.
d. Please define the word region in the following statement from the grant (page 2): "SLC will build a
team of internal and external people. Internal staff includes an LCTM program manager, contract admin,
sustainability engineer, procurement, region and other staff. External includes consultants and universities.
The team will be most involved in the first years of the program and level off somewhat over time,
especially when it comes to development of procedure and IT-support. A summary of SLC's ambition is
presented here based on the sum of hrs by task."
This program would serve Salt Lake City proper, but we would lend our newfound LCTM expertise to
projects in the wider region, defined as Salt Lake County and adjacent municipalities. The extent of the
regional partnership would be any stakeholders in our wider region who are involved or otherwise
support local construction of transportation projects. We also expect the pilot program to result in
specifications for transportation materials that could be adopted and used widely in construction
throughout Utah, and perhaps adopted in states with similar climates. The grant-funded staff would
participate and may facilitate learning sessions for a wider stakeholder audience to share results. The
grant-funded staff would also work closely with concrete suppliers and local batch plants to identify
efficiencies in streamlining LCTM production and establishing cost-effective and competitive pricing
compared to existing concrete mixes for what is anticipated to be an ever-increasing demand for
projects utilizing LCTM.
2. #1WFRC STP Wakara Way Grant – Surface Transportation
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
STP funds are programmed out 7 years (2031), so we anticipate providing match from a future CIP
budget allocation using Class C, 4th Quarter, or General Funds. The most likely source would be
Complete Street Reconstruction.
b. Are there any other city construction projects or improvements planned for the same area that
might create efficiencies if completed during the same timeframe?
TechLink changes to the Wakara/Arapeen intersection are likely to overlap with this area. Depending on
funding sources and partnerships, there is a possibility that these two projects may end up being
combined. This is likely to be determined in the next 3-5 years. One or two years prior to beginning
design, we will do a “concept report” which will include an analysis of all potential overlapping projects,
and determination of how the projects can be designed / constructed to be complementary and
possibly combined.
c. Could you please elaborate how this project will support the TRAX expansion through Research Park
as part of a new orange line (widening / setting aside space for a new station and terminus, placing
infrastructure / utilities, potentially combine the street reconstruction with constructing the new TRAX
route, etc.)? Is there a risk that the TRAX expansion after reconstructing the street could require tearing
up relatively new pavement?
This project will provide enhanced walk and bike infrastructure, improving connections to the planned
TRAX station. The TRAX line is planned
to run along Arapeen Drive, so it will intersect Wakara Way, and have minimal impact to Wakara
itself. It is anticipated that the two projects may happen about the same time.
d.If this grant is awarded, then would the project be fully funded?
The local match will likely be requested in FY29 for 2031 construction.
3. #3 WFRC CMAQ Highland Roundabout Grant
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
STP funds are programmed out 7 years (2031), so we anticipate requesting match from a future CIP
budget allocation using Class C, 4th Quarter, or General Funds. The most likely source would be part of
a Traffic Signal Replacement ask, as this location would replace a traffic signal with a roundabout.
b. Are there any other city construction projects or improvements planned for the same area that might
create efficiencies if completed during the same timeframe?
There is the potential that this could be combined with 1700 East reconstruction, following on the
rebuilding of Highland High School.
C. In Budget Amendment #5 of FY2024, the Council requested the Administration recommend guidance
to create a policy for where roundabouts should be placed taking into consideration air quality and
areas with greater pedestrian traffic. Is there a status update that could be shared on efforts to draft the
policy? What criteria were considered to conclude that a roundabout is the best option for this
intersection?
We have a rough draft for the roundabout policy and would be happy to provide a briefing if that is
desired. For this location, we think a roundabout would be a good fit for a few reasons:
Roundabouts have a better safety track record than signalized intersections, and this is particularly
important given the proximity to the high school and the park,
Roundabouts are helpful when the legs of an intersection don’t line up very well, as is the case here,
and
There is already adequate right of way, given the large footprint that this intersection already occupies.
4. #2 WFRC TAP GREENbike Capital Care Grant
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
Transportation made a request in the FY26 CIP for match, and we plan to make an ask again next year.
b. The description indicates 5 bikeshare stations will be replaced. Is the City also asking for five
additional stations, depending on available funding? If so, what are the proposed locations?
This ask is just for replacement.
C. Are the 58 e-bikes replacing manual (non-electric) bikes? Or expanding the total number of bikes in
the fleet?
GREENbike has said that they are planning to transition to an all-electric fleet, and will be phasing out
the manual bikes as they wear out.
5. Carbon Reduction Program Grant (Waterwise Trees on 9-Line)
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
Carbon Reduction Program (CRP) funds are programmed out 2 years (2027). If this grant is successful,
we anticipate a request for match in the FY27 CIP round using General Funds or Park Impact Fees.
b. Could you please elaborate on what segments of the 9-Line Trail will receive the new trees? The
description mentions the section of the trail that aligns with the Green Loop (approximately between
500 West and 200 East). Some prior analysis identified sections of the trail on the Westside as having
low levels of trees and shade. In addition, sections of the 9-Line on the Westside have lost trees that
died in recent years and have not been replaced.
This grant would add greening to selected tree-less sections of the 9-Line along the 900 South
reconstruction project (600 West to 500 East). This area has been selected in part due to its likelihood
of scoring better for this funding source. The funding level available through this program is insufficient
to address more than a couple blocks. The 9-Line corridor could use several million dollars for street
greening. The administration will continue to seek opportunities to add greening to all sections of the
9-Line.
6. #6 WFRC TLC Beehive Bikeways Grant
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
The match is likely to come from the Fiscal Year 2026 (FY26) Planning and Design for Future Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) applications, an annual CIP-adjacent program that is part of the FY26
budget requests.
b. Could you please elaborate how this is different than what the Pedestrian & Bicycle Master Plan
recommends and existing wayfinding signs in the City’s urban trail network such as the Jordan River, 9-
Line, and McClelland (standardizing wayfinding signs, replacing existing, adding new, etc.)?
While Salt Lake City anticipates keeping the branding for the individual routes, this will layer on a
comprehensive, destination-based, wayfinding approach that unifies the various facility types.
Consequently, bicyclists traveling on a particular route can be more fully aware of the interconnected
bike lanes, trails, and neighborhood byways. For example, the destination-based element could help
someone traveling along the Jordan River Parkway who may not be aware of nearby amenities,
including food or services. Additionally, this effort will identify system gaps that require connection
through either quick-build designs or permanent facilities, thereby leading to a more cohesive bicycling
network.
7. #5 WFRC TLC South Temple – Better Connections for a Great Street Grant
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
Match is likely to come from the FY26 Planning and Design for Future CIP Applications, an annual CIP-
adjacent program that is part of the FY26 budget requests.
(Council staff had no questions for grants 8-10.)
Grant Application Submission Notification Memo
TO:Office of the City Council | Jennifer Bruno, Taylor Hill, Benjamin Luedtke, Sylvia Richards, Linda
Sanchez, Lehua Weaver
Office of the Mayor | Rachel Otto, Jill Love
Department of Finance | Mary Beth Thompson, Sarah Behrens, Annie Christensen
Office of the City Attorney | Jaysen Oldroyd, SLCRecorder@slcgov.com
FROM:Amy Dorsey
DATE:February 5, 2025
SUBJECT: National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
FUNDING AGENCIES:National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
GRANT PROGRAM:Restoration of Wetlands
REQUESTED GRANT AMOUNT:$85,356
DEPARTMENT: Public Lands
COLLABORATING AGENCIES: Utah State University
DATE SUBMITTED:10/01/2024
SPECIFICS:
Equipment/Supplies Only
Technical Assistance
Provides 0 Hourly Positions
Existing New Overtime Requires Funding After Grant
Explanation: Please see below
× Match Required In-Kind Services and Cash
GRANT DETAILS:
Utah State University has been awarded a grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Salt Lake City is a subrecipient
of Utah State University. USU will award SLC $85,356 through a cost reimbursable grant for the Utah Pollinator Habitat
Program: Increasing Floral Resources for Monarchs and Bumble Bees. A match of $50,000 is required and will be fulfilled
through existing staff hours. The proposed scope of work is listed below:
The role of Trails and Natural Lands division of Salt lake City’s Public Lands department with the larger NWFP proposal is three-
fold:
1.Species Development. Based on their expertise and knowledge of Utah Native Plants and ecosystems, two project team
members (Wellard and Kjelgren) together with project lead Mindy Wheeler, will identify key Utah native plant species
attractive to pollinators—some in common use but most previously unused in pollinator habitat work and general wildland
reclamation in the state. Budget travel expenses in the project budget will be fore extended trips to collect seed in both
norther and southern Utah. This work will occur during late growing season 2023, spring through fall 2034, and through
spring 2025.
2.Seedling Production. The SLC project team will then develop cleaning, propagation protocols (in particular
stratification/germination pretreatment) for the species previously unused in for ecological restoration in the state. For
these species, seed preparation protocols of cold/wet stratification, scarification, aeration, and KNO3 treatment will be
applied at a range of levels to assess which promotes the most germination in the shortest time.
3.Native Seed Farm. Plants of all targeted native Utah species will be established from collected seed on a seed farm owned
by SLC Trails and Natural Lands. This farm will become a reliable source of seed of Utah native species previously unused in
pollinator habitat enhancement. This seed, along with germination protocols, will be delivered to Utah Department of
Corrections main adult prison near Salt Lake City for germination and seedling production. These seedlings will then supply
the Utah Pollinator Habitat Program and also SLC-Trails and Natural Lands projects to enhance and restore public land along
trails with pollinator habitat to the benefit of the urban population.
Items B1 – B10
Page 1
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst
DATE:February 4, 2025
RE: MOTION SHEET FOR PUBLIC HEARING
________________________________________________________________________________
The Council will conduct a Public Hearing and may consider the following motion:
Motion 1 – Close and Refer
I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and refer Item B-1 and B-10 to a
future Consent Agenda for action.
Project Timeline:
Public Hearing: February 4, 2025
NEW GRANT APPLICATIONS
February 4, 2025 PUBLIC HEARING
City Match
Required?
Number of
FTEs
Requested
Grant Title Grant Purpose Status Annual
Grant
Total Grant
and FTE
Amount
Funding
Agency
Requested By
1.No.3 New
FTE’s
Leading the Way:
Developing Low-
Carbon
Transportation
Materials for Salt Lake
City
Fund efforts to
mainstream the use of
low-carbon
transportation materials
in Utah.
Needs
Public
Hearing
No.$19,119,105 Federal
Highway
Administra
tion
Engineering
2.Yes. $341,343
Source: Most
likely from
Complete
Street
Reconstruc-
tion
None.Wakara Way – #1
WFRC Surface
Transportation
Program
Fund replacement of
deteriorated roadway,
address rainwater
flooding, create safer
pathways for
pedestrians and
bicyclists, and prepare
for TRAX Orange line
opening in next ten
years
Needs
Public
Hearing
No $4,700,657 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Public Services
3.Yes. $75,743
Source: most
likely from
part of a
Traffic Signal
Replacement
as this would
replace a
traffic signal
None.Highland Roundabout
#3 WFRC Congestion
Mitigation/Air Quality
Program
Fund the conversion of a
traffic signal at 1700 East
and 2100 South to a
roundabout to reduce
speeds, delays,
emissions and increase
pedestrian safety.
Needs
Public
Hearing.
No $1,043,057 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Transportation
with a
roundabout.
City Match
Required?
Number of
FTEs
Requested
Grant Title Grant Purpose Status Annual
Grant
Total Grant
and FTE
Amount
Funding
Agency
Requested By
4.Yes. $57,545
Source:
Transporta-
tion made a
request in
FY26 CIP for
match. The
Admin. plans
to ask again
next year.
None.GREENBike Capital
Care - #2 WFRC
Transportation
Alternatives Program
Of 50 bikeshare stations
in SLC, 23 are at the end
of their lifespan; parts
are no longer available
for repairs. Grant funds
would replace 5
bikeshare stations and
58 e-bikes.
Needs
Public
Hearing.
No $792,455 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Transportation
5.Yes. $43,000
Source: if
awarded,
Admin.
anticipates
requesting
match in the
FY27 CIP
round using
General
Funds or
Park Impact
Fees.
None.Carbon Reduction
Program on 9-Line
Trail
Fund purchase of
waterwise street trees &
plants along hottest
blocks of SLC’s 9-Line
Trail to reduce
emissions.
Needs
Public
Hearing.
No $592,000 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Transportation
6. Yes. $20,000
Source:
(FY26)
Planning and
Design for
Future CIP
applications
None.Beehive Bikeways
Transportation Land
Use Connection
Program
Fund comprehensive
way-finding approach to
ensure bicyclists know
how to get where they
want to go.
Needs
Public
Hearing
No $180,000 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Transportation
7.Yes. $12,500
Source: FY26
Planning and
Design for
Future CIP
Applications
None.South Temple: Better
Connections for a
Great Street - #4
Transportation Land
Use Connection
Program
Fund improvements to
crossings and clearer
rights-of-way at
intersections between
the Avenues & areas to
the south. South
Temple’s role in the
green loop will also be
evaluated.
Needs
Public
Hearing
No.$162,500 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Transportation
8.Yes. $12,239
Source:
Existing Fire
Department
budget
None.Assistance to Fire-
fighters Program
5 AED and 7 CPR devices
will be replaced to
comply with Nat’l Fire
Protection Assoc.
standards
Needs
Public
Hearing
Yes.$122,394 FEMA/Dept
of Home-
land
Security
Fire Dept.
9.Yes. $50,000
using existing
staff hours
None.Restoration of
Wetlands: Increasing
floral resources for
Monarch butterflies
and bees.
Fund identification of
native plants attractive
to pollinators, and
seedling production. The
City is a subrecipient.
Public
Hearing
No.$85,356 National
Fish &
Wildlife
Foundation
Public Lands
10.Yes. $64,000
using Public
Lands staff
labor for
planting &
producing
additional
plants.
None.Utah Dept. of Natural
Resources/Forestry
Fire & State Lands
Fund vegetation
improvement, species
control & restoration
projects.
Public
Hearing
No.$63,255 Utah Dept.
of Natural
Resources/
Forestry
Fire &
State Lands
Public Lands
The Administration has provided the information below in response to Council staff’s questions.
1.Leading the Way: Low Carbon Transportation Materials Grant Program
a.Which departments / divisions are involved with the low carbon transportation materials grant
program? The request is listed as from Public Lands but the use of the grant funds is for street
reconstruction projects which would be the Engineering Division.
Sustainability Department, Energy & Environment Division and Public Services, Engineering Division.
b.Would the new FTE Sustainability Program Manager be housed in the Sustainability Department? Yes.
c. Would the new FTE Engineering Project Manager be housed in the Engineering Division? Yes.
d. Please define the word region in the following statement from the grant (page 2): "SLC will build a
team of internal and external people. Internal staff includes an LCTM program manager, contract admin,
sustainability engineer, procurement, region and other staff. External includes consultants and universities.
The team will be most involved in the first years of the program and level off somewhat over time,
especially when it comes to development of procedure and IT-support. A summary of SLC's ambition is
presented here based on the sum of hrs by task."
This program would serve Salt Lake City proper, but we would lend our newfound LCTM expertise to
projects in the wider region, defined as Salt Lake County and adjacent municipalities. The extent of the
regional partnership would be any stakeholders in our wider region who are involved or otherwise
support local construction of transportation projects. We also expect the pilot program to result in
specifications for transportation materials that could be adopted and used widely in construction
throughout Utah, and perhaps adopted in states with similar climates. The grant-funded staff would
participate and may facilitate learning sessions for a wider stakeholder audience to share results. The
grant-funded staff would also work closely with concrete suppliers and local batch plants to identify
efficiencies in streamlining LCTM production and establishing cost-effective and competitive pricing
compared to existing concrete mixes for what is anticipated to be an ever-increasing demand for
projects utilizing LCTM.
2. #1WFRC STP Wakara Way Grant – Surface Transportation
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
STP funds are programmed out 7 years (2031), so we anticipate providing match from a future CIP
budget allocation using Class C, 4th Quarter, or General Funds. The most likely source would be
Complete Street Reconstruction.
b. Are there any other city construction projects or improvements planned for the same area that
might create efficiencies if completed during the same timeframe?
TechLink changes to the Wakara/Arapeen intersection are likely to overlap with this area. Depending on
funding sources and partnerships, there is a possibility that these two projects may end up being
combined. This is likely to be determined in the next 3-5 years. One or two years prior to beginning
design, we will do a “concept report” which will include an analysis of all potential overlapping projects,
and determination of how the projects can be designed / constructed to be complementary and
possibly combined.
c. Could you please elaborate how this project will support the TRAX expansion through Research Park
as part of a new orange line (widening / setting aside space for a new station and terminus, placing
infrastructure / utilities, potentially combine the street reconstruction with constructing the new TRAX
route, etc.)? Is there a risk that the TRAX expansion after reconstructing the street could require tearing
up relatively new pavement?
This project will provide enhanced walk and bike infrastructure, improving connections to the planned
TRAX station. The TRAX line is planned
to run along Arapeen Drive, so it will intersect Wakara Way, and have minimal impact to Wakara
itself. It is anticipated that the two projects may happen about the same time.
d.If this grant is awarded, then would the project be fully funded?
The local match will likely be requested in FY29 for 2031 construction.
3. #3 WFRC CMAQ Highland Roundabout Grant
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
STP funds are programmed out 7 years (2031), so we anticipate requesting match from a future CIP
budget allocation using Class C, 4th Quarter, or General Funds. The most likely source would be part of
a Traffic Signal Replacement ask, as this location would replace a traffic signal with a roundabout.
b. Are there any other city construction projects or improvements planned for the same area that might
create efficiencies if completed during the same timeframe?
There is the potential that this could be combined with 1700 East reconstruction, following on the
rebuilding of Highland High School.
C. In Budget Amendment #5 of FY2024, the Council requested the Administration recommend guidance
to create a policy for where roundabouts should be placed taking into consideration air quality and
areas with greater pedestrian traffic. Is there a status update that could be shared on efforts to draft the
policy? What criteria were considered to conclude that a roundabout is the best option for this
intersection?
We have a rough draft for the roundabout policy and would be happy to provide a briefing if that is
desired. For this location, we think a roundabout would be a good fit for a few reasons:
Roundabouts have a better safety track record than signalized intersections, and this is particularly
important given the proximity to the high school and the park,
Roundabouts are helpful when the legs of an intersection don’t line up very well, as is the case here,
and
There is already adequate right of way, given the large footprint that this intersection already occupies.
4. #2 WFRC TAP GREENbike Capital Care Grant
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
Transportation made a request in the FY26 CIP for match, and we plan to make an ask again next year.
b. The description indicates 5 bikeshare stations will be replaced. Is the City also asking for five
additional stations, depending on available funding? If so, what are the proposed locations?
This ask is just for replacement.
C. Are the 58 e-bikes replacing manual (non-electric) bikes? Or expanding the total number of bikes in
the fleet?
GREENbike has said that they are planning to transition to an all-electric fleet, and will be phasing out
the manual bikes as they wear out.
5. Carbon Reduction Program Grant (Waterwise Trees on 9-Line)
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
Carbon Reduction Program (CRP) funds are programmed out 2 years (2027). If this grant is successful,
we anticipate a request for match in the FY27 CIP round using General Funds or Park Impact Fees.
b. Could you please elaborate on what segments of the 9-Line Trail will receive the new trees? The
description mentions the section of the trail that aligns with the Green Loop (approximately between
500 West and 200 East). Some prior analysis identified sections of the trail on the Westside as having
low levels of trees and shade. In addition, sections of the 9-Line on the Westside have lost trees that
died in recent years and have not been replaced.
This grant would add greening to selected tree-less sections of the 9-Line along the 900 South
reconstruction project (600 West to 500 East). This area has been selected in part due to its likelihood
of scoring better for this funding source. The funding level available through this program is insufficient
to address more than a couple blocks. The 9-Line corridor could use several million dollars for street
greening. The administration will continue to seek opportunities to add greening to all sections of the
9-Line.
6. #6 WFRC TLC Beehive Bikeways Grant
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
The match is likely to come from the Fiscal Year 2026 (FY26) Planning and Design for Future Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) applications, an annual CIP-adjacent program that is part of the FY26
budget requests.
b. Could you please elaborate how this is different than what the Pedestrian & Bicycle Master Plan
recommends and existing wayfinding signs in the City’s urban trail network such as the Jordan River, 9-
Line, and McClelland (standardizing wayfinding signs, replacing existing, adding new, etc.)?
While Salt Lake City anticipates keeping the branding for the individual routes, this will layer on a
comprehensive, destination-based, wayfinding approach that unifies the various facility types.
Consequently, bicyclists traveling on a particular route can be more fully aware of the interconnected
bike lanes, trails, and neighborhood byways. For example, the destination-based element could help
someone traveling along the Jordan River Parkway who may not be aware of nearby amenities,
including food or services. Additionally, this effort will identify system gaps that require connection
through either quick-build designs or permanent facilities, thereby leading to a more cohesive bicycling
network.
7. #5 WFRC TLC South Temple – Better Connections for a Great Street Grant
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
Match is likely to come from the FY26 Planning and Design for Future CIP Applications, an annual CIP-
adjacent program that is part of the FY26 budget requests.
(Council staff had no questions for grants 8-10.)
Grant Application Submission Notification Memo
TO:Office of the City Council | Jennifer Bruno, Taylor Hill, Benjamin Luedtke, Sylvia Richards, Linda
Sanchez, Lehua Weaver
Office of the Mayor | Rachel Otto, Jill Love
Department of Finance | Mary Beth Thompson, Sarah Behrens, Annie Christensen
Office of the City Attorney | Jaysen Oldroyd, SLCRecorder@slcgov.com
FROM:Amy Dorsey
DATE:February 5, 2025
SUBJECT: Utah Department of Natural Resources/Forestry Fire and State Lands Grant
FUNDING AGENCIES:Utah Department of Natural Resources/Forestry Fire and State Lands
GRANT PROGRAM:Restoration of Wetlands
REQUESTED GRANT AMOUNT:$63,255
DEPARTMENT: Public Lands
COLLABORATING AGENCIES: n/a
DATE SUBMITTED:10/01/2024
SPECIFICS:
Equipment/Supplies Only
Technical Assistance
Provides 0 Hourly Positions
Existing New Overtime Requires Funding After Grant
Explanation: Please see below
× Match Required In-Kind Services and Cash
GRANT DETAILS:
The Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands (“FFSL”) has received funds from the Utah State Legislature to
be administered for vegetation improvement projects on sovereign lands of Utah. Salt Lake City applied to receive
funds for the implementation of a Jordan River invasive species control and restoration project.
The Salt Lake City-Public Lands Native Habitat Program (NHP) will revegetate approximately 2.7 acres of SLC-Public
Utilities at 10th N and Cornell St immediately adjacent to the Jordan River with wetland and upland native species. This
property is a combined park with a river trail and view point, and drainage destination for surface runoff. Approximately
1 acre of the total is low-lying areas infested with Phragmites where FFSL will subcontract for eradication over the course
of the project. The remaining area, approximately 1.7 acres, is elevated above the wetlands.
Project duration is three years, restoring native upland species along the river trail the first year, upland area around the
SLC-PU drainage area the second year (the drainage area has already been restored with wetland plants). Year 3 low
lying wetland area reclaimed from Phragmites will be revegetated with appropriate, competitive species. Restoration will
require approximately 42,000 seedlings, including replanting assuming 10% mortality each year, installed at 14,000
plants/acre. Seed of native annual species will also be sown in select upland areas
Notably, this project will dramatically increase species diversity of the target area, approximately 100 different species,
the vast majority simply not otherwise available in the trade. SLC-NHP has an agreement with the Utah Department of
Corrections SLC Facility Greenhouse producing 95-98% of all needed plants. The SLC-NHP will produce the remaining
plants, largely slower growing woody species need longer production time. Unit plant cost will decrease over time as
containers will be recycled back to the UDC-GH program for reuse in subsequent years. Salt Lake City Public Lands will
match the $64,000 budget request with labor to produce the 2-5% additional plants and labor for planting.
Items B1 – B10
Page 1
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst
DATE:February 4, 2025
RE: MOTION SHEET FOR PUBLIC HEARING
________________________________________________________________________________
The Council will conduct a Public Hearing and may consider the following motion:
Motion 1 – Close and Refer
I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and refer Item B-1 and B-10 to a
future Consent Agenda for action.
Project Timeline:
Public Hearing: February 4, 2025
NEW GRANT APPLICATIONS
February 4, 2025 PUBLIC HEARING
City Match
Required?
Number of
FTEs
Requested
Grant Title Grant Purpose Status Annual
Grant
Total Grant
and FTE
Amount
Funding
Agency
Requested By
1.No.3 New
FTE’s
Leading the Way:
Developing Low-
Carbon
Transportation
Materials for Salt Lake
City
Fund efforts to
mainstream the use of
low-carbon
transportation materials
in Utah.
Needs
Public
Hearing
No.$19,119,105 Federal
Highway
Administra
tion
Engineering
2.Yes. $341,343
Source: Most
likely from
Complete
Street
Reconstruc-
tion
None.Wakara Way – #1
WFRC Surface
Transportation
Program
Fund replacement of
deteriorated roadway,
address rainwater
flooding, create safer
pathways for
pedestrians and
bicyclists, and prepare
for TRAX Orange line
opening in next ten
years
Needs
Public
Hearing
No $4,700,657 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Public Services
3.Yes. $75,743
Source: most
likely from
part of a
Traffic Signal
Replacement
as this would
replace a
traffic signal
None.Highland Roundabout
#3 WFRC Congestion
Mitigation/Air Quality
Program
Fund the conversion of a
traffic signal at 1700 East
and 2100 South to a
roundabout to reduce
speeds, delays,
emissions and increase
pedestrian safety.
Needs
Public
Hearing.
No $1,043,057 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Transportation
with a
roundabout.
City Match
Required?
Number of
FTEs
Requested
Grant Title Grant Purpose Status Annual
Grant
Total Grant
and FTE
Amount
Funding
Agency
Requested By
4.Yes. $57,545
Source:
Transporta-
tion made a
request in
FY26 CIP for
match. The
Admin. plans
to ask again
next year.
None.GREENBike Capital
Care - #2 WFRC
Transportation
Alternatives Program
Of 50 bikeshare stations
in SLC, 23 are at the end
of their lifespan; parts
are no longer available
for repairs. Grant funds
would replace 5
bikeshare stations and
58 e-bikes.
Needs
Public
Hearing.
No $792,455 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Transportation
5.Yes. $43,000
Source: if
awarded,
Admin.
anticipates
requesting
match in the
FY27 CIP
round using
General
Funds or
Park Impact
Fees.
None.Carbon Reduction
Program on 9-Line
Trail
Fund purchase of
waterwise street trees &
plants along hottest
blocks of SLC’s 9-Line
Trail to reduce
emissions.
Needs
Public
Hearing.
No $592,000 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Transportation
6. Yes. $20,000
Source:
(FY26)
Planning and
Design for
Future CIP
applications
None.Beehive Bikeways
Transportation Land
Use Connection
Program
Fund comprehensive
way-finding approach to
ensure bicyclists know
how to get where they
want to go.
Needs
Public
Hearing
No $180,000 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Transportation
7.Yes. $12,500
Source: FY26
Planning and
Design for
Future CIP
Applications
None.South Temple: Better
Connections for a
Great Street - #4
Transportation Land
Use Connection
Program
Fund improvements to
crossings and clearer
rights-of-way at
intersections between
the Avenues & areas to
the south. South
Temple’s role in the
green loop will also be
evaluated.
Needs
Public
Hearing
No.$162,500 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Transportation
8.Yes. $12,239
Source:
Existing Fire
Department
budget
None.Assistance to Fire-
fighters Program
5 AED and 7 CPR devices
will be replaced to
comply with Nat’l Fire
Protection Assoc.
standards
Needs
Public
Hearing
Yes.$122,394 FEMA/Dept
of Home-
land
Security
Fire Dept.
9.Yes. $50,000
using existing
staff hours
None.Restoration of
Wetlands: Increasing
floral resources for
Monarch butterflies
and bees.
Fund identification of
native plants attractive
to pollinators, and
seedling production. The
City is a subrecipient.
Public
Hearing
No.$85,356 National
Fish &
Wildlife
Foundation
Public Lands
10.Yes. $64,000
using Public
Lands staff
labor for
planting &
producing
additional
plants.
None.Utah Dept. of Natural
Resources/Forestry
Fire & State Lands
Fund vegetation
improvement, species
control & restoration
projects.
Public
Hearing
No.$63,255 Utah Dept.
of Natural
Resources/
Forestry
Fire &
State Lands
Public Lands
The Administration has provided the information below in response to Council staff’s questions.
1.Leading the Way: Low Carbon Transportation Materials Grant Program
a.Which departments / divisions are involved with the low carbon transportation materials grant
program? The request is listed as from Public Lands but the use of the grant funds is for street
reconstruction projects which would be the Engineering Division.
Sustainability Department, Energy & Environment Division and Public Services, Engineering Division.
b.Would the new FTE Sustainability Program Manager be housed in the Sustainability Department? Yes.
c. Would the new FTE Engineering Project Manager be housed in the Engineering Division? Yes.
d. Please define the word region in the following statement from the grant (page 2): "SLC will build a
team of internal and external people. Internal staff includes an LCTM program manager, contract admin,
sustainability engineer, procurement, region and other staff. External includes consultants and universities.
The team will be most involved in the first years of the program and level off somewhat over time,
especially when it comes to development of procedure and IT-support. A summary of SLC's ambition is
presented here based on the sum of hrs by task."
This program would serve Salt Lake City proper, but we would lend our newfound LCTM expertise to
projects in the wider region, defined as Salt Lake County and adjacent municipalities. The extent of the
regional partnership would be any stakeholders in our wider region who are involved or otherwise
support local construction of transportation projects. We also expect the pilot program to result in
specifications for transportation materials that could be adopted and used widely in construction
throughout Utah, and perhaps adopted in states with similar climates. The grant-funded staff would
participate and may facilitate learning sessions for a wider stakeholder audience to share results. The
grant-funded staff would also work closely with concrete suppliers and local batch plants to identify
efficiencies in streamlining LCTM production and establishing cost-effective and competitive pricing
compared to existing concrete mixes for what is anticipated to be an ever-increasing demand for
projects utilizing LCTM.
2. #1WFRC STP Wakara Way Grant – Surface Transportation
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
STP funds are programmed out 7 years (2031), so we anticipate providing match from a future CIP
budget allocation using Class C, 4th Quarter, or General Funds. The most likely source would be
Complete Street Reconstruction.
b. Are there any other city construction projects or improvements planned for the same area that
might create efficiencies if completed during the same timeframe?
TechLink changes to the Wakara/Arapeen intersection are likely to overlap with this area. Depending on
funding sources and partnerships, there is a possibility that these two projects may end up being
combined. This is likely to be determined in the next 3-5 years. One or two years prior to beginning
design, we will do a “concept report” which will include an analysis of all potential overlapping projects,
and determination of how the projects can be designed / constructed to be complementary and
possibly combined.
c. Could you please elaborate how this project will support the TRAX expansion through Research Park
as part of a new orange line (widening / setting aside space for a new station and terminus, placing
infrastructure / utilities, potentially combine the street reconstruction with constructing the new TRAX
route, etc.)? Is there a risk that the TRAX expansion after reconstructing the street could require tearing
up relatively new pavement?
This project will provide enhanced walk and bike infrastructure, improving connections to the planned
TRAX station. The TRAX line is planned
to run along Arapeen Drive, so it will intersect Wakara Way, and have minimal impact to Wakara
itself. It is anticipated that the two projects may happen about the same time.
d.If this grant is awarded, then would the project be fully funded?
The local match will likely be requested in FY29 for 2031 construction.
3. #3 WFRC CMAQ Highland Roundabout Grant
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
STP funds are programmed out 7 years (2031), so we anticipate requesting match from a future CIP
budget allocation using Class C, 4th Quarter, or General Funds. The most likely source would be part of
a Traffic Signal Replacement ask, as this location would replace a traffic signal with a roundabout.
b. Are there any other city construction projects or improvements planned for the same area that might
create efficiencies if completed during the same timeframe?
There is the potential that this could be combined with 1700 East reconstruction, following on the
rebuilding of Highland High School.
C. In Budget Amendment #5 of FY2024, the Council requested the Administration recommend guidance
to create a policy for where roundabouts should be placed taking into consideration air quality and
areas with greater pedestrian traffic. Is there a status update that could be shared on efforts to draft the
policy? What criteria were considered to conclude that a roundabout is the best option for this
intersection?
We have a rough draft for the roundabout policy and would be happy to provide a briefing if that is
desired. For this location, we think a roundabout would be a good fit for a few reasons:
Roundabouts have a better safety track record than signalized intersections, and this is particularly
important given the proximity to the high school and the park,
Roundabouts are helpful when the legs of an intersection don’t line up very well, as is the case here,
and
There is already adequate right of way, given the large footprint that this intersection already occupies.
4. #2 WFRC TAP GREENbike Capital Care Grant
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
Transportation made a request in the FY26 CIP for match, and we plan to make an ask again next year.
b. The description indicates 5 bikeshare stations will be replaced. Is the City also asking for five
additional stations, depending on available funding? If so, what are the proposed locations?
This ask is just for replacement.
C. Are the 58 e-bikes replacing manual (non-electric) bikes? Or expanding the total number of bikes in
the fleet?
GREENbike has said that they are planning to transition to an all-electric fleet, and will be phasing out
the manual bikes as they wear out.
5. Carbon Reduction Program Grant (Waterwise Trees on 9-Line)
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
Carbon Reduction Program (CRP) funds are programmed out 2 years (2027). If this grant is successful,
we anticipate a request for match in the FY27 CIP round using General Funds or Park Impact Fees.
b. Could you please elaborate on what segments of the 9-Line Trail will receive the new trees? The
description mentions the section of the trail that aligns with the Green Loop (approximately between
500 West and 200 East). Some prior analysis identified sections of the trail on the Westside as having
low levels of trees and shade. In addition, sections of the 9-Line on the Westside have lost trees that
died in recent years and have not been replaced.
This grant would add greening to selected tree-less sections of the 9-Line along the 900 South
reconstruction project (600 West to 500 East). This area has been selected in part due to its likelihood
of scoring better for this funding source. The funding level available through this program is insufficient
to address more than a couple blocks. The 9-Line corridor could use several million dollars for street
greening. The administration will continue to seek opportunities to add greening to all sections of the
9-Line.
6. #6 WFRC TLC Beehive Bikeways Grant
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
The match is likely to come from the Fiscal Year 2026 (FY26) Planning and Design for Future Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) applications, an annual CIP-adjacent program that is part of the FY26
budget requests.
b. Could you please elaborate how this is different than what the Pedestrian & Bicycle Master Plan
recommends and existing wayfinding signs in the City’s urban trail network such as the Jordan River, 9-
Line, and McClelland (standardizing wayfinding signs, replacing existing, adding new, etc.)?
While Salt Lake City anticipates keeping the branding for the individual routes, this will layer on a
comprehensive, destination-based, wayfinding approach that unifies the various facility types.
Consequently, bicyclists traveling on a particular route can be more fully aware of the interconnected
bike lanes, trails, and neighborhood byways. For example, the destination-based element could help
someone traveling along the Jordan River Parkway who may not be aware of nearby amenities,
including food or services. Additionally, this effort will identify system gaps that require connection
through either quick-build designs or permanent facilities, thereby leading to a more cohesive bicycling
network.
7. #5 WFRC TLC South Temple – Better Connections for a Great Street Grant
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
Match is likely to come from the FY26 Planning and Design for Future CIP Applications, an annual CIP-
adjacent program that is part of the FY26 budget requests.
(Council staff had no questions for grants 8-10.)
Items B1 – B10
Page 1
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst
DATE:February 4, 2025
RE: MOTION SHEET FOR PUBLIC HEARING
________________________________________________________________________________
The Council will conduct a Public Hearing and may consider the following motion:
Motion 1 – Close and Refer
I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and refer Item B-1 and B-10 to a
future Consent Agenda for action.
Project Timeline:
Public Hearing: February 4, 2025
NEW GRANT APPLICATIONS
February 4, 2025 PUBLIC HEARING
City Match
Required?
Number of
FTEs
Requested
Grant Title Grant Purpose Status Annual
Grant
Total Grant
and FTE
Amount
Funding
Agency
Requested By
1.No.3 New
FTE’s
Leading the Way:
Developing Low-
Carbon
Transportation
Materials for Salt Lake
City
Fund efforts to
mainstream the use of
low-carbon
transportation materials
in Utah.
Needs
Public
Hearing
No.$19,119,105 Federal
Highway
Administra
tion
Engineering
2.Yes. $341,343
Source: Most
likely from
Complete
Street
Reconstruc-
tion
None.Wakara Way – #1
WFRC Surface
Transportation
Program
Fund replacement of
deteriorated roadway,
address rainwater
flooding, create safer
pathways for
pedestrians and
bicyclists, and prepare
for TRAX Orange line
opening in next ten
years
Needs
Public
Hearing
No $4,700,657 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Public Services
3.Yes. $75,743
Source: most
likely from
part of a
Traffic Signal
Replacement
as this would
replace a
traffic signal
None.Highland Roundabout
#3 WFRC Congestion
Mitigation/Air Quality
Program
Fund the conversion of a
traffic signal at 1700 East
and 2100 South to a
roundabout to reduce
speeds, delays,
emissions and increase
pedestrian safety.
Needs
Public
Hearing.
No $1,043,057 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Transportation
with a
roundabout.
City Match
Required?
Number of
FTEs
Requested
Grant Title Grant Purpose Status Annual
Grant
Total Grant
and FTE
Amount
Funding
Agency
Requested By
4.Yes. $57,545
Source:
Transporta-
tion made a
request in
FY26 CIP for
match. The
Admin. plans
to ask again
next year.
None.GREENBike Capital
Care - #2 WFRC
Transportation
Alternatives Program
Of 50 bikeshare stations
in SLC, 23 are at the end
of their lifespan; parts
are no longer available
for repairs. Grant funds
would replace 5
bikeshare stations and
58 e-bikes.
Needs
Public
Hearing.
No $792,455 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Transportation
5.Yes. $43,000
Source: if
awarded,
Admin.
anticipates
requesting
match in the
FY27 CIP
round using
General
Funds or
Park Impact
Fees.
None.Carbon Reduction
Program on 9-Line
Trail
Fund purchase of
waterwise street trees &
plants along hottest
blocks of SLC’s 9-Line
Trail to reduce
emissions.
Needs
Public
Hearing.
No $592,000 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Transportation
6. Yes. $20,000
Source:
(FY26)
Planning and
Design for
Future CIP
applications
None.Beehive Bikeways
Transportation Land
Use Connection
Program
Fund comprehensive
way-finding approach to
ensure bicyclists know
how to get where they
want to go.
Needs
Public
Hearing
No $180,000 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Transportation
7.Yes. $12,500
Source: FY26
Planning and
Design for
Future CIP
Applications
None.South Temple: Better
Connections for a
Great Street - #4
Transportation Land
Use Connection
Program
Fund improvements to
crossings and clearer
rights-of-way at
intersections between
the Avenues & areas to
the south. South
Temple’s role in the
green loop will also be
evaluated.
Needs
Public
Hearing
No.$162,500 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Transportation
8.Yes. $12,239
Source:
Existing Fire
Department
budget
None.Assistance to Fire-
fighters Program
5 AED and 7 CPR devices
will be replaced to
comply with Nat’l Fire
Protection Assoc.
standards
Needs
Public
Hearing
Yes.$122,394 FEMA/Dept
of Home-
land
Security
Fire Dept.
9.Yes. $50,000
using existing
staff hours
None.Restoration of
Wetlands: Increasing
floral resources for
Monarch butterflies
and bees.
Fund identification of
native plants attractive
to pollinators, and
seedling production. The
City is a subrecipient.
Public
Hearing
No.$85,356 National
Fish &
Wildlife
Foundation
Public Lands
10.Yes. $64,000
using Public
Lands staff
labor for
planting &
producing
additional
plants.
None.Utah Dept. of Natural
Resources/Forestry
Fire & State Lands
Fund vegetation
improvement, species
control & restoration
projects.
Public
Hearing
No.$63,255 Utah Dept.
of Natural
Resources/
Forestry
Fire &
State Lands
Public Lands
The Administration has provided the information below in response to Council staff’s questions.
1.Leading the Way: Low Carbon Transportation Materials Grant Program
a.Which departments / divisions are involved with the low carbon transportation materials grant
program? The request is listed as from Public Lands but the use of the grant funds is for street
reconstruction projects which would be the Engineering Division.
Sustainability Department, Energy & Environment Division and Public Services, Engineering Division.
b.Would the new FTE Sustainability Program Manager be housed in the Sustainability Department? Yes.
c. Would the new FTE Engineering Project Manager be housed in the Engineering Division? Yes.
d. Please define the word region in the following statement from the grant (page 2): "SLC will build a
team of internal and external people. Internal staff includes an LCTM program manager, contract admin,
sustainability engineer, procurement, region and other staff. External includes consultants and universities.
The team will be most involved in the first years of the program and level off somewhat over time,
especially when it comes to development of procedure and IT-support. A summary of SLC's ambition is
presented here based on the sum of hrs by task."
This program would serve Salt Lake City proper, but we would lend our newfound LCTM expertise to
projects in the wider region, defined as Salt Lake County and adjacent municipalities. The extent of the
regional partnership would be any stakeholders in our wider region who are involved or otherwise
support local construction of transportation projects. We also expect the pilot program to result in
specifications for transportation materials that could be adopted and used widely in construction
throughout Utah, and perhaps adopted in states with similar climates. The grant-funded staff would
participate and may facilitate learning sessions for a wider stakeholder audience to share results. The
grant-funded staff would also work closely with concrete suppliers and local batch plants to identify
efficiencies in streamlining LCTM production and establishing cost-effective and competitive pricing
compared to existing concrete mixes for what is anticipated to be an ever-increasing demand for
projects utilizing LCTM.
2. #1WFRC STP Wakara Way Grant – Surface Transportation
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
STP funds are programmed out 7 years (2031), so we anticipate providing match from a future CIP
budget allocation using Class C, 4th Quarter, or General Funds. The most likely source would be
Complete Street Reconstruction.
b. Are there any other city construction projects or improvements planned for the same area that
might create efficiencies if completed during the same timeframe?
TechLink changes to the Wakara/Arapeen intersection are likely to overlap with this area. Depending on
funding sources and partnerships, there is a possibility that these two projects may end up being
combined. This is likely to be determined in the next 3-5 years. One or two years prior to beginning
design, we will do a “concept report” which will include an analysis of all potential overlapping projects,
and determination of how the projects can be designed / constructed to be complementary and
possibly combined.
c. Could you please elaborate how this project will support the TRAX expansion through Research Park
as part of a new orange line (widening / setting aside space for a new station and terminus, placing
infrastructure / utilities, potentially combine the street reconstruction with constructing the new TRAX
route, etc.)? Is there a risk that the TRAX expansion after reconstructing the street could require tearing
up relatively new pavement?
This project will provide enhanced walk and bike infrastructure, improving connections to the planned
TRAX station. The TRAX line is planned
to run along Arapeen Drive, so it will intersect Wakara Way, and have minimal impact to Wakara
itself. It is anticipated that the two projects may happen about the same time.
d.If this grant is awarded, then would the project be fully funded?
The local match will likely be requested in FY29 for 2031 construction.
3. #3 WFRC CMAQ Highland Roundabout Grant
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
STP funds are programmed out 7 years (2031), so we anticipate requesting match from a future CIP
budget allocation using Class C, 4th Quarter, or General Funds. The most likely source would be part of
a Traffic Signal Replacement ask, as this location would replace a traffic signal with a roundabout.
b. Are there any other city construction projects or improvements planned for the same area that might
create efficiencies if completed during the same timeframe?
There is the potential that this could be combined with 1700 East reconstruction, following on the
rebuilding of Highland High School.
C. In Budget Amendment #5 of FY2024, the Council requested the Administration recommend guidance
to create a policy for where roundabouts should be placed taking into consideration air quality and
areas with greater pedestrian traffic. Is there a status update that could be shared on efforts to draft the
policy? What criteria were considered to conclude that a roundabout is the best option for this
intersection?
We have a rough draft for the roundabout policy and would be happy to provide a briefing if that is
desired. For this location, we think a roundabout would be a good fit for a few reasons:
Roundabouts have a better safety track record than signalized intersections, and this is particularly
important given the proximity to the high school and the park,
Roundabouts are helpful when the legs of an intersection don’t line up very well, as is the case here,
and
There is already adequate right of way, given the large footprint that this intersection already occupies.
4. #2 WFRC TAP GREENbike Capital Care Grant
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
Transportation made a request in the FY26 CIP for match, and we plan to make an ask again next year.
b. The description indicates 5 bikeshare stations will be replaced. Is the City also asking for five
additional stations, depending on available funding? If so, what are the proposed locations?
This ask is just for replacement.
C. Are the 58 e-bikes replacing manual (non-electric) bikes? Or expanding the total number of bikes in
the fleet?
GREENbike has said that they are planning to transition to an all-electric fleet, and will be phasing out
the manual bikes as they wear out.
5. Carbon Reduction Program Grant (Waterwise Trees on 9-Line)
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
Carbon Reduction Program (CRP) funds are programmed out 2 years (2027). If this grant is successful,
we anticipate a request for match in the FY27 CIP round using General Funds or Park Impact Fees.
b. Could you please elaborate on what segments of the 9-Line Trail will receive the new trees? The
description mentions the section of the trail that aligns with the Green Loop (approximately between
500 West and 200 East). Some prior analysis identified sections of the trail on the Westside as having
low levels of trees and shade. In addition, sections of the 9-Line on the Westside have lost trees that
died in recent years and have not been replaced.
This grant would add greening to selected tree-less sections of the 9-Line along the 900 South
reconstruction project (600 West to 500 East). This area has been selected in part due to its likelihood
of scoring better for this funding source. The funding level available through this program is insufficient
to address more than a couple blocks. The 9-Line corridor could use several million dollars for street
greening. The administration will continue to seek opportunities to add greening to all sections of the
9-Line.
6. #6 WFRC TLC Beehive Bikeways Grant
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
The match is likely to come from the Fiscal Year 2026 (FY26) Planning and Design for Future Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) applications, an annual CIP-adjacent program that is part of the FY26
budget requests.
b. Could you please elaborate how this is different than what the Pedestrian & Bicycle Master Plan
recommends and existing wayfinding signs in the City’s urban trail network such as the Jordan River, 9-
Line, and McClelland (standardizing wayfinding signs, replacing existing, adding new, etc.)?
While Salt Lake City anticipates keeping the branding for the individual routes, this will layer on a
comprehensive, destination-based, wayfinding approach that unifies the various facility types.
Consequently, bicyclists traveling on a particular route can be more fully aware of the interconnected
bike lanes, trails, and neighborhood byways. For example, the destination-based element could help
someone traveling along the Jordan River Parkway who may not be aware of nearby amenities,
including food or services. Additionally, this effort will identify system gaps that require connection
through either quick-build designs or permanent facilities, thereby leading to a more cohesive bicycling
network.
7. #5 WFRC TLC South Temple – Better Connections for a Great Street Grant
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
Match is likely to come from the FY26 Planning and Design for Future CIP Applications, an annual CIP-
adjacent program that is part of the FY26 budget requests.
(Council staff had no questions for grants 8-10.)
Items B1 – B10
Page 1
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst
DATE:February 4, 2025
RE: MOTION SHEET FOR PUBLIC HEARING
________________________________________________________________________________
The Council will conduct a Public Hearing and may consider the following motion:
Motion 1 – Close and Refer
I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and refer Item B-1 and B-10 to a
future Consent Agenda for action.
Project Timeline:
Public Hearing: February 4, 2025
NEW GRANT APPLICATIONS
February 4, 2025 PUBLIC HEARING
City Match
Required?
Number of
FTEs
Requested
Grant Title Grant Purpose Status Annual
Grant
Total Grant
and FTE
Amount
Funding
Agency
Requested By
1.No.3 New
FTE’s
Leading the Way:
Developing Low-
Carbon
Transportation
Materials for Salt Lake
City
Fund efforts to
mainstream the use of
low-carbon
transportation materials
in Utah.
Needs
Public
Hearing
No.$19,119,105 Federal
Highway
Administra
tion
Engineering
2.Yes. $341,343
Source: Most
likely from
Complete
Street
Reconstruc-
tion
None.Wakara Way – #1
WFRC Surface
Transportation
Program
Fund replacement of
deteriorated roadway,
address rainwater
flooding, create safer
pathways for
pedestrians and
bicyclists, and prepare
for TRAX Orange line
opening in next ten
years
Needs
Public
Hearing
No $4,700,657 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Public Services
3.Yes. $75,743
Source: most
likely from
part of a
Traffic Signal
Replacement
as this would
replace a
traffic signal
None.Highland Roundabout
#3 WFRC Congestion
Mitigation/Air Quality
Program
Fund the conversion of a
traffic signal at 1700 East
and 2100 South to a
roundabout to reduce
speeds, delays,
emissions and increase
pedestrian safety.
Needs
Public
Hearing.
No $1,043,057 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Transportation
with a
roundabout.
City Match
Required?
Number of
FTEs
Requested
Grant Title Grant Purpose Status Annual
Grant
Total Grant
and FTE
Amount
Funding
Agency
Requested By
4.Yes. $57,545
Source:
Transporta-
tion made a
request in
FY26 CIP for
match. The
Admin. plans
to ask again
next year.
None.GREENBike Capital
Care - #2 WFRC
Transportation
Alternatives Program
Of 50 bikeshare stations
in SLC, 23 are at the end
of their lifespan; parts
are no longer available
for repairs. Grant funds
would replace 5
bikeshare stations and
58 e-bikes.
Needs
Public
Hearing.
No $792,455 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Transportation
5.Yes. $43,000
Source: if
awarded,
Admin.
anticipates
requesting
match in the
FY27 CIP
round using
General
Funds or
Park Impact
Fees.
None.Carbon Reduction
Program on 9-Line
Trail
Fund purchase of
waterwise street trees &
plants along hottest
blocks of SLC’s 9-Line
Trail to reduce
emissions.
Needs
Public
Hearing.
No $592,000 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Transportation
6. Yes. $20,000
Source:
(FY26)
Planning and
Design for
Future CIP
applications
None.Beehive Bikeways
Transportation Land
Use Connection
Program
Fund comprehensive
way-finding approach to
ensure bicyclists know
how to get where they
want to go.
Needs
Public
Hearing
No $180,000 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Transportation
7.Yes. $12,500
Source: FY26
Planning and
Design for
Future CIP
Applications
None.South Temple: Better
Connections for a
Great Street - #4
Transportation Land
Use Connection
Program
Fund improvements to
crossings and clearer
rights-of-way at
intersections between
the Avenues & areas to
the south. South
Temple’s role in the
green loop will also be
evaluated.
Needs
Public
Hearing
No.$162,500 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Transportation
8.Yes. $12,239
Source:
Existing Fire
Department
budget
None.Assistance to Fire-
fighters Program
5 AED and 7 CPR devices
will be replaced to
comply with Nat’l Fire
Protection Assoc.
standards
Needs
Public
Hearing
Yes.$122,394 FEMA/Dept
of Home-
land
Security
Fire Dept.
9.Yes. $50,000
using existing
staff hours
None.Restoration of
Wetlands: Increasing
floral resources for
Monarch butterflies
and bees.
Fund identification of
native plants attractive
to pollinators, and
seedling production. The
City is a subrecipient.
Public
Hearing
No.$85,356 National
Fish &
Wildlife
Foundation
Public Lands
10.Yes. $64,000
using Public
Lands staff
labor for
planting &
producing
additional
plants.
None.Utah Dept. of Natural
Resources/Forestry
Fire & State Lands
Fund vegetation
improvement, species
control & restoration
projects.
Public
Hearing
No.$63,255 Utah Dept.
of Natural
Resources/
Forestry
Fire &
State Lands
Public Lands
The Administration has provided the information below in response to Council staff’s questions.
1.Leading the Way: Low Carbon Transportation Materials Grant Program
a.Which departments / divisions are involved with the low carbon transportation materials grant
program? The request is listed as from Public Lands but the use of the grant funds is for street
reconstruction projects which would be the Engineering Division.
Sustainability Department, Energy & Environment Division and Public Services, Engineering Division.
b.Would the new FTE Sustainability Program Manager be housed in the Sustainability Department? Yes.
c. Would the new FTE Engineering Project Manager be housed in the Engineering Division? Yes.
d. Please define the word region in the following statement from the grant (page 2): "SLC will build a
team of internal and external people. Internal staff includes an LCTM program manager, contract admin,
sustainability engineer, procurement, region and other staff. External includes consultants and universities.
The team will be most involved in the first years of the program and level off somewhat over time,
especially when it comes to development of procedure and IT-support. A summary of SLC's ambition is
presented here based on the sum of hrs by task."
This program would serve Salt Lake City proper, but we would lend our newfound LCTM expertise to
projects in the wider region, defined as Salt Lake County and adjacent municipalities. The extent of the
regional partnership would be any stakeholders in our wider region who are involved or otherwise
support local construction of transportation projects. We also expect the pilot program to result in
specifications for transportation materials that could be adopted and used widely in construction
throughout Utah, and perhaps adopted in states with similar climates. The grant-funded staff would
participate and may facilitate learning sessions for a wider stakeholder audience to share results. The
grant-funded staff would also work closely with concrete suppliers and local batch plants to identify
efficiencies in streamlining LCTM production and establishing cost-effective and competitive pricing
compared to existing concrete mixes for what is anticipated to be an ever-increasing demand for
projects utilizing LCTM.
2. #1WFRC STP Wakara Way Grant – Surface Transportation
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
STP funds are programmed out 7 years (2031), so we anticipate providing match from a future CIP
budget allocation using Class C, 4th Quarter, or General Funds. The most likely source would be
Complete Street Reconstruction.
b. Are there any other city construction projects or improvements planned for the same area that
might create efficiencies if completed during the same timeframe?
TechLink changes to the Wakara/Arapeen intersection are likely to overlap with this area. Depending on
funding sources and partnerships, there is a possibility that these two projects may end up being
combined. This is likely to be determined in the next 3-5 years. One or two years prior to beginning
design, we will do a “concept report” which will include an analysis of all potential overlapping projects,
and determination of how the projects can be designed / constructed to be complementary and
possibly combined.
c. Could you please elaborate how this project will support the TRAX expansion through Research Park
as part of a new orange line (widening / setting aside space for a new station and terminus, placing
infrastructure / utilities, potentially combine the street reconstruction with constructing the new TRAX
route, etc.)? Is there a risk that the TRAX expansion after reconstructing the street could require tearing
up relatively new pavement?
This project will provide enhanced walk and bike infrastructure, improving connections to the planned
TRAX station. The TRAX line is planned
to run along Arapeen Drive, so it will intersect Wakara Way, and have minimal impact to Wakara
itself. It is anticipated that the two projects may happen about the same time.
d.If this grant is awarded, then would the project be fully funded?
The local match will likely be requested in FY29 for 2031 construction.
3. #3 WFRC CMAQ Highland Roundabout Grant
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
STP funds are programmed out 7 years (2031), so we anticipate requesting match from a future CIP
budget allocation using Class C, 4th Quarter, or General Funds. The most likely source would be part of
a Traffic Signal Replacement ask, as this location would replace a traffic signal with a roundabout.
b. Are there any other city construction projects or improvements planned for the same area that might
create efficiencies if completed during the same timeframe?
There is the potential that this could be combined with 1700 East reconstruction, following on the
rebuilding of Highland High School.
C. In Budget Amendment #5 of FY2024, the Council requested the Administration recommend guidance
to create a policy for where roundabouts should be placed taking into consideration air quality and
areas with greater pedestrian traffic. Is there a status update that could be shared on efforts to draft the
policy? What criteria were considered to conclude that a roundabout is the best option for this
intersection?
We have a rough draft for the roundabout policy and would be happy to provide a briefing if that is
desired. For this location, we think a roundabout would be a good fit for a few reasons:
Roundabouts have a better safety track record than signalized intersections, and this is particularly
important given the proximity to the high school and the park,
Roundabouts are helpful when the legs of an intersection don’t line up very well, as is the case here,
and
There is already adequate right of way, given the large footprint that this intersection already occupies.
4. #2 WFRC TAP GREENbike Capital Care Grant
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
Transportation made a request in the FY26 CIP for match, and we plan to make an ask again next year.
b. The description indicates 5 bikeshare stations will be replaced. Is the City also asking for five
additional stations, depending on available funding? If so, what are the proposed locations?
This ask is just for replacement.
C. Are the 58 e-bikes replacing manual (non-electric) bikes? Or expanding the total number of bikes in
the fleet?
GREENbike has said that they are planning to transition to an all-electric fleet, and will be phasing out
the manual bikes as they wear out.
5. Carbon Reduction Program Grant (Waterwise Trees on 9-Line)
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
Carbon Reduction Program (CRP) funds are programmed out 2 years (2027). If this grant is successful,
we anticipate a request for match in the FY27 CIP round using General Funds or Park Impact Fees.
b. Could you please elaborate on what segments of the 9-Line Trail will receive the new trees? The
description mentions the section of the trail that aligns with the Green Loop (approximately between
500 West and 200 East). Some prior analysis identified sections of the trail on the Westside as having
low levels of trees and shade. In addition, sections of the 9-Line on the Westside have lost trees that
died in recent years and have not been replaced.
This grant would add greening to selected tree-less sections of the 9-Line along the 900 South
reconstruction project (600 West to 500 East). This area has been selected in part due to its likelihood
of scoring better for this funding source. The funding level available through this program is insufficient
to address more than a couple blocks. The 9-Line corridor could use several million dollars for street
greening. The administration will continue to seek opportunities to add greening to all sections of the
9-Line.
6. #6 WFRC TLC Beehive Bikeways Grant
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
The match is likely to come from the Fiscal Year 2026 (FY26) Planning and Design for Future Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) applications, an annual CIP-adjacent program that is part of the FY26
budget requests.
b. Could you please elaborate how this is different than what the Pedestrian & Bicycle Master Plan
recommends and existing wayfinding signs in the City’s urban trail network such as the Jordan River, 9-
Line, and McClelland (standardizing wayfinding signs, replacing existing, adding new, etc.)?
While Salt Lake City anticipates keeping the branding for the individual routes, this will layer on a
comprehensive, destination-based, wayfinding approach that unifies the various facility types.
Consequently, bicyclists traveling on a particular route can be more fully aware of the interconnected
bike lanes, trails, and neighborhood byways. For example, the destination-based element could help
someone traveling along the Jordan River Parkway who may not be aware of nearby amenities,
including food or services. Additionally, this effort will identify system gaps that require connection
through either quick-build designs or permanent facilities, thereby leading to a more cohesive bicycling
network.
7. #5 WFRC TLC South Temple – Better Connections for a Great Street Grant
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
Match is likely to come from the FY26 Planning and Design for Future CIP Applications, an annual CIP-
adjacent program that is part of the FY26 budget requests.
(Council staff had no questions for grants 8-10.)
Items B1 – B10
Page 1
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst
DATE:February 4, 2025
RE: MOTION SHEET FOR PUBLIC HEARING
________________________________________________________________________________
The Council will conduct a Public Hearing and may consider the following motion:
Motion 1 – Close and Refer
I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and refer Item B-1 and B-10 to a
future Consent Agenda for action.
Project Timeline:
Public Hearing: February 4, 2025
NEW GRANT APPLICATIONS
February 4, 2025 PUBLIC HEARING
City Match
Required?
Number of
FTEs
Requested
Grant Title Grant Purpose Status Annual
Grant
Total Grant
and FTE
Amount
Funding
Agency
Requested By
1.No.3 New
FTE’s
Leading the Way:
Developing Low-
Carbon
Transportation
Materials for Salt Lake
City
Fund efforts to
mainstream the use of
low-carbon
transportation materials
in Utah.
Needs
Public
Hearing
No.$19,119,105 Federal
Highway
Administra
tion
Engineering
2.Yes. $341,343
Source: Most
likely from
Complete
Street
Reconstruc-
tion
None.Wakara Way – #1
WFRC Surface
Transportation
Program
Fund replacement of
deteriorated roadway,
address rainwater
flooding, create safer
pathways for
pedestrians and
bicyclists, and prepare
for TRAX Orange line
opening in next ten
years
Needs
Public
Hearing
No $4,700,657 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Public Services
3.Yes. $75,743
Source: most
likely from
part of a
Traffic Signal
Replacement
as this would
replace a
traffic signal
None.Highland Roundabout
#3 WFRC Congestion
Mitigation/Air Quality
Program
Fund the conversion of a
traffic signal at 1700 East
and 2100 South to a
roundabout to reduce
speeds, delays,
emissions and increase
pedestrian safety.
Needs
Public
Hearing.
No $1,043,057 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Transportation
with a
roundabout.
City Match
Required?
Number of
FTEs
Requested
Grant Title Grant Purpose Status Annual
Grant
Total Grant
and FTE
Amount
Funding
Agency
Requested By
4.Yes. $57,545
Source:
Transporta-
tion made a
request in
FY26 CIP for
match. The
Admin. plans
to ask again
next year.
None.GREENBike Capital
Care - #2 WFRC
Transportation
Alternatives Program
Of 50 bikeshare stations
in SLC, 23 are at the end
of their lifespan; parts
are no longer available
for repairs. Grant funds
would replace 5
bikeshare stations and
58 e-bikes.
Needs
Public
Hearing.
No $792,455 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Transportation
5.Yes. $43,000
Source: if
awarded,
Admin.
anticipates
requesting
match in the
FY27 CIP
round using
General
Funds or
Park Impact
Fees.
None.Carbon Reduction
Program on 9-Line
Trail
Fund purchase of
waterwise street trees &
plants along hottest
blocks of SLC’s 9-Line
Trail to reduce
emissions.
Needs
Public
Hearing.
No $592,000 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Transportation
6. Yes. $20,000
Source:
(FY26)
Planning and
Design for
Future CIP
applications
None.Beehive Bikeways
Transportation Land
Use Connection
Program
Fund comprehensive
way-finding approach to
ensure bicyclists know
how to get where they
want to go.
Needs
Public
Hearing
No $180,000 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Transportation
7.Yes. $12,500
Source: FY26
Planning and
Design for
Future CIP
Applications
None.South Temple: Better
Connections for a
Great Street - #4
Transportation Land
Use Connection
Program
Fund improvements to
crossings and clearer
rights-of-way at
intersections between
the Avenues & areas to
the south. South
Temple’s role in the
green loop will also be
evaluated.
Needs
Public
Hearing
No.$162,500 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Transportation
8.Yes. $12,239
Source:
Existing Fire
Department
budget
None.Assistance to Fire-
fighters Program
5 AED and 7 CPR devices
will be replaced to
comply with Nat’l Fire
Protection Assoc.
standards
Needs
Public
Hearing
Yes.$122,394 FEMA/Dept
of Home-
land
Security
Fire Dept.
9.Yes. $50,000
using existing
staff hours
None.Restoration of
Wetlands: Increasing
floral resources for
Monarch butterflies
and bees.
Fund identification of
native plants attractive
to pollinators, and
seedling production. The
City is a subrecipient.
Public
Hearing
No.$85,356 National
Fish &
Wildlife
Foundation
Public Lands
10.Yes. $64,000
using Public
Lands staff
labor for
planting &
producing
additional
plants.
None.Utah Dept. of Natural
Resources/Forestry
Fire & State Lands
Fund vegetation
improvement, species
control & restoration
projects.
Public
Hearing
No.$63,255 Utah Dept.
of Natural
Resources/
Forestry
Fire &
State Lands
Public Lands
The Administration has provided the information below in response to Council staff’s questions.
1.Leading the Way: Low Carbon Transportation Materials Grant Program
a.Which departments / divisions are involved with the low carbon transportation materials grant
program? The request is listed as from Public Lands but the use of the grant funds is for street
reconstruction projects which would be the Engineering Division.
Sustainability Department, Energy & Environment Division and Public Services, Engineering Division.
b.Would the new FTE Sustainability Program Manager be housed in the Sustainability Department? Yes.
c. Would the new FTE Engineering Project Manager be housed in the Engineering Division? Yes.
d. Please define the word region in the following statement from the grant (page 2): "SLC will build a
team of internal and external people. Internal staff includes an LCTM program manager, contract admin,
sustainability engineer, procurement, region and other staff. External includes consultants and universities.
The team will be most involved in the first years of the program and level off somewhat over time,
especially when it comes to development of procedure and IT-support. A summary of SLC's ambition is
presented here based on the sum of hrs by task."
This program would serve Salt Lake City proper, but we would lend our newfound LCTM expertise to
projects in the wider region, defined as Salt Lake County and adjacent municipalities. The extent of the
regional partnership would be any stakeholders in our wider region who are involved or otherwise
support local construction of transportation projects. We also expect the pilot program to result in
specifications for transportation materials that could be adopted and used widely in construction
throughout Utah, and perhaps adopted in states with similar climates. The grant-funded staff would
participate and may facilitate learning sessions for a wider stakeholder audience to share results. The
grant-funded staff would also work closely with concrete suppliers and local batch plants to identify
efficiencies in streamlining LCTM production and establishing cost-effective and competitive pricing
compared to existing concrete mixes for what is anticipated to be an ever-increasing demand for
projects utilizing LCTM.
2. #1WFRC STP Wakara Way Grant – Surface Transportation
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
STP funds are programmed out 7 years (2031), so we anticipate providing match from a future CIP
budget allocation using Class C, 4th Quarter, or General Funds. The most likely source would be
Complete Street Reconstruction.
b. Are there any other city construction projects or improvements planned for the same area that
might create efficiencies if completed during the same timeframe?
TechLink changes to the Wakara/Arapeen intersection are likely to overlap with this area. Depending on
funding sources and partnerships, there is a possibility that these two projects may end up being
combined. This is likely to be determined in the next 3-5 years. One or two years prior to beginning
design, we will do a “concept report” which will include an analysis of all potential overlapping projects,
and determination of how the projects can be designed / constructed to be complementary and
possibly combined.
c. Could you please elaborate how this project will support the TRAX expansion through Research Park
as part of a new orange line (widening / setting aside space for a new station and terminus, placing
infrastructure / utilities, potentially combine the street reconstruction with constructing the new TRAX
route, etc.)? Is there a risk that the TRAX expansion after reconstructing the street could require tearing
up relatively new pavement?
This project will provide enhanced walk and bike infrastructure, improving connections to the planned
TRAX station. The TRAX line is planned
to run along Arapeen Drive, so it will intersect Wakara Way, and have minimal impact to Wakara
itself. It is anticipated that the two projects may happen about the same time.
d.If this grant is awarded, then would the project be fully funded?
The local match will likely be requested in FY29 for 2031 construction.
3. #3 WFRC CMAQ Highland Roundabout Grant
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
STP funds are programmed out 7 years (2031), so we anticipate requesting match from a future CIP
budget allocation using Class C, 4th Quarter, or General Funds. The most likely source would be part of
a Traffic Signal Replacement ask, as this location would replace a traffic signal with a roundabout.
b. Are there any other city construction projects or improvements planned for the same area that might
create efficiencies if completed during the same timeframe?
There is the potential that this could be combined with 1700 East reconstruction, following on the
rebuilding of Highland High School.
C. In Budget Amendment #5 of FY2024, the Council requested the Administration recommend guidance
to create a policy for where roundabouts should be placed taking into consideration air quality and
areas with greater pedestrian traffic. Is there a status update that could be shared on efforts to draft the
policy? What criteria were considered to conclude that a roundabout is the best option for this
intersection?
We have a rough draft for the roundabout policy and would be happy to provide a briefing if that is
desired. For this location, we think a roundabout would be a good fit for a few reasons:
Roundabouts have a better safety track record than signalized intersections, and this is particularly
important given the proximity to the high school and the park,
Roundabouts are helpful when the legs of an intersection don’t line up very well, as is the case here,
and
There is already adequate right of way, given the large footprint that this intersection already occupies.
4. #2 WFRC TAP GREENbike Capital Care Grant
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
Transportation made a request in the FY26 CIP for match, and we plan to make an ask again next year.
b. The description indicates 5 bikeshare stations will be replaced. Is the City also asking for five
additional stations, depending on available funding? If so, what are the proposed locations?
This ask is just for replacement.
C. Are the 58 e-bikes replacing manual (non-electric) bikes? Or expanding the total number of bikes in
the fleet?
GREENbike has said that they are planning to transition to an all-electric fleet, and will be phasing out
the manual bikes as they wear out.
5. Carbon Reduction Program Grant (Waterwise Trees on 9-Line)
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
Carbon Reduction Program (CRP) funds are programmed out 2 years (2027). If this grant is successful,
we anticipate a request for match in the FY27 CIP round using General Funds or Park Impact Fees.
b. Could you please elaborate on what segments of the 9-Line Trail will receive the new trees? The
description mentions the section of the trail that aligns with the Green Loop (approximately between
500 West and 200 East). Some prior analysis identified sections of the trail on the Westside as having
low levels of trees and shade. In addition, sections of the 9-Line on the Westside have lost trees that
died in recent years and have not been replaced.
This grant would add greening to selected tree-less sections of the 9-Line along the 900 South
reconstruction project (600 West to 500 East). This area has been selected in part due to its likelihood
of scoring better for this funding source. The funding level available through this program is insufficient
to address more than a couple blocks. The 9-Line corridor could use several million dollars for street
greening. The administration will continue to seek opportunities to add greening to all sections of the
9-Line.
6. #6 WFRC TLC Beehive Bikeways Grant
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
The match is likely to come from the Fiscal Year 2026 (FY26) Planning and Design for Future Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) applications, an annual CIP-adjacent program that is part of the FY26
budget requests.
b. Could you please elaborate how this is different than what the Pedestrian & Bicycle Master Plan
recommends and existing wayfinding signs in the City’s urban trail network such as the Jordan River, 9-
Line, and McClelland (standardizing wayfinding signs, replacing existing, adding new, etc.)?
While Salt Lake City anticipates keeping the branding for the individual routes, this will layer on a
comprehensive, destination-based, wayfinding approach that unifies the various facility types.
Consequently, bicyclists traveling on a particular route can be more fully aware of the interconnected
bike lanes, trails, and neighborhood byways. For example, the destination-based element could help
someone traveling along the Jordan River Parkway who may not be aware of nearby amenities,
including food or services. Additionally, this effort will identify system gaps that require connection
through either quick-build designs or permanent facilities, thereby leading to a more cohesive bicycling
network.
7. #5 WFRC TLC South Temple – Better Connections for a Great Street Grant
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
Match is likely to come from the FY26 Planning and Design for Future CIP Applications, an annual CIP-
adjacent program that is part of the FY26 budget requests.
(Council staff had no questions for grants 8-10.)
Items B1 – B10
Page 1
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst
DATE:February 4, 2025
RE: MOTION SHEET FOR PUBLIC HEARING
________________________________________________________________________________
The Council will conduct a Public Hearing and may consider the following motion:
Motion 1 – Close and Refer
I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and refer Item B-1 and B-10 to a
future Consent Agenda for action.
Project Timeline:
Public Hearing: February 4, 2025
NEW GRANT APPLICATIONS
February 4, 2025 PUBLIC HEARING
City Match
Required?
Number of
FTEs
Requested
Grant Title Grant Purpose Status Annual
Grant
Total Grant
and FTE
Amount
Funding
Agency
Requested By
1.No.3 New
FTE’s
Leading the Way:
Developing Low-
Carbon
Transportation
Materials for Salt Lake
City
Fund efforts to
mainstream the use of
low-carbon
transportation materials
in Utah.
Needs
Public
Hearing
No.$19,119,105 Federal
Highway
Administra
tion
Engineering
2.Yes. $341,343
Source: Most
likely from
Complete
Street
Reconstruc-
tion
None.Wakara Way – #1
WFRC Surface
Transportation
Program
Fund replacement of
deteriorated roadway,
address rainwater
flooding, create safer
pathways for
pedestrians and
bicyclists, and prepare
for TRAX Orange line
opening in next ten
years
Needs
Public
Hearing
No $4,700,657 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Public Services
3.Yes. $75,743
Source: most
likely from
part of a
Traffic Signal
Replacement
as this would
replace a
traffic signal
None.Highland Roundabout
#3 WFRC Congestion
Mitigation/Air Quality
Program
Fund the conversion of a
traffic signal at 1700 East
and 2100 South to a
roundabout to reduce
speeds, delays,
emissions and increase
pedestrian safety.
Needs
Public
Hearing.
No $1,043,057 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Transportation
with a
roundabout.
City Match
Required?
Number of
FTEs
Requested
Grant Title Grant Purpose Status Annual
Grant
Total Grant
and FTE
Amount
Funding
Agency
Requested By
4.Yes. $57,545
Source:
Transporta-
tion made a
request in
FY26 CIP for
match. The
Admin. plans
to ask again
next year.
None.GREENBike Capital
Care - #2 WFRC
Transportation
Alternatives Program
Of 50 bikeshare stations
in SLC, 23 are at the end
of their lifespan; parts
are no longer available
for repairs. Grant funds
would replace 5
bikeshare stations and
58 e-bikes.
Needs
Public
Hearing.
No $792,455 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Transportation
5.Yes. $43,000
Source: if
awarded,
Admin.
anticipates
requesting
match in the
FY27 CIP
round using
General
Funds or
Park Impact
Fees.
None.Carbon Reduction
Program on 9-Line
Trail
Fund purchase of
waterwise street trees &
plants along hottest
blocks of SLC’s 9-Line
Trail to reduce
emissions.
Needs
Public
Hearing.
No $592,000 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Transportation
6. Yes. $20,000
Source:
(FY26)
Planning and
Design for
Future CIP
applications
None.Beehive Bikeways
Transportation Land
Use Connection
Program
Fund comprehensive
way-finding approach to
ensure bicyclists know
how to get where they
want to go.
Needs
Public
Hearing
No $180,000 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Transportation
7.Yes. $12,500
Source: FY26
Planning and
Design for
Future CIP
Applications
None.South Temple: Better
Connections for a
Great Street - #4
Transportation Land
Use Connection
Program
Fund improvements to
crossings and clearer
rights-of-way at
intersections between
the Avenues & areas to
the south. South
Temple’s role in the
green loop will also be
evaluated.
Needs
Public
Hearing
No.$162,500 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Transportation
8.Yes. $12,239
Source:
Existing Fire
Department
budget
None.Assistance to Fire-
fighters Program
5 AED and 7 CPR devices
will be replaced to
comply with Nat’l Fire
Protection Assoc.
standards
Needs
Public
Hearing
Yes.$122,394 FEMA/Dept
of Home-
land
Security
Fire Dept.
9.Yes. $50,000
using existing
staff hours
None.Restoration of
Wetlands: Increasing
floral resources for
Monarch butterflies
and bees.
Fund identification of
native plants attractive
to pollinators, and
seedling production. The
City is a subrecipient.
Public
Hearing
No.$85,356 National
Fish &
Wildlife
Foundation
Public Lands
10.Yes. $64,000
using Public
Lands staff
labor for
planting &
producing
additional
plants.
None.Utah Dept. of Natural
Resources/Forestry
Fire & State Lands
Fund vegetation
improvement, species
control & restoration
projects.
Public
Hearing
No.$63,255 Utah Dept.
of Natural
Resources/
Forestry
Fire &
State Lands
Public Lands
The Administration has provided the information below in response to Council staff’s questions.
1.Leading the Way: Low Carbon Transportation Materials Grant Program
a.Which departments / divisions are involved with the low carbon transportation materials grant
program? The request is listed as from Public Lands but the use of the grant funds is for street
reconstruction projects which would be the Engineering Division.
Sustainability Department, Energy & Environment Division and Public Services, Engineering Division.
b.Would the new FTE Sustainability Program Manager be housed in the Sustainability Department? Yes.
c. Would the new FTE Engineering Project Manager be housed in the Engineering Division? Yes.
d. Please define the word region in the following statement from the grant (page 2): "SLC will build a
team of internal and external people. Internal staff includes an LCTM program manager, contract admin,
sustainability engineer, procurement, region and other staff. External includes consultants and universities.
The team will be most involved in the first years of the program and level off somewhat over time,
especially when it comes to development of procedure and IT-support. A summary of SLC's ambition is
presented here based on the sum of hrs by task."
This program would serve Salt Lake City proper, but we would lend our newfound LCTM expertise to
projects in the wider region, defined as Salt Lake County and adjacent municipalities. The extent of the
regional partnership would be any stakeholders in our wider region who are involved or otherwise
support local construction of transportation projects. We also expect the pilot program to result in
specifications for transportation materials that could be adopted and used widely in construction
throughout Utah, and perhaps adopted in states with similar climates. The grant-funded staff would
participate and may facilitate learning sessions for a wider stakeholder audience to share results. The
grant-funded staff would also work closely with concrete suppliers and local batch plants to identify
efficiencies in streamlining LCTM production and establishing cost-effective and competitive pricing
compared to existing concrete mixes for what is anticipated to be an ever-increasing demand for
projects utilizing LCTM.
2. #1WFRC STP Wakara Way Grant – Surface Transportation
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
STP funds are programmed out 7 years (2031), so we anticipate providing match from a future CIP
budget allocation using Class C, 4th Quarter, or General Funds. The most likely source would be
Complete Street Reconstruction.
b. Are there any other city construction projects or improvements planned for the same area that
might create efficiencies if completed during the same timeframe?
TechLink changes to the Wakara/Arapeen intersection are likely to overlap with this area. Depending on
funding sources and partnerships, there is a possibility that these two projects may end up being
combined. This is likely to be determined in the next 3-5 years. One or two years prior to beginning
design, we will do a “concept report” which will include an analysis of all potential overlapping projects,
and determination of how the projects can be designed / constructed to be complementary and
possibly combined.
c. Could you please elaborate how this project will support the TRAX expansion through Research Park
as part of a new orange line (widening / setting aside space for a new station and terminus, placing
infrastructure / utilities, potentially combine the street reconstruction with constructing the new TRAX
route, etc.)? Is there a risk that the TRAX expansion after reconstructing the street could require tearing
up relatively new pavement?
This project will provide enhanced walk and bike infrastructure, improving connections to the planned
TRAX station. The TRAX line is planned
to run along Arapeen Drive, so it will intersect Wakara Way, and have minimal impact to Wakara
itself. It is anticipated that the two projects may happen about the same time.
d.If this grant is awarded, then would the project be fully funded?
The local match will likely be requested in FY29 for 2031 construction.
3. #3 WFRC CMAQ Highland Roundabout Grant
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
STP funds are programmed out 7 years (2031), so we anticipate requesting match from a future CIP
budget allocation using Class C, 4th Quarter, or General Funds. The most likely source would be part of
a Traffic Signal Replacement ask, as this location would replace a traffic signal with a roundabout.
b. Are there any other city construction projects or improvements planned for the same area that might
create efficiencies if completed during the same timeframe?
There is the potential that this could be combined with 1700 East reconstruction, following on the
rebuilding of Highland High School.
C. In Budget Amendment #5 of FY2024, the Council requested the Administration recommend guidance
to create a policy for where roundabouts should be placed taking into consideration air quality and
areas with greater pedestrian traffic. Is there a status update that could be shared on efforts to draft the
policy? What criteria were considered to conclude that a roundabout is the best option for this
intersection?
We have a rough draft for the roundabout policy and would be happy to provide a briefing if that is
desired. For this location, we think a roundabout would be a good fit for a few reasons:
Roundabouts have a better safety track record than signalized intersections, and this is particularly
important given the proximity to the high school and the park,
Roundabouts are helpful when the legs of an intersection don’t line up very well, as is the case here,
and
There is already adequate right of way, given the large footprint that this intersection already occupies.
4. #2 WFRC TAP GREENbike Capital Care Grant
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
Transportation made a request in the FY26 CIP for match, and we plan to make an ask again next year.
b. The description indicates 5 bikeshare stations will be replaced. Is the City also asking for five
additional stations, depending on available funding? If so, what are the proposed locations?
This ask is just for replacement.
C. Are the 58 e-bikes replacing manual (non-electric) bikes? Or expanding the total number of bikes in
the fleet?
GREENbike has said that they are planning to transition to an all-electric fleet, and will be phasing out
the manual bikes as they wear out.
5. Carbon Reduction Program Grant (Waterwise Trees on 9-Line)
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
Carbon Reduction Program (CRP) funds are programmed out 2 years (2027). If this grant is successful,
we anticipate a request for match in the FY27 CIP round using General Funds or Park Impact Fees.
b. Could you please elaborate on what segments of the 9-Line Trail will receive the new trees? The
description mentions the section of the trail that aligns with the Green Loop (approximately between
500 West and 200 East). Some prior analysis identified sections of the trail on the Westside as having
low levels of trees and shade. In addition, sections of the 9-Line on the Westside have lost trees that
died in recent years and have not been replaced.
This grant would add greening to selected tree-less sections of the 9-Line along the 900 South
reconstruction project (600 West to 500 East). This area has been selected in part due to its likelihood
of scoring better for this funding source. The funding level available through this program is insufficient
to address more than a couple blocks. The 9-Line corridor could use several million dollars for street
greening. The administration will continue to seek opportunities to add greening to all sections of the
9-Line.
6. #6 WFRC TLC Beehive Bikeways Grant
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
The match is likely to come from the Fiscal Year 2026 (FY26) Planning and Design for Future Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) applications, an annual CIP-adjacent program that is part of the FY26
budget requests.
b. Could you please elaborate how this is different than what the Pedestrian & Bicycle Master Plan
recommends and existing wayfinding signs in the City’s urban trail network such as the Jordan River, 9-
Line, and McClelland (standardizing wayfinding signs, replacing existing, adding new, etc.)?
While Salt Lake City anticipates keeping the branding for the individual routes, this will layer on a
comprehensive, destination-based, wayfinding approach that unifies the various facility types.
Consequently, bicyclists traveling on a particular route can be more fully aware of the interconnected
bike lanes, trails, and neighborhood byways. For example, the destination-based element could help
someone traveling along the Jordan River Parkway who may not be aware of nearby amenities,
including food or services. Additionally, this effort will identify system gaps that require connection
through either quick-build designs or permanent facilities, thereby leading to a more cohesive bicycling
network.
7. #5 WFRC TLC South Temple – Better Connections for a Great Street Grant
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
Match is likely to come from the FY26 Planning and Design for Future CIP Applications, an annual CIP-
adjacent program that is part of the FY26 budget requests.
(Council staff had no questions for grants 8-10.)
Items B1 – B10
Page 1
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst
DATE:February 4, 2025
RE: MOTION SHEET FOR PUBLIC HEARING
________________________________________________________________________________
The Council will conduct a Public Hearing and may consider the following motion:
Motion 1 – Close and Refer
I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and refer Item B-1 and B-10 to a
future Consent Agenda for action.
Project Timeline:
Public Hearing: February 4, 2025
NEW GRANT APPLICATIONS
February 4, 2025 PUBLIC HEARING
City Match
Required?
Number of
FTEs
Requested
Grant Title Grant Purpose Status Annual
Grant
Total Grant
and FTE
Amount
Funding
Agency
Requested By
1.No.3 New
FTE’s
Leading the Way:
Developing Low-
Carbon
Transportation
Materials for Salt Lake
City
Fund efforts to
mainstream the use of
low-carbon
transportation materials
in Utah.
Needs
Public
Hearing
No.$19,119,105 Federal
Highway
Administra
tion
Engineering
2.Yes. $341,343
Source: Most
likely from
Complete
Street
Reconstruc-
tion
None.Wakara Way – #1
WFRC Surface
Transportation
Program
Fund replacement of
deteriorated roadway,
address rainwater
flooding, create safer
pathways for
pedestrians and
bicyclists, and prepare
for TRAX Orange line
opening in next ten
years
Needs
Public
Hearing
No $4,700,657 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Public Services
3.Yes. $75,743
Source: most
likely from
part of a
Traffic Signal
Replacement
as this would
replace a
traffic signal
None.Highland Roundabout
#3 WFRC Congestion
Mitigation/Air Quality
Program
Fund the conversion of a
traffic signal at 1700 East
and 2100 South to a
roundabout to reduce
speeds, delays,
emissions and increase
pedestrian safety.
Needs
Public
Hearing.
No $1,043,057 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Transportation
with a
roundabout.
City Match
Required?
Number of
FTEs
Requested
Grant Title Grant Purpose Status Annual
Grant
Total Grant
and FTE
Amount
Funding
Agency
Requested By
4.Yes. $57,545
Source:
Transporta-
tion made a
request in
FY26 CIP for
match. The
Admin. plans
to ask again
next year.
None.GREENBike Capital
Care - #2 WFRC
Transportation
Alternatives Program
Of 50 bikeshare stations
in SLC, 23 are at the end
of their lifespan; parts
are no longer available
for repairs. Grant funds
would replace 5
bikeshare stations and
58 e-bikes.
Needs
Public
Hearing.
No $792,455 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Transportation
5.Yes. $43,000
Source: if
awarded,
Admin.
anticipates
requesting
match in the
FY27 CIP
round using
General
Funds or
Park Impact
Fees.
None.Carbon Reduction
Program on 9-Line
Trail
Fund purchase of
waterwise street trees &
plants along hottest
blocks of SLC’s 9-Line
Trail to reduce
emissions.
Needs
Public
Hearing.
No $592,000 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Transportation
6. Yes. $20,000
Source:
(FY26)
Planning and
Design for
Future CIP
applications
None.Beehive Bikeways
Transportation Land
Use Connection
Program
Fund comprehensive
way-finding approach to
ensure bicyclists know
how to get where they
want to go.
Needs
Public
Hearing
No $180,000 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Transportation
7.Yes. $12,500
Source: FY26
Planning and
Design for
Future CIP
Applications
None.South Temple: Better
Connections for a
Great Street - #4
Transportation Land
Use Connection
Program
Fund improvements to
crossings and clearer
rights-of-way at
intersections between
the Avenues & areas to
the south. South
Temple’s role in the
green loop will also be
evaluated.
Needs
Public
Hearing
No.$162,500 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Transportation
8.Yes. $12,239
Source:
Existing Fire
Department
budget
None.Assistance to Fire-
fighters Program
5 AED and 7 CPR devices
will be replaced to
comply with Nat’l Fire
Protection Assoc.
standards
Needs
Public
Hearing
Yes.$122,394 FEMA/Dept
of Home-
land
Security
Fire Dept.
9.Yes. $50,000
using existing
staff hours
None.Restoration of
Wetlands: Increasing
floral resources for
Monarch butterflies
and bees.
Fund identification of
native plants attractive
to pollinators, and
seedling production. The
City is a subrecipient.
Public
Hearing
No.$85,356 National
Fish &
Wildlife
Foundation
Public Lands
10.Yes. $64,000
using Public
Lands staff
labor for
planting &
producing
additional
plants.
None.Utah Dept. of Natural
Resources/Forestry
Fire & State Lands
Fund vegetation
improvement, species
control & restoration
projects.
Public
Hearing
No.$63,255 Utah Dept.
of Natural
Resources/
Forestry
Fire &
State Lands
Public Lands
The Administration has provided the information below in response to Council staff’s questions.
1.Leading the Way: Low Carbon Transportation Materials Grant Program
a.Which departments / divisions are involved with the low carbon transportation materials grant
program? The request is listed as from Public Lands but the use of the grant funds is for street
reconstruction projects which would be the Engineering Division.
Sustainability Department, Energy & Environment Division and Public Services, Engineering Division.
b.Would the new FTE Sustainability Program Manager be housed in the Sustainability Department? Yes.
c. Would the new FTE Engineering Project Manager be housed in the Engineering Division? Yes.
d. Please define the word region in the following statement from the grant (page 2): "SLC will build a
team of internal and external people. Internal staff includes an LCTM program manager, contract admin,
sustainability engineer, procurement, region and other staff. External includes consultants and universities.
The team will be most involved in the first years of the program and level off somewhat over time,
especially when it comes to development of procedure and IT-support. A summary of SLC's ambition is
presented here based on the sum of hrs by task."
This program would serve Salt Lake City proper, but we would lend our newfound LCTM expertise to
projects in the wider region, defined as Salt Lake County and adjacent municipalities. The extent of the
regional partnership would be any stakeholders in our wider region who are involved or otherwise
support local construction of transportation projects. We also expect the pilot program to result in
specifications for transportation materials that could be adopted and used widely in construction
throughout Utah, and perhaps adopted in states with similar climates. The grant-funded staff would
participate and may facilitate learning sessions for a wider stakeholder audience to share results. The
grant-funded staff would also work closely with concrete suppliers and local batch plants to identify
efficiencies in streamlining LCTM production and establishing cost-effective and competitive pricing
compared to existing concrete mixes for what is anticipated to be an ever-increasing demand for
projects utilizing LCTM.
2. #1WFRC STP Wakara Way Grant – Surface Transportation
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
STP funds are programmed out 7 years (2031), so we anticipate providing match from a future CIP
budget allocation using Class C, 4th Quarter, or General Funds. The most likely source would be
Complete Street Reconstruction.
b. Are there any other city construction projects or improvements planned for the same area that
might create efficiencies if completed during the same timeframe?
TechLink changes to the Wakara/Arapeen intersection are likely to overlap with this area. Depending on
funding sources and partnerships, there is a possibility that these two projects may end up being
combined. This is likely to be determined in the next 3-5 years. One or two years prior to beginning
design, we will do a “concept report” which will include an analysis of all potential overlapping projects,
and determination of how the projects can be designed / constructed to be complementary and
possibly combined.
c. Could you please elaborate how this project will support the TRAX expansion through Research Park
as part of a new orange line (widening / setting aside space for a new station and terminus, placing
infrastructure / utilities, potentially combine the street reconstruction with constructing the new TRAX
route, etc.)? Is there a risk that the TRAX expansion after reconstructing the street could require tearing
up relatively new pavement?
This project will provide enhanced walk and bike infrastructure, improving connections to the planned
TRAX station. The TRAX line is planned
to run along Arapeen Drive, so it will intersect Wakara Way, and have minimal impact to Wakara
itself. It is anticipated that the two projects may happen about the same time.
d.If this grant is awarded, then would the project be fully funded?
The local match will likely be requested in FY29 for 2031 construction.
3. #3 WFRC CMAQ Highland Roundabout Grant
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
STP funds are programmed out 7 years (2031), so we anticipate requesting match from a future CIP
budget allocation using Class C, 4th Quarter, or General Funds. The most likely source would be part of
a Traffic Signal Replacement ask, as this location would replace a traffic signal with a roundabout.
b. Are there any other city construction projects or improvements planned for the same area that might
create efficiencies if completed during the same timeframe?
There is the potential that this could be combined with 1700 East reconstruction, following on the
rebuilding of Highland High School.
C. In Budget Amendment #5 of FY2024, the Council requested the Administration recommend guidance
to create a policy for where roundabouts should be placed taking into consideration air quality and
areas with greater pedestrian traffic. Is there a status update that could be shared on efforts to draft the
policy? What criteria were considered to conclude that a roundabout is the best option for this
intersection?
We have a rough draft for the roundabout policy and would be happy to provide a briefing if that is
desired. For this location, we think a roundabout would be a good fit for a few reasons:
Roundabouts have a better safety track record than signalized intersections, and this is particularly
important given the proximity to the high school and the park,
Roundabouts are helpful when the legs of an intersection don’t line up very well, as is the case here,
and
There is already adequate right of way, given the large footprint that this intersection already occupies.
4. #2 WFRC TAP GREENbike Capital Care Grant
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
Transportation made a request in the FY26 CIP for match, and we plan to make an ask again next year.
b. The description indicates 5 bikeshare stations will be replaced. Is the City also asking for five
additional stations, depending on available funding? If so, what are the proposed locations?
This ask is just for replacement.
C. Are the 58 e-bikes replacing manual (non-electric) bikes? Or expanding the total number of bikes in
the fleet?
GREENbike has said that they are planning to transition to an all-electric fleet, and will be phasing out
the manual bikes as they wear out.
5. Carbon Reduction Program Grant (Waterwise Trees on 9-Line)
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
Carbon Reduction Program (CRP) funds are programmed out 2 years (2027). If this grant is successful,
we anticipate a request for match in the FY27 CIP round using General Funds or Park Impact Fees.
b. Could you please elaborate on what segments of the 9-Line Trail will receive the new trees? The
description mentions the section of the trail that aligns with the Green Loop (approximately between
500 West and 200 East). Some prior analysis identified sections of the trail on the Westside as having
low levels of trees and shade. In addition, sections of the 9-Line on the Westside have lost trees that
died in recent years and have not been replaced.
This grant would add greening to selected tree-less sections of the 9-Line along the 900 South
reconstruction project (600 West to 500 East). This area has been selected in part due to its likelihood
of scoring better for this funding source. The funding level available through this program is insufficient
to address more than a couple blocks. The 9-Line corridor could use several million dollars for street
greening. The administration will continue to seek opportunities to add greening to all sections of the
9-Line.
6. #6 WFRC TLC Beehive Bikeways Grant
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
The match is likely to come from the Fiscal Year 2026 (FY26) Planning and Design for Future Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) applications, an annual CIP-adjacent program that is part of the FY26
budget requests.
b. Could you please elaborate how this is different than what the Pedestrian & Bicycle Master Plan
recommends and existing wayfinding signs in the City’s urban trail network such as the Jordan River, 9-
Line, and McClelland (standardizing wayfinding signs, replacing existing, adding new, etc.)?
While Salt Lake City anticipates keeping the branding for the individual routes, this will layer on a
comprehensive, destination-based, wayfinding approach that unifies the various facility types.
Consequently, bicyclists traveling on a particular route can be more fully aware of the interconnected
bike lanes, trails, and neighborhood byways. For example, the destination-based element could help
someone traveling along the Jordan River Parkway who may not be aware of nearby amenities,
including food or services. Additionally, this effort will identify system gaps that require connection
through either quick-build designs or permanent facilities, thereby leading to a more cohesive bicycling
network.
7. #5 WFRC TLC South Temple – Better Connections for a Great Street Grant
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
Match is likely to come from the FY26 Planning and Design for Future CIP Applications, an annual CIP-
adjacent program that is part of the FY26 budget requests.
(Council staff had no questions for grants 8-10.)
Items B1 – B10
Page 1
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst
DATE:February 4, 2025
RE: MOTION SHEET FOR PUBLIC HEARING
________________________________________________________________________________
The Council will conduct a Public Hearing and may consider the following motion:
Motion 1 – Close and Refer
I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and refer Item B-1 and B-10 to a
future Consent Agenda for action.
Project Timeline:
Public Hearing: February 4, 2025
NEW GRANT APPLICATIONS
February 4, 2025 PUBLIC HEARING
City Match
Required?
Number of
FTEs
Requested
Grant Title Grant Purpose Status Annual
Grant
Total Grant
and FTE
Amount
Funding
Agency
Requested By
1.No.3 New
FTE’s
Leading the Way:
Developing Low-
Carbon
Transportation
Materials for Salt Lake
City
Fund efforts to
mainstream the use of
low-carbon
transportation materials
in Utah.
Needs
Public
Hearing
No.$19,119,105 Federal
Highway
Administra
tion
Engineering
2.Yes. $341,343
Source: Most
likely from
Complete
Street
Reconstruc-
tion
None.Wakara Way – #1
WFRC Surface
Transportation
Program
Fund replacement of
deteriorated roadway,
address rainwater
flooding, create safer
pathways for
pedestrians and
bicyclists, and prepare
for TRAX Orange line
opening in next ten
years
Needs
Public
Hearing
No $4,700,657 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Public Services
3.Yes. $75,743
Source: most
likely from
part of a
Traffic Signal
Replacement
as this would
replace a
traffic signal
None.Highland Roundabout
#3 WFRC Congestion
Mitigation/Air Quality
Program
Fund the conversion of a
traffic signal at 1700 East
and 2100 South to a
roundabout to reduce
speeds, delays,
emissions and increase
pedestrian safety.
Needs
Public
Hearing.
No $1,043,057 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Transportation
with a
roundabout.
City Match
Required?
Number of
FTEs
Requested
Grant Title Grant Purpose Status Annual
Grant
Total Grant
and FTE
Amount
Funding
Agency
Requested By
4.Yes. $57,545
Source:
Transporta-
tion made a
request in
FY26 CIP for
match. The
Admin. plans
to ask again
next year.
None.GREENBike Capital
Care - #2 WFRC
Transportation
Alternatives Program
Of 50 bikeshare stations
in SLC, 23 are at the end
of their lifespan; parts
are no longer available
for repairs. Grant funds
would replace 5
bikeshare stations and
58 e-bikes.
Needs
Public
Hearing.
No $792,455 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Transportation
5.Yes. $43,000
Source: if
awarded,
Admin.
anticipates
requesting
match in the
FY27 CIP
round using
General
Funds or
Park Impact
Fees.
None.Carbon Reduction
Program on 9-Line
Trail
Fund purchase of
waterwise street trees &
plants along hottest
blocks of SLC’s 9-Line
Trail to reduce
emissions.
Needs
Public
Hearing.
No $592,000 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Transportation
6. Yes. $20,000
Source:
(FY26)
Planning and
Design for
Future CIP
applications
None.Beehive Bikeways
Transportation Land
Use Connection
Program
Fund comprehensive
way-finding approach to
ensure bicyclists know
how to get where they
want to go.
Needs
Public
Hearing
No $180,000 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Transportation
7.Yes. $12,500
Source: FY26
Planning and
Design for
Future CIP
Applications
None.South Temple: Better
Connections for a
Great Street - #4
Transportation Land
Use Connection
Program
Fund improvements to
crossings and clearer
rights-of-way at
intersections between
the Avenues & areas to
the south. South
Temple’s role in the
green loop will also be
evaluated.
Needs
Public
Hearing
No.$162,500 Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
Transportation
8.Yes. $12,239
Source:
Existing Fire
Department
budget
None.Assistance to Fire-
fighters Program
5 AED and 7 CPR devices
will be replaced to
comply with Nat’l Fire
Protection Assoc.
standards
Needs
Public
Hearing
Yes.$122,394 FEMA/Dept
of Home-
land
Security
Fire Dept.
9.Yes. $50,000
using existing
staff hours
None.Restoration of
Wetlands: Increasing
floral resources for
Monarch butterflies
and bees.
Fund identification of
native plants attractive
to pollinators, and
seedling production. The
City is a subrecipient.
Public
Hearing
No.$85,356 National
Fish &
Wildlife
Foundation
Public Lands
10.Yes. $64,000
using Public
Lands staff
labor for
planting &
producing
additional
plants.
None.Utah Dept. of Natural
Resources/Forestry
Fire & State Lands
Fund vegetation
improvement, species
control & restoration
projects.
Public
Hearing
No.$63,255 Utah Dept.
of Natural
Resources/
Forestry
Fire &
State Lands
Public Lands
The Administration has provided the information below in response to Council staff’s questions.
1.Leading the Way: Low Carbon Transportation Materials Grant Program
a.Which departments / divisions are involved with the low carbon transportation materials grant
program? The request is listed as from Public Lands but the use of the grant funds is for street
reconstruction projects which would be the Engineering Division.
Sustainability Department, Energy & Environment Division and Public Services, Engineering Division.
b.Would the new FTE Sustainability Program Manager be housed in the Sustainability Department? Yes.
c. Would the new FTE Engineering Project Manager be housed in the Engineering Division? Yes.
d. Please define the word region in the following statement from the grant (page 2): "SLC will build a
team of internal and external people. Internal staff includes an LCTM program manager, contract admin,
sustainability engineer, procurement, region and other staff. External includes consultants and universities.
The team will be most involved in the first years of the program and level off somewhat over time,
especially when it comes to development of procedure and IT-support. A summary of SLC's ambition is
presented here based on the sum of hrs by task."
This program would serve Salt Lake City proper, but we would lend our newfound LCTM expertise to
projects in the wider region, defined as Salt Lake County and adjacent municipalities. The extent of the
regional partnership would be any stakeholders in our wider region who are involved or otherwise
support local construction of transportation projects. We also expect the pilot program to result in
specifications for transportation materials that could be adopted and used widely in construction
throughout Utah, and perhaps adopted in states with similar climates. The grant-funded staff would
participate and may facilitate learning sessions for a wider stakeholder audience to share results. The
grant-funded staff would also work closely with concrete suppliers and local batch plants to identify
efficiencies in streamlining LCTM production and establishing cost-effective and competitive pricing
compared to existing concrete mixes for what is anticipated to be an ever-increasing demand for
projects utilizing LCTM.
2. #1WFRC STP Wakara Way Grant – Surface Transportation
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
STP funds are programmed out 7 years (2031), so we anticipate providing match from a future CIP
budget allocation using Class C, 4th Quarter, or General Funds. The most likely source would be
Complete Street Reconstruction.
b. Are there any other city construction projects or improvements planned for the same area that
might create efficiencies if completed during the same timeframe?
TechLink changes to the Wakara/Arapeen intersection are likely to overlap with this area. Depending on
funding sources and partnerships, there is a possibility that these two projects may end up being
combined. This is likely to be determined in the next 3-5 years. One or two years prior to beginning
design, we will do a “concept report” which will include an analysis of all potential overlapping projects,
and determination of how the projects can be designed / constructed to be complementary and
possibly combined.
c. Could you please elaborate how this project will support the TRAX expansion through Research Park
as part of a new orange line (widening / setting aside space for a new station and terminus, placing
infrastructure / utilities, potentially combine the street reconstruction with constructing the new TRAX
route, etc.)? Is there a risk that the TRAX expansion after reconstructing the street could require tearing
up relatively new pavement?
This project will provide enhanced walk and bike infrastructure, improving connections to the planned
TRAX station. The TRAX line is planned
to run along Arapeen Drive, so it will intersect Wakara Way, and have minimal impact to Wakara
itself. It is anticipated that the two projects may happen about the same time.
d.If this grant is awarded, then would the project be fully funded?
The local match will likely be requested in FY29 for 2031 construction.
3. #3 WFRC CMAQ Highland Roundabout Grant
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
STP funds are programmed out 7 years (2031), so we anticipate requesting match from a future CIP
budget allocation using Class C, 4th Quarter, or General Funds. The most likely source would be part of
a Traffic Signal Replacement ask, as this location would replace a traffic signal with a roundabout.
b. Are there any other city construction projects or improvements planned for the same area that might
create efficiencies if completed during the same timeframe?
There is the potential that this could be combined with 1700 East reconstruction, following on the
rebuilding of Highland High School.
C. In Budget Amendment #5 of FY2024, the Council requested the Administration recommend guidance
to create a policy for where roundabouts should be placed taking into consideration air quality and
areas with greater pedestrian traffic. Is there a status update that could be shared on efforts to draft the
policy? What criteria were considered to conclude that a roundabout is the best option for this
intersection?
We have a rough draft for the roundabout policy and would be happy to provide a briefing if that is
desired. For this location, we think a roundabout would be a good fit for a few reasons:
Roundabouts have a better safety track record than signalized intersections, and this is particularly
important given the proximity to the high school and the park,
Roundabouts are helpful when the legs of an intersection don’t line up very well, as is the case here,
and
There is already adequate right of way, given the large footprint that this intersection already occupies.
4. #2 WFRC TAP GREENbike Capital Care Grant
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
Transportation made a request in the FY26 CIP for match, and we plan to make an ask again next year.
b. The description indicates 5 bikeshare stations will be replaced. Is the City also asking for five
additional stations, depending on available funding? If so, what are the proposed locations?
This ask is just for replacement.
C. Are the 58 e-bikes replacing manual (non-electric) bikes? Or expanding the total number of bikes in
the fleet?
GREENbike has said that they are planning to transition to an all-electric fleet, and will be phasing out
the manual bikes as they wear out.
5. Carbon Reduction Program Grant (Waterwise Trees on 9-Line)
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
Carbon Reduction Program (CRP) funds are programmed out 2 years (2027). If this grant is successful,
we anticipate a request for match in the FY27 CIP round using General Funds or Park Impact Fees.
b. Could you please elaborate on what segments of the 9-Line Trail will receive the new trees? The
description mentions the section of the trail that aligns with the Green Loop (approximately between
500 West and 200 East). Some prior analysis identified sections of the trail on the Westside as having
low levels of trees and shade. In addition, sections of the 9-Line on the Westside have lost trees that
died in recent years and have not been replaced.
This grant would add greening to selected tree-less sections of the 9-Line along the 900 South
reconstruction project (600 West to 500 East). This area has been selected in part due to its likelihood
of scoring better for this funding source. The funding level available through this program is insufficient
to address more than a couple blocks. The 9-Line corridor could use several million dollars for street
greening. The administration will continue to seek opportunities to add greening to all sections of the
9-Line.
6. #6 WFRC TLC Beehive Bikeways Grant
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
The match is likely to come from the Fiscal Year 2026 (FY26) Planning and Design for Future Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) applications, an annual CIP-adjacent program that is part of the FY26
budget requests.
b. Could you please elaborate how this is different than what the Pedestrian & Bicycle Master Plan
recommends and existing wayfinding signs in the City’s urban trail network such as the Jordan River, 9-
Line, and McClelland (standardizing wayfinding signs, replacing existing, adding new, etc.)?
While Salt Lake City anticipates keeping the branding for the individual routes, this will layer on a
comprehensive, destination-based, wayfinding approach that unifies the various facility types.
Consequently, bicyclists traveling on a particular route can be more fully aware of the interconnected
bike lanes, trails, and neighborhood byways. For example, the destination-based element could help
someone traveling along the Jordan River Parkway who may not be aware of nearby amenities,
including food or services. Additionally, this effort will identify system gaps that require connection
through either quick-build designs or permanent facilities, thereby leading to a more cohesive bicycling
network.
7. #5 WFRC TLC South Temple – Better Connections for a Great Street Grant
a. What is the source of the City’s match?
Match is likely to come from the FY26 Planning and Design for Future CIP Applications, an annual CIP-
adjacent program that is part of the FY26 budget requests.
(Council staff had no questions for grants 8-10.)
Item B11
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:February 4, 2025 6:41 pm
RE: Budget Amendment Number Three of FY2025
MOTION 1 – CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, ADOPT ONE NEW FTE FROM ITEM A-2 AND
REFER REMAINING ITEMS TO A FUTURE DATE
I move that the Council close the public hearing, adopt the new Cybersecurity Engineer I FTE from Item A-2,
and refer remaining items to a future date.
MOTION 2 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
I move that the Council close the public hearing and refer remaining items to a future date for action.
MOTION 3 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT ALL ITEMS
I move that the Council close the public hearing and adopt an ordinance amending the Fiscal Year 2025 final
budget of Salt Lake City including the employment staffing document only for items as shown on the motion
sheet.
Staff note: Council Members do not need to read the individual items being approved below; they are
listed for reference.
A-1: Rescope Vacancy Savings in Public Lands for Vehicles, Equipment and Events ($285,800 one-time rescope of
which $188,700 goes to the Fleet Fund)
A-2: Request for Two New IMS Positions; 1 Full-time Cybersecurity Engineer I Position and transitioning one Part-
time Graphic Design Position to a Full-Time position ($85,242 from IMS Fund Balance then ongoing)
A-3: Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal
A-4: Fleet Block Infrastructure Development and Anticipated 1-Acre Property Sale ($3.9 million one-time from the
Surplus Land Fund to CIP)
D-1: Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal
D-2: Salt Lake City Athletic Complex ($220,412 one-time rescope from CIP)
D-3: Rescope Road Marking Maintenance Funds to Purchase a Utility Task Vehicle for Bike Lane Snow Plowing
($35,000 rescope one-time to the Fleet Fund)
D-4: TTIF 200 South Transit Corridor Project ($1,800,000 one-time to CIP Fund)
D-5: TTIF 400 South Multi Use Trail ($6,356,000 one-time to CIP Fund)
D-6: TTIF West Temple Bike Transit Connections ($1,326,000 one-time to CIP Fund)
D-7: TTIF Westpointe/Jordan Meadows Neighborhood Byway ($900,000 one-time to CIP Fund
D-8: Compliance Vehicle Replacement from Compliance Division’s Operational budget ($35,000 one-time to the
Fleet Fund)
D-9: TTIF Bicycle Lanes Capitol Hill ($406,102 one-time in the CIP Fund)
D-10: Streets Impact Fee Excess Capacity Reimbursement to the General Fund ($3,904,861 one-time from the
CIP Fund to the General Fund)
D-11: Budget Amendment No. 1 Item I-6 Reversal: Consultant Services to Assist with City Prosecutor's Office
Transition ($95,000 one-time back to General Fund Balance)
E-1: Great Salt Lake Watershed Property Acquisition ($2,226,195 one-time grant award)
E-2: TTIF Bicycle Lanes Capitol Hill ($406,102 one-time Misc. Grant Fund)
Staff note: this item is associated with item D-9: TTIF Bicycle Lanes Capitol Hill. Please refer to D-9 for additional
information.
F-1: Donation to Create a Justice Bus as a Mobile Courtroom ($63,675 one-time in Donation Fund)
G-1: Know Your Neighbor Grant Extension ($100,00 – Misc. Grant Fund)
G-2: Community Wildfire Protection Plan Update from Defense Grant Funding ($239,050 – Misc. Grant Fund)
I-1: Accelerating Treatments for Diseased Sycamore Trees ($150,000 one-time from General Fund Balance)
I-2: FTE Transfer from the Mayor’s Office to Community and Neighborhoods (one-time $277,434)
MOTION 4 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND NOT ADOPT
I move that the Council close the public hearing and proceed to the next agenda item.
STRAW POLL:
The Council took a straw poll to indicate support of a request from the Administration to move forward on the
addition of one cybersecurity position in the IMS Department.
STRAW POLL:
The Council took a straw poll to indicate support of a request from the Administration to add an item to Budget
Amendment No. 4 which would add one-time funding of $700,000 from the General Fund Balance to fund
enhanced security at the City & County Building as well as other city buildings through June, 2025.
Page | 1
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY25
TO:Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke, Kira Luke, Austin Kimmel, Sylvia
Richards, and Allison Rowland
Budget and Policy Analysts
DATE: February 4, 2025
RE: Budget Amendment Number 3 of Fiscal Year (FY) 2025
NEW INFORMATION
A-2: Request for Two New IMS Positions; 1 Full-time Cybersecurity Engineer I Position and transitioning one
Part-time Graphic Design Position to a Full-Time position ($85,242 from IMS Fund Balance then ongoing)
Staff received clarification from IMS that the funding source for the PT to FTE graphic design conversion is from the
apprenticeship program, which is currently on hold after the most recent cohort graduated. IMS currently has two FT graphic
designers and one PT and is beginning to see a backlog as they receive more requests from other Departments.
Policy Question
The Council may wish to consider the conversion in the context of the annual budget rather than a budget amendment.
I-1: Accelerating Treatments for Diseased Sycamore Trees ($150,000 one-time from General Fund Balance)
Since the first briefing of this budget amendment, the Administration has indicated the likelihood that the Sycamore
treatments will require $150,000 annually for the next three to five years.
Policy Question
The Council may wish to clarify that the Administration will include this funding request in the Mayor’s Recommended
Budget.
NEW I-2: FTE Transfer from the Mayor’s Office to Community and Neighborhoods (one-time $277,434.62).
The Administration is requesting and several Council Members expressed interest in considering moving several positions
from the Mayor’s Office to the Community and Neighborhoods (CAN) Department. The positions are 5 Community Liaisons
and 1 Policy Advisor. The requested amount of $277,434.62 will cover the remaining pay periods in FY25 for all 6 positions.
Policy Question:
The Council may wish to request a review of program metrics for these positions in the FY26 budget discussion.
The Council may wish to discuss whether a federal funding pause could impact ongoing funding for these
positions. If so, the Council may wish to discuss if and how the positions would be funded in future budgets.
Information below this line was provided at earlier briefings
Budget Amendment Number Three includes 20 proposed amendments with $21,891,545 in revenues and $21,881,787 in
expenditures of which $3,809,861 would come from General Fund Balance. The amendments are across six funds with two
new full-time employee positions proposed for IMS. Most expenses in this budget amendment are housekeeping items found
in section D. The amendments also include three new initiatives in section A and additional housekeeping and grant related
items, and one donation-related item. There is one Council-added item at the end of this staff report in section I.
Project Timeline:
1st Briefing: January 21, 2025
2nd Briefing (if needed) & Public Hearing: Feb. 4, 2025
Potential Adoption Vote: February 18, 2025
Page | 2
Fund Balance
As confirmed by the auditors as part of the
annual comprehensive financial report,
updated fund balance numbers are
summarized in the table on page three of this
staff report. Assuming all items are adopted
as proposed in this budget amendment, the
General Fund Balance is estimated to be
21.37%, which is $40,257,199 above the 13%
minimum target. Fund Balance typically
increases after the annual comprehensive
financial report. This can be caused by
unspent appropriations for operations
lapsing to Fund Balance and revenues
coming in higher than budget. While the
increased General Fund Balance is positive
for the City’s fiscal position, it’s important to
note that the annual budget has used an
escalating amount of one-time General Fund
Balance revenues to fill the annual budget
structural deficit. The chart below was
provided by the Finance Department to show
how much General Fund Balance was used in
the past seven fiscal years. Note the City’s
current fiscal year is FY2025 so the FY2026
column is only for discussion purposes to
show the impact of the trend continuing. The
Council may wish to discuss with the
Administration policy goals for the use of
General Fund Balance in the next annual
budget such as whether reducing the reliance
on one-time funding to fill the structural deficit.
Tracking New Ongoing General Fund Costs for the Next Annual Budget
The table of potential new ongoing General Fund costs for the FY2026 annual budget is available as Attachment 1 at the end
of this document. If all the items in Budget Amendment #3 are adopted as proposed by the Administration, then the FY2026
annual budget would need an additional $173,484 to cover new ongoing costs. The total new ongoing costs from Budget
Amendments 1 through 3 would be $6,381,054. Note that of the total cost, $4.1 million would be needed if the Homeless
Shelter Cities State Mitigation grant is not available for FY2026.
Straw Poll Requests
A-2: Request for 1 Full-time Cybersecurity Engineer I
The Administration is requesting a straw poll from the Council on the Cybersecurity Engineer I FTE.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The chart below presents General Fund Projected Revenues for FY 2025. Based on revenue data
across the first part of the fiscal year, it is projected that revenues will be realized at approximately $4.5 million
beyond the FY 2025 Adopted Budget.
Page | 3
UPDATED Fund Balance Chart
The chart below shows fund balance numbers updated after the Administration’s transmittal. The City’s annual
comprehensive financial audit is progressing. The auditors have completed the Fund Balance portion which is summarized in
the chart below.
Page | 4
Page | 5
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 opening budget 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 table below is current as of November 8, 2024. 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 $437,203 More than two years away -
Parks $3,931,722 August 2026 $6,893,768
Police $1,515,483 More than two years away -
Transportation $2,857,175 August 2026 $2,691,888
Note: Encumbrances are an administrative function when impact fees are held under a contract
Note: to expedite the processing of this staff report, staff has included the Administration’s descriptions from the
transmittal for some of these items.
Section A: New Items
A-1: Rescope Vacancy Savings in Public Lands for Vehicles, Equipment and Events ($285,800 one-
time rescope of which $188,700 goes to the Fleet Fund)
The Administration is requesting the reallocation of $285,800 from Public Lands personal services budget from
attrition and vacancy savings generated from full-time positions through the first six months of the fiscal year. It
is proposed that the funds be used for capital equipment purchases and an increase in contracted operations costs
as follows:
1.16-foot-Wide Area Mower $138,500 – The transmittal indicates 36% of the department’s large area
mowers are between 10-17 years old and need to be replaced; however, Fleet does not plan to replace
them at this time because of lack of funding. They bought two mowers last year and would like to stagger
future purchases to build a more dependable equipment pool.
2.Utility Task Vehicle (UTV) $23,000 – During a routine patrol along the northern section of the
Jordan River Parkway, a newer member of the Park Ranger team drove a UTV to a portion of the trail that
was too narrow for a u-turn. In attempting to make a “k’”turn, the UTV ended up in the river. Although
standard recovery procedures were followed, the UTV was damaged beyond repair and needs to be
replaced.
Policy Question: The Council may wish to ask whether the park rangers will be provided
additional training on UTV’s.
3.Two Wide Area Mower Trailers $27,200 – This is a request for two large trailers needed to
transport the mowers from Public Lands to various locations throughout the City.
Page | 6
The Administration is requesting an additional amount of $97,100 from personnel to operations for the
following items:
4.July Drone Shows $50,000 – This is a request to increase the number of drones from 150 to 300 to
be more in line with what other cities are providing. This increase would allow the city to enhance its
productions and keep Salt Lake City’s shows at Liberty Park and Jordan Park competitive.
5.Restroom Septic Tank Pumping – This is a $30,000 request for septic tank pumping at Washington
Park in Parley’s Canyon. Invoices from the contractor were delayed such that the city is paying 2024
invoices in 2025. The increase in park reservations resulted in additional use and additional gallons
needing to be pumped.
6.Flatbed Electric Cart – This is a request to use $17,100 from personal services to operations to
purchase a flatbed electric cart used for landscaping and tree watering. An existing electric cart was stolen
from the Jordan Park greenhouse and damaged beyond repair.
A-2: Request for Two New IMS Positions; 1 Full-time Cybersecurity Engineer I Position and
transitioning one Part-time Graphic Design Position to a Full-Time position ($85,242 from IMS Fund
Balance then ongoing)
The Information Management Services (IMS) Department is requesting funding and support for two positions: a
cybersecurity engineer, and the conversion of an existing part time graphic design position to full time. The funding
request is for a partial year of the cybersecurity position, with an ongoing annual cost estimate of $173,483.60, which
would be funded from the citywide allocations to IMS in FY26. The department has requested a straw poll for
the cybersecurity position.
Funding for the graphic design position is expected to be absorbed by eliminating other part time positions, requiring
no additional allocation in the FY25 budget. Staff has requested further information on what positions will be
eliminated, as well as any negative impacts if the position was not added until the FY26 budget. That information will
be provided to the Council as it becomes available. In recent budgets, the City has moved towards consolidating
citywide media and engagement positions in the IMS Media and Engagement team, which continues to see an
increasing workload demand.
Based on the Budget Amendment #2 vacancy report, IMS currently has only one vacant FTE position, with $7,906 of
vacancy savings available.
A-3: Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal
A-4: Fleet Block Infrastructure Development and Anticipated 1-Acre Property Sale ($3.9 million
one-time from the Surplus Land Fund to CIP)
This request would transfer $3,900,000 from the Surplus Property Account to a CIP account for constructing
public infrastructure in the Fleet Block. The transfer is linked to the anticipated sale of about a 1-acre parcel,
which is expected to be ~$3,900,000. $1,370,916 will remain in the Surplus Property Account, and the property
sale proceeds will backfill once the sale closes. The sale of the subject property includes requirements for new
housing, including family-sized units and affordable at 80% AMI, as well as commercial space for non-profits and
local businesses.
Once the funding is available in the CIP account, the administration expects the funds to cover the design and
construction of midblock streets that will bisect the block. The administration anticipates the funds will cover the
midblock streets and will be designed within the allocated funding. Additional infrastructure beyond what these
funds provide will be requirements for the developer partners selected in the upcoming RFQ.
Policy Question:
- The Council may wish to ask the administration to expand on how it anticipates the sale of the subject
property and the stated requirements align with its overall vision of the Fleet Block.
Section D: Housekeeping Items
D-1: Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal
Page | 7
D-2: Salt Lake City Athletic Complex ($220,412 one-time rescope from CIP)
$220,412 is being requested for upgrades to the Salt Lake City Sports Complex at 645 S. Guardsman Way. The
funding is left over from the recent roof replacement, which was completed under budget. Amounts requested are
the City's 50% share of the need, per the cost-sharing agreement with Salt Lake County.
- $79,128 is requested for upgrading the ice control system, which maintains the ice temperature and
consistency, and gives remote monitoring alerts.
- $47,565 is requested for an ammonia viper drive, which is a component of the refrigeration system that
minimizes power spikes and improves efficiency. The existing component is 14 years old, exceeding the
typical life expectancy of 10-12 years, and is failing.
- $72,977 is requested to upgrade the controls that include an ammonia detection system that failed
inspection. In 2024, after the failed inspection, the County decided to replace the controls.
- The remaining funding (approximately $20,743) is proposed for studying and designing a remedy for a
groundwater filtration issue in the facility, which is causing a persistent leak, water damage, and
corrosion in utility spaces.
D-3: Rescope Road Marking Maintenance Funds to Purchase a Utility Task Vehicle for Bike Lane
Snow Plowing ($35,000 rescope one-time to the Fleet Fund)
The Public Services Department is requesting to reallocate $35,000 from their road marking budget to the Fleet
Fund for a new Utility Task Vehicle (UTV) for snow removal in protected bike lanes (PBLs). The department
anticipates no reduction in the road marking service levels. PBLs are priority level one in the City's snow removal
plan, and considered a previously underfunded asset. The UTV would also be used in the off seasons by the Traffic
Markings and Signs maintenance crew.
Staff Note: Items D-4 through D-7 are follow up housekeeping items. The Council received a presentation from
the Transportation Division and approved the grant funding in Budget Amendment #2. The four items below
would transfer the funding to the CIP fund for construction and ensure the funding does not lapse to Fund
Balance at the end of fiscal year.
D-4: TTIF 200 South Transit Corridor Project ($1,800,000 one-time to CIP Fund)
This amendment will transfer budget from the Misc. Grants fund to the appropriate CIP fund in the amount of
$1,800,000 for the purpose of completing the 200 South Transit Corridor project. The 200 South Transit
Corridor Technology Upgrades will evaluate bus transit operations on 200 South between roughly 600 west and
University Street and identify strategies for improvement. The focus of the project will be on improving bus
operations through upgrades to intersection controls, which will likely include a combination of transit signal
priority (TSP), detection systems, cabinet/controller hardware, fiber optic communication, and connected vehicle
(V2X) systems.
Salt Lake City has already made significant investments to rebuild the street to establish a Business Access and
transit (BAT) lane and boarding islands; this project follows the initial roadway construction with focus on transit
operations and technology upgrades to further enhance the transit capacity and safety of the 200 South Transit
Corridor.
D-5: TTIF 400 South Multi Use Trail ($6,356,000 one-time to CIP Fund)
This budget amendment is to move grant funding approved in BA #2 in the amount of $6,356,000 to the
appropriate CIP fund for the purpose of completing the 400 South multi use trail. UDOT and Salt Lake City are
partnering to create a multi-use trail on the south side of 400 South from 900 West to 200 West, including the
viaduct bridge over the railroad tracks. The corridor is an important east/west connector, and the project aims to
maintain current vehicular capacity while establishing a safe dedicated corridor for people walking, biking and
rolling. The trail will feature art to enhance the character of the surrounding area and make traveling along the
trail an enjoyable experience.
D-6: TTIF West Temple Bike Transit Connections ($1,326,000 one-time to CIP Fund)
This budget amendment will transfer grants funds approved in budget amendment #2 in the amount of
$1,326,000 to the appropriate CIP fund for the purpose of completing the West Temple Bike Transit Connections.
West Temple Bike Transit Connections will add physically separated bike lanes, improve pedestrian crossings and
narrow pedestrian crossing distances with a mix of curb extensions and refuge islands.
D-7: TTIF Westpointe/Jordan Meadows Neighborhood Byway ($900,000 one-time to CIP Fund
This budget amendment is to move the grant award approved in budget amendment #2 in the amount of $900,00
to the appropriate CIP fund for the purpose of completing the Westpointe/Jordan Neighborhood Byway.
Page | 8
D-8: Compliance Vehicle Replacement from Compliance Division’s Operational budget ($35,000
one-time to the Fleet Fund)
In September of 2024, a City employee was involved in an accident while driving one of the Compliance vehicles
which led to the total loss of the vehicle. Police officers were unable to determine who was at fault. Since the
accident, the division has been using one of the City’s loaner cars from Fleet. The Administration is requesting
funding to replace the vehicle using funding from the Compliance Division’s budget to help maintain enforcement
efficiency and capabilities.
D-9: TTIF Bicycle Lanes Capitol Hill ($406,102 one-time in the CIP Fund)
This request would transfer $406,102 from the UDOT grant award associated with E-2: TTIF Bicycle Lanes
Capitol Hill to the appropriate CIP fund to repave Main Street from North Temple to 300 North with buffered or
protected bike lanes in both directions. Note: the administrative transmittal states the project would repave Main
Street from South Temple to 300 North, but staff has since clarified that it should instead list North Temple. The
administration is also exploring a future project to work with UDOT to add protected bike lanes on Columbus Street
from 300 North to the existing bike lanes on Victory Road.
It is not yet fully designed, but the project will likely remove travel lane(s) in either direction to provide enough space
for cyclists. This portion of Main Street currently has four travel lanes (two lanes in both directions), and all roadways
north of 300 North have one lane in each direction. The bicycle lanes are expected to provide a preferrable alternative
to biking on State Street.
Policy Question:
- The Council may wish to ask the administration to elaborate on its preferred street typology on this portion of
Main Street and ask whether it could lead to increased traffic on State Street or any of the other surrounding
neighborhood streets leading towards and from Capitol Hill.
- The Council may wish to ask how this project fits into the Capital Hill Livable Streets traffic calming project
and potential impacts to State Street and other surrounding neighborhood streets.
D-10: Streets Impact Fee Excess Capacity Reimbursement to the General Fund ($3,904,861 one-
time from the CIP Fund to the General Fund)
This is a request for Excess Capacity Reimbursement to be paid out of Streets Impact Fees to the General Fund in
the amount of $3,904,861. It would also transfer these funds to streets impact fees to change the funding source
of existing CIP project appropriations from streets impact funded to General Fund funded CIP Projects. These
changes will allow the City to comply with the Impact Fee Act, the Impact Fee Facilities Plan, and to more
efficiently utilize restrictive funding sources. The result of the eligibility of these funds has also resulted in the
need to pay Streets Impact Fees interest of ~ $50,218 from Streets Impact Fee Funds. This item helps the City
avoid refunding impact fees.
D-11: Budget Amendment No. 1 Item I-6 Reversal: Consultant Services to Assist with City
Prosecutor's Office Transition ($95,000 one-time back to General Fund Balance)
This amendment is to reverse a Council added amendment item from budget amendment number one that
funded $95,000 for consulting services to help with the Salt Lake City Prosecutor’s Office’s transition from
working with the County Prosecutor’s Office to an independent office arrangement. Since the City’s Prosecutor’s
Office is no longer moving from the County offices, the funding is no longer needed.
Section E: Grants Requiring No Staff Resources
E-1: Great Salt Lake Watershed Property Acquisition ($2,226,195 one-time grant award)
This budget amendment recognizes the City's funding availability from the Great Salt Lake Watershed Enhancement
Trust in the amount of $2,226,195 for a land purchase. If successfully acquired, the property will be preserved and
restored for wetland conservation purposes as part of a broader Great Salt Lake Shoreline Preservation initiative. The
City is negotiating the purchase and, per the agreement with the Great Salt Lake Watershed Enhancement Trust, has
two years to contract. The City will not receive the grant award until it is under contract with the landowner.
Staff notes:
- The transmittal document incorrectly lists the National Audubon Society as the grantor. The grant is an award
pursuant to the state-appropriated Great Salt Lake Watershed Enhancement Trust.
- The transmittal also states Salt Lake City will be the ultimate land manager of the property, but the
administration has shared this has not yet been determined.
E-2: TTIF Bicycle Lanes Capitol Hill ($406,102 one-time Misc. Grant Fund)
Page | 9
Staff note: this item is associated with item D-9: TTIF Bicycle Lanes Capitol Hill. Please refer to D-9
for additional information.
This budget amendment is to recognize the City's funding availability UDOT grant award in the amount of $406,102
to repave Main Street from North Temple to 300 North with buffered or protected bike lanes in both directions. Note:
the administrative transmittal states the project would repave Main Street from South Temple to 300 North, but staff
has since clarified that it should instead name North Temple. The administration is also exploring a future project to
work UDOT to add bike lanes on Columbus Street from 300 North to the existing bike lanes on Victory Road.
Section F: Donations
F-1: Donation to Create a Justice Bus as a Mobile Courtroom ($63,675 one-time in Donation Fund)
The Utah Bar Foundation has awarded the Justice Court a donation in the amount of $63,674 to specifically purchase
and outfit a transit cargo bus as a Justice bus. This donation will enhance and expand the Justice Court’s previous
request for a van, which purchase was on hold, pending the Council’s approval of using the donation towards the Justice
bus concept. (The Council previously approved $62,000 for the Justice Court van.)
The Utah Bar Foundation introduced Ohio’s Justice bus concept to the Justice Court. The City’s Justice Court reached
out to those running the program, visited their bus earlier this year and obtained the van specifications. According to the
transmittal, the Justice bus would serve as a mobile justice court and resource center, providing the space, layout and
equipment needed to better serve individuals residing at the resource centers, as well as provide support for outreach
events coordinated by the Mayor’s Office. The total cost for the purchase and the outfitting of the Justice bus is $125,675.
Policy Question: The Council may wish to ask for additional details.
Section G: Grant Consent Agenda No. 4
G-1: Know Your Neighbor Grant Extension ($100,000 – Misc. Grant Fund)
This is an extension of an existing grant that will provide an additional award of $100,000 for a Volunteer
Coordinator in the Salt Lake City Mayor’s Office. The Know Your Neighbor grant was awarded to Salt Lake City in
October of 2022 by the Department of Workforce Services. The original award was $100,000 to pay for the salaries
and benefits of a volunteer coordinator for one year. Each year since the original award date, the grant has been
extended and Salt Lake City has been given an additional $100,000 for the same purpose. This consent agenda item is
to accept the extension for FY25 for $100,000 to continue to pay for the salary and benefits of the Volunteer
Coordinator housed in the Equity Office in the Mayor's office. The original Public Hearing was held October 18, 2022.
G-2: Community Wildfire Protection Plan Update from Defense Grant Funding ($239,050 – Misc.
Grant Fund)
This is a subaward, awarded and administered by the Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands. The Salt Lake
City Fire Department (SLCFD) will update its 2017 Community Wildfire Protection Plan(CWPP) using lessons learned
from recent events, national and local, to develop a comprehensive mitigation strategy that expands the scope of the
plan to include hazards and areas within the city that should be defined as a part of the Wildland Urban Interface
(WUI.)The current plan was developed with the accepted priorities and strategies in 2017. Since that time multiple
wildfires around the country have challenged the traditional definition and understanding of the WUI. SLCFD will
update its CWPP to identify and prioritize hazards WUI threats and hazards across the entire city. The updated CWPP
is the first step in creating a more comprehensive and inclusive wildland fire mitigation plan that will help determine
both short and long-term mitigation priorities and protective strategies to establish mitigation goals for existing and
anticipated hazards and long-term goals to address hazards resulting from population growth and climate change.
Section I: Council-Added Items
I-1: Accelerating Treatments for Diseased Sycamore Trees ($150,000 one-time from General Fund
Balance)
Council Member Dugan has requested this item to accelerate the pace of implementing treatments for diseased
sycamore trees. The Urban Forestry Division is using $100,000 from the tree maintenance budget to explore multiple
types of treatments with different chemicals and application methods (e.g., spraying, injections, others). This funding
would be used for the treatments found to be most effective. Some sycamore trees are fighting a fungal disease called
anthracnose, bug infestations, and/or mildew. Sycamore trees can live for a few hundred years. Some of the sick trees
are over a century old and large enough to provide multiple public benefits. There are an estimated 4,600 sycamore
trees in the city. Precisely how many of those trees are sick is unknown. Further testing and assessments would be
needed to determine the extent of the problem, treatment options, and costs. Residents have reported diseased trees
in Liberty Park, the Avenues, Sugar House, and Yalecrest. This item is being proposed in Budget Amendment #3
because some treatments are most effective when applied before the spring growing season.
Policy questions:
Page | 10
One-time vs Ongoing Costs – The Council may wish to ask the Administration whether diseased sycamore
trees could need ongoing funding for treatments?
ATTACHMENTS
1. (None)
ACRONYMS
AMI – Area median income
BAT – Business Access Transit
CAFR – Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
CIP – Capital Improvement Program
CWPD – Community Wildfire Protection Plan
FOF – Funding Our Future
FTE – Full time Employee / Equivalent
FY – Fiscal Year
GF – General Fund
IMS – Information Management Services
RFQ – Request for Qualifications
TTIF – Transit Transportation Investment Fund
UDOT – Utah Department of Transportation
UTV – Utah Task Vehicle
WUI – Wildland Urban Interface
Page | 11
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; the
grant funds a total of 23
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.
#2
Item A-2 Enhanced
Security at Justice Court
$200,000
A security report identified an issue needing to be
addressed immediately.
Page | 12
Budget
Amendment Item
Potential Cost
to FY2026
Annual Budget
Full Time Employee
(FTEs)Notes
#2
Item A-3 Community
Oriented Policing Svcs or
COPS Hiring Grant from
U.S. Dept. of Justice for 2
new Sergeants & 10 new
Officers FY 24-25
$1,285,642
in FY2026
For ongoing costs related
to hiring 2 new Sergeant
FTEs and 10 new Officers
in the Police Dept.
Ongoing costs include grant salary match plus vehicles,
supplies & equipment. After the 48 month grant period
ends, the estimated annual cost to retain the 12 police
officers is $2,071,325.
#2
Item A-4 Vehicles, Equip-
ment & Related Police
Officer costs not covered
by the Homeless Shelter
Cities State Mitigation
Grant FY24-25
$498,692 is
ongoing
For ongoing costs related
to the hiring of new
officers
Ongoing costs include ongoing salary increases, supplies,
body cameras, vehicles, and computers.
#1 & #2
D-7 Prosecutor’s Office
Changes since Budget
Amendment #1
(-$280,279)
back to General
Fund Balance
1 FTE Removed
City Prosecutor FTE
removed
Reverses a portion of budgetary impacts & actions
outlined in BAM#1, Item A-1.
#3
A-2 IMS – Add 1 full-time
Cybersecurity Engineer
and convert 1 part-time
Graphic Designer into
full-time using funds
from the elimination of
additional part-time
positions.
$173,484
ongoing for
Cybersecurity
Engineer
position
Adds 1 Cybersecurity
Engineer Position
Adds .50 Graphic Design
position
TOTAL $6,381,054 39 total FTEs of which
16 are New FTEs
Note that of the total cost, $4.1 million would be needed
if the Homeless Shelter Cities State Mitigation grant is
not available for FY2026
Item E1
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:February 4, 2025
RE: ORDINANCE: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND LOAN TO GORKHA
ENTERPRISES, DBA HIMALAYAN KITCHEN, AT 1388 SOUTH 300 WEST, SUITE 350
MOTION 1 – ADOPT ORDINANCE
I move that the Council adopt the ordinance approving a $350,000 loan for Gorkha
Enterprises, DBA Himalayan Kitchen 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:February 4, 2025
RE: ORDINANCE: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND LOAN TO GORKHA
ENTERPRISES, DBA HIMALAYAN KITCHEN, AT 1388 SOUTH 300 WEST, SUITE 350
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will consider approving a loan from the City’s Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF) to a
business called Himalayan Kitchen at 1388 South 300 West. Himalayan Kitchen is a restaurant specializing in
Indian and Nepali food. The City’s Economic Development Loan Committee recommends the Council approve a
$350,000 loan at a 10.50% interest rate over seven years. This loan will assist in the creation of 15 new
jobs in the next year and the retention of 5 existing jobs. Funds will also pay for tenant improvement, machinery
& equipment, and working capital.
The interest rate reflects the 8.50% prime rate at the time of the application (August 13, 2024) plus the standard
EDLF four percentage points. The project did qualify for a two-percentage-point reduction based on location
within a priority area (State Street RDA Project Area) and ownership by a socially and economically
disadvantaged individual (see section B below).
Goal of the briefing: Review a proposed $350,000 loan from the Economic Development Loan Fund to
Gorkha Enterprises, DBA Himalayan Kitchen, before taking action during the Feb. 4 formal meeting.
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
Item Schedule:
Briefing: February 4, 2025
Public Hearing: N/A
Potential Action: February 4, 2025
Page | 2
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.
ADDITIONAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Council Members may recall approving two other EDLF loans at this address in 2024: Shades of Pale, Inc. and
Frontier Fruit, LLC. The businesses are separate entities sharing a retail space at a new commercial site called
The Engine Block.
A.Interest Rates. For context, the nationwide median rates for urban small business commercial and
industrial loans in the second quarter of 2024 (the most recent data available) were 7.77% for fixed-rate
loans and 8.88% for variable rate loans, according to the most recent U.S. Federal Reserve Small Business
Lending Survey*. 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.
*Source: Small Business Lending Survey, New Small Business Lending Declines as Credit Standards
Continue to Tighten. Consulted on January 27, 2025, at
https://www.kansascityfed.org/surveys/small-business-lending-survey/new-small-business-lending-
declines-as-credit-standards-continue-to-tighten/.
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:
Himalayan Kitchen
8.50% prime rate
+ 4% ELDF charge
– 1% for location within a priority area
Page | 4
– 1% for owned by a socially and economically disadvantaged individual
___________________________
10.50% 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 approximately $8,100,000 on December 20, 2024, and outstanding loans totaled
$4,742172.22 on November 31.
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.
Item F1
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:February 4, 2025
RE: RESOLUTION: COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC
LIBRARY BOARD
MOTION 1 – ADOPT ORDINANCE
I move that the Council adopt a labor resolution establishing a collective bargaining
structure and process for the Salt Lake City Public Library, as amended and approved by the
Library Board of Directors on Wednesday, January 29, 2025.
MOTION 2 – NOT ADOPT
I move that the Council not adopt, and proceed to the next agenda item.
MOTION 3 – DEFER
I move that the Council defer action to a future date.
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Austin Kimmel
Public Policy Analyst
DATE:January 21, 2025
RE: RESOLUTION: COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC
LIBRARY BOARD
NEW INFORMATION
During a recent review, staff identified that the draft labor resolution had omitted the Council's role in resolving
impasses. The original resolution stated that only the Mayor or the Mayor's designee would resolve any impasse.
This differs from the City's labor resolutions, which include both the Mayor and Council in this process. In order
to mirror the City’s bargaining process and to preserve the Council’s role in budget approval, staff coordinated
on an updated version of the resolution that aligns impasse processes more closely with the City's labor
resolutions.
To ensure the process was transparent, the Library Executive Director coordinated with the Library Board of
Directors, who convened an emergency meeting on Jan. 29, to approve the revised version of the resolution.
The updated resolution is included for consideration and Council action during the Tuesday, Feb. 4 formal
meeting.
Amended resolution text (new text in bold):
Section 5.c
If, after meeting and conferring under Section 5(a), the Library Executive Director and any affected
Employee Organization or Certified Employee Organization are at an impasse as to the petition’s
compliance with Section 4, then the impasse will be submitted to the Mayor or the Mayor’s designee,
and the City Council, who will have authority to resolve any such impasse and, if appropriate,
order an election under Section 5(d).
(1) The Mayor or the Mayor’s designee and the City Council may conduct a conference with the
Library’s Executive Director and any affected Employee Organization or Certified Employee
Organization in order to clarify the nature of the impasse prior to ruling on the impasse.
Section 10.c
Item Schedule:
Briefing: January 21, 2025
Public Hearing: n/a
Potential Adoption Vote: February 4, 2025
Page | 2
Should the parties fail to reach an agreement within this time frame, any unresolved mandatory
subjects of bargaining shall be submitted to the Mayor or and the Mayor’s designee City Council for
resolution. Nothing in this provision shall alter the process for adopting a collective bargaining
agreement as provided for in Section 8.
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Salt Lake City Public Library is seeking the Council's review and approval of a labor resolution for the
purposes of creating a structure and process for collective bargaining with eligible Library employees. The
Library’s board of directors approved this resolution during its December 2024 meeting.
The Council’s consideration of the labor resolution is one of several steps in the collective bargaining process
and establishes the process for employees to file a petition to form a union. If this resolution is approved by the
Council, the Library’s employees could begin their petition to form a union. Following this step, Library
employees vote on whether to form a union. If over half (50.1% or more) of the eligible employees vote to form a
union, the Library Board recognizes the union, and the Library and union representatives can begin negotiating
a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The CBA will outline items such as employee wages and benefits,
among other things. Once the CBA is agreed upon and approved by the Library Board, then it will also come to
the Council for review and approval. Certain terms of the CBA would come into effect subject to the Council
appropriating necessary funding, which is ultimately approved in the City’s annual budget deliberation process.
Goal of the briefing: to learn about a collective bargaining resolution that would provide a process that
could authorize the Salt Lake City Public Library to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement with eligible
Library employees.
KEY POINTS
The Council’s role in the Library budget process is unique to other City enterprise funds. The Library
Board sets the policy for Library operations. The Council is tasked with reviewing and approving the
overall budget and setting the Library’s tax rate.
The American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) has expressed an
interest in representing eligible Library employees.
While AFSCME also represents employees in other Salt Lake City departments, AFSCME would
represent library employees as a separate bargaining unit because the Library is structured as separate
from General Fund departments and enterprise funds. It’s important to note that the Library’s
compensation and benefits are also separate from the City’s.
In previous correspondence with staff, the Library estimates about a 12-18-month period which would
include the petition process, union certification vote, and (if the vote is successful) entering into
collective bargaining. This tentative timeline indicates a CBA and funding requests to implement it
could come to the Council as part of the FY2027 annual budget (April/May 2026).
Under this resolution, part-time employees would be eligible for union representation. This is unique
compared to the City’s labor resolutions because nearly half of Library employees are part-time.
However, under the proposed resolution voting eligibility on union formation is limited to employees
who have maintained continuous employment with the Library for six months or more, regardless of
their full-time or part-time status.
Like the City’s labor resolutions, Library employees holding supervisory and management positions are
ineligible to vote and join the union under the proposed resolution.
Page | 3
If the union vote fails to meet the 50.1% threshold, a new petition to unionize cannot be filed for another
12 months from the unsuccessful election.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. The Library staff is unique compared to the City. For example, the percentage of part-time employees at the
Library is significantly greater. Given that, the Council may wish to ask the Library representatives what
considerations they reviewed in deciding to pursue the union options.
2. The Council may wish to ask about how the collective bargaining and negotiating process will work leading
up to annual budget discussions, and how that will be the same or different from the City’s collective
bargaining negotiations.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
I. Section 8.G, copied from the administrative transmittal –this section may be of interest to
the Council in the event of failed negotiations.
(g) If the City Council fails to appropriate the funds required to implement a proposed collective
bargaining agreement or wage schedule, the Library Board shall, following good faith negotiations
with the Certified Employee Organization, adopt a one-year compensation plan or wage schedule for
the affected employees and/or adopt a one-year extension of the existing collective bargaining
agreement, and shall present the same to the City Council pursuant to the City Council budget process.
After good faith negotiations, the Library shall retain final authority regarding the terms and content
of any one-year compensation plan or wage schedule adopted under this paragraph for presentation
to the City Council.
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
1/22/2025 9:12 Cindy CROMER (EXTERNAL) makeover for Liberty Park
greenhouse
Olivia and Tim-The historic greenhouse in Liberty Park is in District 5 of course, but LWCC, CCNC, and ELPCO all
include Liberty Park within their boundaries. The first stage of the makeover, relying on the finally successful CIP
application by Mike Mayo, is actually a City-wide issue because Liberty Park is a regional park. Anyway, this is a
heads up that there is a meeting about the successful CIP application which Eva voted on last year. Long story
about getting the funding. The date is 1/28 at 2:00 on the U campus. Mike Mayo, who is leading us out of darkness
and lead paint, will send you details. Please share them with anyone in your office who would be interested.
Thanks, cindy c.
1/22/2025 16:23 Bernie Hart The latest and greatest "new old plan".Andrew and Wayne, It sounds like the Mayor's "new" plan isn't much different than the plan used to originally justify
building the Road Home on 200S and then justify building the "new" scattered model. The current "new plan"
sounds like just another "new plan" that isn't really a new plan. Same old thing at a new location. Maybe.. just
maybe .. both prior efforts failed because of where they were at... and it will only take relocating to a new location
to get all those underperforming programs used at the old locations to work... Yesterday a TV News group showed
up unexpectedly at our program. Marita and I were at a Doctor's appointment, the SLCC students were not there
and the single volunteer present was deaf. The only people the TV reporters could talk to were our homeless
leaders and the campers in our program. Fun. What if the staff at one of the shelters took the day off... would
everything just go on without them. Good things happen in good programs. I think we have had more positive
engagement with the community in the three weeks we have been on Main St... then we had in five years at the
library. More fun. Bernie
1/23/2025 9:30 Judi Short Gas stations near a water source - D/7 You may recall that several years ago, April of 2023, Sugar House had a proposal for a Kum and Go at the old
Sizzler parcel at 2100 South and 1300 East. This was denied by the Planning Commission, as was the appeal. One
of the big concerns was gas station tanks that tend to leak. Underneath the parking lot at this location lies a big
earthen dam. This is the overflow if the Sugar House Pond overflows, which it does every few years. This water
feeds into the Salt Lake City water supply, so gasoline or any other contaminants from a gas station would cause a
big problem. The entire park is a secondary recharge area. Environmental contamination of the water was a big
reason why this project was denied. If you want the details, here is a link to the Planning Commission staff report.
Diana Martinez did a terrific job of investigating the chance of leaks from gas stations, and you can find the details
in the staff report - Consideration 3. Most of the concerns from the community had to do with traffic or a gasoline
spill. I spare you the actual comments, but they are available if you want to read them. I have four documents of
comments, the first one is 20 pages long. A good read… The point is that the city needs to have stringent rules
about where gas stations are allowed in our city because they are going to leak eventually. The staff report provides
a lot of data to prove that point. We only have a few comments from the SHCC Land Use Committee, because they
had already provided comments when the Kum and Go was proposed. Everyone is on the same page on this one.
As a city, we should make sure that our water sources are protected from contamination, and this ordinance will
direct this process. We hope that the city has already inspected all gas stations near a city water source and, if
necessary, mitigation has taken place. Please approve this ordinance. Judi Short, First-Vice Chair and Land Use
Chair Sugar House Community Council
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
1/24/2025 16:25 Alyshia Klein THANK YOU!! THANK YOU!! THANK YOU!! Hi, My name is Alyshia Klein. I live in the Liberty Wells area behind the county building. I applied for the CIP grant to
have public art in an unfortunate looking intersection in our cute neighborhood. I completely understand that it was
not approved. There are a lot of strong priorities in our community. I was amazed at this whole process. Thank you
for your hard work. The intersection of 200 E 1910 S has been remodeled! The cement has been repaired. Trees
removed. It is clean, respectable and a value to the neighborhood. Thank you for finding a funding source for that.
Thank you again. It is amazing to have leaders such as yourself. I know it is time consuming and you have to put up
with a lot of flack. Thank you.
1/24/2025 16:27 Bernie Hart Moving Day... again Andrew and Wayne, Another interesting day. It seems the head groundsperson at the Gallivan Center was trained
by Scot Howell. Nothing but negative things to say about the homeless and he also always has a camera in his
hand. The "Most Effective Mental Health and Addiction Program on the Planet" is not welcome at the Gallivan
Center. We have been told we have to move back to the sidewalk. Once again the preferred way of city officials and
organizations in Salt Lake City to deal with the mentally ill and addicted living on the streets is to blame them for
what they do, then move them and occasionally jail them in hopes that they'll learn not to be mentally ill. Sounds
like a very ineffective response to a very troubling problem. I have to make a decision: Do we move even closer to or
away from The Temple? Bernie
1/27/2025 11:57 Diann Bielaczyc Sales Tax in SLC I ordered merchandise online at Lands End, and the tax rate used by the merchant appears to include the 1%
restaurant tax. When I have ordered merchandise from this merchant in the past, I had to select one of four tax rate
zones based on my mailing address - Salt Lake City, Foothill Salt Lake City, Emigration Canyon, and outside Salt
Lake City. In the past, the tax rates in all of those zones were the same. However, with my most recent purchase,
the tax rates for two of the zones, Foothill Salt Lake City and Salt Lake City, were 1% higher than Emigration Canyon
and outside Salt Lake City. Please explain why there is a 1% difference now. Surely, online purchasing from my
home is not considered a purchase in the special tax rate zone that the City Council approved to support the
downtown sports arena???? If it is, why wasn't the public informed that if you shop online you will now be required
to support the development of a sports district benefitting sports enthusiasts and billionaires? I would imagine
public support would have been significantly weaker for the project. If the additional 1% sales tax is not related to
the recently approved restaurant tax in the zone immediately surrounding the Delta center, please explain to me
what it is related to and when it was approved. I tried contacting city government, but there is not a listing for
questions about sales taxes. The few numbers I tried had no answer and the mailboxes were full.
1/27/2025 13:27 Kay Arnold (EXTERNAL) emigration canyon Hello Dan, Thank you for taking the time to return my call. I am concerned about fires in Emigration Canyon and
winds that would spread that fire to us who live by the Zoo. There are hundreds of “old” folks that live in the condos
overlooking Emigration Canyon. Only one road out! I live in Oak Hills Gardens, adjacent to Bonneville Golf Course.
City owned and not well cared for! Old trees, dead tree limbs, dead and dry grass not mowed down. Its not if…its
when…a fire will happen! The canyon has many homeless living there and with the need to stay warm, fire will be
used. Please advise as to when precautions are being taken and what emergency plan is in place. Thank you Kay
(berger) Arnold
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
1/27/2025 4:33 PM Bernie Hart There's been way too much talk ... time to step up Hey All, If Utah is going to live up to all the hype... we are going to have to start solving problems... real people
problems. Homelessness .... suicide... why do kids need "Special Ed"... and why do so many people end up in jail...
and why don't we like each other ... We are working with a model that might help. I no longer believe that an idea
about what works or could work has much merit if it is necessary to pass a law, use policing or throw more and
more money at the problem in order for the idea, model or concept to help people. No... just do the idea and see
what happens, and if the idea or model has merit, it does not need help from the legislature, the police or an
elected official... nope, just do it and if it is what we say it is, everything that needs to get done will get done Time to
have some real fun, Bernie
1/28/2025 15:29 Eric Povilus (EXTERNAL) SLC Apps Requests being CLOSED
with zero response/details
Hannah / Dan: I have been using the new SLC APP and I notice that request for Streets / Potholes get closed right
away with no explanation or information/details — in the old APP you got some information about the action or
what was being done, even if the ticket was just being closed. I find it odd that it is the "Streets" department that is
closing them quickly with little detail, I suspect my request are being ignored and just deleted. Below is an example
I open the other week: I also just opened a new one this morning for a different street (Case #00183294). Thanks
Eric Povilus
1/29/2025 4:44 PM Jen Colby 1/2 Letter of support for re-authorization of ranked
choice voting in Utah elections
Dear Committee Members and Elected Officials, I am contacting you in support of re-authorizing ranked choice
voting in elections in Utah (SB 127). I ask you to keep an election system that is working well. In an era of budget
constraints, I also strongly support it as a cost-effective process for a core and crucial function of government. I
write as not only a voter but a former candidate for local non-partisan office. In both roles I strongly support ranked
choice voting as the most efficient, logical, and effective means of arriving at a winner who has majority, not just
plurality support. As a voter, I really like being able to carefully consider the merits of all candidates and to rank my
preferences. Of course, I can always just vote for one person as in the standard method of "vote for one," if I
choose. It has encouraged me to do better research on the candidates. In a market system, freedom of choice
among many competing products is a core principle. This is also true in the marketplace of ideas and candidates.
Ranked choice voting essentially eliminates the so-called spoiler or multi-candidate effect. I experienced this
personally in my run for office. My choice to run was personal – I felt I had something to offer my community and
wanted to serve. It had nothing to do with the other candidates in the race. There were actually 5 of us in the
primary, before ranked-choice voting had been adopted. I entered the race late and worried I would be seen as a
spoiler even though this was not my intent. In fact, several other candidates quietly encouraged me to drop out and
support them. Ultimately, I lost that primary. Of course this was painful, no one likes to lose. But competition is the
core of our election system and with the current 1-seat 1-district design, there is only one winner. But more to the
point, of the five of us, the vote spread was less than 100 from the highest to the lowest vote getter. A few votes in
any direction would have changed the outcome. A ranked-choice general election would have been far more
efficient and fairer for all involved. I would have likely lost anyway, so it’s not about my candidacy per se. But I
would have liked to see the people who voted for me have their 2nd or 3rd choices – if they made them – count. It
also left me feeling like I may have been a spoiler after all. Since that time, our city has adopted ranked-choice
voting. It has worked very well. I wish I would have run in a ranked-choice race.
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
1/29/2025 4:44 PM Jen Colby 2/2 CONTINUED!!! Letter of support for re-
authorization of ranked choice voting in Utah
elections
Frankly, primaries in non-partisan races are a waste, in my opinion. Voters are also generally on vacation, busy, or
just not interested in local political races until fall, from my own experience. As elected officials and individuals
who have obviously had to run your own races to gain office, I hope that you also see the great benefits of ranked
choice voting from the perspective of candidates. I expect that you also would not like to lose an election to
someone with only a plurality of votes, with a 3rd party or other candidate siphoning off votes. I also think as
elected officials, it would feel more like a clearer mandate with elections that always have 50%+1 or more as the
winner. The legislation can retain party primaries with their own rules but have the general be ranked choice. I offer
2 more suggestions: • Eliminate the 10-year renewal time frame and make RCV permanent. • Authorize RCV for all
elections statewide. As I discussed in detail regarding “spoiler effects,” in partisan races 3rd party candidates can
easily play this role. My personal opinion of 3rd parties themselves notwithstanding, I think RCV would be a far
better system in all elections to reduce or eliminate the possible spoiler effect of 3rd parties. Sincerely, Jen Colby,
Salt Lake City, 84102
1/30/2025 11:38 Sandra Kerman Homeless freezing at night, killing 4 Dear Legislators, and Council While you propose to beautify our lovely city, I continually wonder why you don’t have
more motivation towards humanitarian issues like the unsheltered who are dying in these cold temps. It’s taken a
very small group of private citizens to open up private churches to house and feed them only on extremely cold
nights. While this is amazing, it’s also very cruel and inhumane to leave this up to private citizens. And it’s not
enough. This is a community problem and we elected you to solve this!! This has gotten only worse. Please stop
spending so much on beautification until we can create low income housing that actually is effective. Yesterday. I’d
even go as far as saying 4 years ago. Whatever, it’s the biggest problem we face. Do something effective about it.
Be the humanitarian leaders you often to say you are, but really aren’t.
1/30/2025 13:18 Michelle Grutter Immigration Dear Mr. Dugan, I think it is wrong that ICE officials can now enter schools, churches, and hospitals to detain
people without documentation. This threat does not reflect the hearts and intentions of most people in our
beautiful city. That is not who were are as a people. I ask you to work hard to not allow this to happen here. Most
sincerely, Michelle Grutter
1/30/2025 13:30 Lynn Pershing Thank you for Jan 27 lunch chat Hi Fan thanks for the opportunity to join the “lunch chat” amongst Community Council chairs and RCO in D6 at
City Hall Jan 27 I agree with your many priorities but don’t think I heard how you will accomplish them I encourage
and support your priority to provide more electric (low emission) public transportation to destinations other than
merely the UU. Residents, especially UU dorm dwellers need to access food, consumer product infrastructure as
well as schools, daycare and jobs. I support bus routes to our cultural (Zoo, NHM and RBG) destinations as well as
public transportation (electric BRT) on Foothill Drive (commuter traffic 45,000 cars a day) with improvements to
pedestrian/cycling walk/ride ways that buffer direct contact with 40 MPH vehicle speed I appreciate the island
installation on Foothill Dr at Kensington that included TRESS “affordable”/ high density housing Height,
material/design compatibility and location of such new construction are critical issues in establish historic
neighborhoods. I do NOT support nor encourage demolition of “naturally occurring affordable housing”(NOAH) for
new housing construction. When our City discusses high density housing PLEASE remind them that much of D6 is
now dominated by UU HIGH density housing on Foothill/Sunnyside and in many city neighborhoods that impacts
commuters traffic, cars, lack of support for children’s education in our public schools (higher education does not
pay taxes for over 300 children in UU housing system attending our public schools) Thanks for your efforts and
service . Let’s get more effective solutions done for D6 Respectfully, Lynn K. Pershing, Ph.D.
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
1/30/2025 13:36 Clint Martin Bike Lane Snow Plow Regarding Amendment 3 of the Budget, I wanted to express strong support for the bike lane snow plow. As our city
grows, we’ll need to continue to invest in multiple forms of getting around. This piece of equipment, however basic
it may seem, would provide a big quality of life bump for those who are choose to travel around our city by bike and
allow them to continue to do so for more months out of the year.
1/30/2025 15:24 Cindy CROMER Rezone at Approximately 128 N N St Dustin, Olivia, Brian-"Houston, we have a problem" with community benefit. See #5 below. A few days before the
hearing, the developer changed the number of units, reducing them, and eliminating the community benefit of one
unit at 80% of AMI. The staff accepted an alternative community benefit of 2-bedroom units as "family-oriented
housing." That was bad enough. Then the Planning Commissioners decided that compatible infill was a community
benefit. NO. Compatibility, especially mass and scale, is the territory of the Landmarks Commission because the
property is in the Avenues Historic District. If you cannot count the historic building as a community benefit
because it is already protected by the historic overlay, then you can't count the design review required by the
overlay as a community benefit. Furthermore, the determination of a community benefit is stated in the
development agreement which is the City Council's turf. To summarize: A 2-bedroom unit at market rate is not a
community benefit in this neighborhood.* The staff doesn't get to redefine what constitutes family-oriented
housing. Neither does the developer. The Landmarks Commission is in charge of compatibility within historic
districts. The City Council is in charge of what constitutes a community benefit and development agreements. I
could object to changes made at the last minute before a hearing, but since I started looking at the staff report at
4:00 pm ahead of a 5:30 meeting, I don't think it would be reasonable for me to criticize anyone about tardiness. I
need some help on this one. I do not believe that this is what the Council intended. Relentlessly, cindy c. *Zillow
currently lists 78 2-bedroom apartments in zip code 84103 with 750 square feet or more.
2/3/2025 9:44 Bernie Hart FW: (EXTERNAL) Who is speaking up Chris, Op Rio Grand II. More 10’s of millions and nothing will change and absolutely no is speaking up… or maybe
they are and we can’t hear them. Bernie
2/3/2025 14:40 Isaac Roach Support for Councilman Dan Dugan’s Proposal to
Protect Sycamore Trees
Dear Salt Lake City Council Members, On behalf of KEEP Yalecrest, a nonprofit organization dedicated to
preserving the historic character of the Yalecrest neighborhood, I am writing to express our strong support for
Councilman Dan Dugan’s proposal to allocate an additional $150,000 to "accelerate the pace" of sycamore tree
treatment efforts in Salt Lake City. The sycamore trees in Yalecrest and throughout Salt Lake City are an integral
part of our community’s identity, offering natural beauty, shade, and a connection to our city’s history. In Yalecrest,
these trees have been a defining feature for nearly a century, contributing to the charm and livability of our
neighborhood. We are encouraged by Urban Forestry’s initial allocation of $100,000 to develop and test treatment
options this spring, and we believe the additional funding proposed by Councilman Dugan is critical to expanding
these efforts. With these resources, Urban Forestry will have greater flexibility to explore a variety of treatment
methods, determine the scope of the infestation, and protect these trees for future generations. We urge the City
Council to approve this proposal during the upcoming February 4 meeting. Protecting the sycamores is not just
about preserving trees—it is about safeguarding a vital part of our city’s heritage and enhancing the quality of life
for all residents. KEEP Yalecrest deeply appreciates Councilman Dugan’s leadership on this issue, and we stand
ready to assist in efforts to preserve these beloved trees. Thank you for considering this important investment in
our community. Sincerely, Isaac Roach Treasurer KEEP Yalecrest Board of Directors Keep Educating and
Encouraging Preservation of Yalecrest keepyalecrest.org
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
2/3/2025 14:49 Lynn Pershing Support for citywide treatment of Sycamore
London Plane trees
Dear City Council members I support the proposed $150,000 treatment of Sycamore London Plane trees (~4600)
that exist throughout our City. These gentle giants provide shade from the blistering summer months allowing City
residents to walk through neighbors with kids and pets, cool housing thereby lowering energy costs, provide beauty
to our city, and are part of an 80+ history to our city’s landscape. Despite property owner care, the many years of
hot summers have taken a toll on our urban trees. Sycamore London Plane trees are suffering from at least 3
diseases: fungal, insects and bacteria. They need our help. SLC has an important and beloved urban forest. It’s part
of our Capital City identity. Let’s keep it healthy and thriving Respectfully Lynn K. Pershing, Ph.D. President
K.E.E.P.Yalecrest “Keep Educating and Encouraging Preservation of Yalecrest”
2/3/2025 16:28 Marco antonio Marchelli Nunes Liberty Park homelessness To Whom it May Concern, I was visiting Liberty Park this Sunday and it was sad to see the homelessness growing in
this public space. One of the sheltered areas that can be used by citizens/ tax payers was taken by the homeless
and their belongings. The homeless in SLC needs to be addressed with practical results otherwise SLC will become
another Los Angeles. It is not fair for people to live in the streets, but it is not fair for the citizens not to find a clean
place to sit, a clean bathroom to use or a safe place to play. Also this important central park in the city is run down.
It needs more attention. Thank you, Marco Marchelli
2/4/2025 23:38 Scott Arnold Drug problem on 500 N and the Jordan River trail. Please city council come and visit the subject trail in the evening and night. You need to understand the disaster
that the Jordan River trail has turned into. Please take action asap.