HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/01/2025 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
WORK SESSION
April 1, 2025 Tuesday 2:00 PM
Council meetings are held in a hybrid meeting format. Hybrid meetings allow people to join online or in
person at the City & County Building. Learn more at www.slc.gov/council/agendas.
Council Work Room
451 South State Street, Room 326
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
SLCCouncil.com
7:00 pm Formal Meeting
Room 315
(See separate agenda)
Welcome and public meeting rules
In accordance with State Statute and City Ordinance, the meeting may be held electronically. After 5:00 p.m., please enter the
City & County Building through the main east entrance.
The Work Session is a discussion among Council Members and select presenters. The public is welcome to listen. Items
scheduled on the Work Session or Formal Meeting may be moved and / or discussed during a different portion of the Meeting
based on circumstance or availability of speakers.
The Website addresses listed on the agenda may not be available after the Council votes on the item. Not all agenda items will
have a webpage for additional information read associated agenda paperwork.
Generated: 09:14:43
Note: Dates not identified in the project timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. Item start
times and durations are approximate and are subject to change.
Work Session Items
1.Informational: Updates from the Administration ~ 2:00 p.m.
25 min.
The Council will receive information from the Administration on major items or projects
in progress. Topics may relate to major events or emergencies (if needed), services and
resources related to people experiencing homelessness, active public engagement efforts,
wildfire mitigation, and projects or staffing updates from City Departments, or other
items as appropriate.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Recurring Briefing
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
2.Informational: 500 South and 600 South Grand Boulevards
Concept Development ~ 2:25 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about the 500 and 600 South Grand Boulevards
Concept Development Project, deliverables and scope of work. The project will assess
potential changes to 500 and 600 South, from Interstate 15 on/off-ramps to residential
areas near 700 East. This briefing is an opportunity for the Council to review and ask
questions about the project early in the process. The Grand Boulevards Concept
Development and the accompanying visioning process will align with the requirements
set forth by Senate Bill 195 which was adopted by the legislature this year. The project
will be funded through the Transportation and Land Use Connection (TLC) program and
developed in collaboration with the Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) and the
Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT).
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, April 1, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
3.Ordinance: The Central Business Improvement Area (CBIA-
25)~ 2:45 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a briefing on an ordinance that would re-establish the Salt Lake
City Central Improvement Assessment Area (CBIA-25), creating two assessments: one
for downtown economic promotion and another for holiday lighting on certain streets.
The ordinance would accept Board of Equalization recommendations, establish the
effective date of the CBIA-25, confirm the equalized assessment list, and impose an
assessment on specific properties within the Area.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, July 2, 2024; Tuesday, November 12, 2024; Tuesday, February 4,
2025; and Tuesday, April 1, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, July 9, 2024
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, September 3, 2024 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 12, 2024 and Tuesday, April 1, 2025
4.Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.5 for Fiscal Year 2024-
25 ~ 3:05 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about Budget Amendment No. 5 for the Fiscal Year
2024-25 Budget. Budget amendments happen several times each year to reflect
adjustments to the City’s budgets, including proposed project additions and
modifications. The proposed amendment includes funding to cover remaining costs for
the 400 South Bridge Reconstruction project, funds to repair homes in the Community
Land Trust, additional funding for the Hive Pass program because of increased usage,
and funding to expand the scope of a public restroom study.
For more information visit tinyurl.com/SLCFY25.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, April 1, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 1, 2025
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 15, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 6, 2025
5.Fiscal Year 2025-26 Funding Allocations One-year Action Plan
for Community Development Block Grant & Other Federal
Grants Follow-up
~ 3:35 p.m.
45 min.
The Council will receive a follow-up briefing on recommendations for allocating grant
funding provided through four federal Housing and Urban Development Department
(HUD) programs. For fiscal year 2025-26, approximately $7.7 million dollars is expected
to flow through the Division of Housing Stability to community service providers selected
by the Council. The HUD programs that provide this funding and oversee activities of
grant recipients are: Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), the HOME
Investment Partnership Program, Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG), and Housing
Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA). The resolution under consideration
would also approve an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City and the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), as well as the new fiscal
year 2025-29 Consolidated Plan.
For more information visit www.tinyurl.com/annualhudgrants.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, March 18, 2025; Tuesday, March 25, 2025; and Tuesday, April 1,
2025
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, February 18, 2025
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 4, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 15, 2025
6.Tentative Break ~ 4:20 p.m.
20 min.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -
Set Public Hearing Date -
Hold hearing to accept public comment -
TENTATIVE Council Action -
7.Informational: Utah Transit Authority Presentation ~ 4:40 p.m.
40 min.
The Council will receive a presentation from the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) on the
economic impact of transit and an overview of their five year plan.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, April 1, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
8.Resolution: Creation of a Public Infrastructure District ~ 5:20 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive a briefing on a resolution that would create the Convention
Center Public Infrastructure District and define the general process and role of the City
in establishing the Proposed District. The proposal would assist with financing the
redevelopment of the Delta Center, the development of SEG's entertainment district, and
the redevelopment of the Salt Palace. Petitioner: John Larson, representing Jazz Arena
Investors, LLC.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, April 1, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 1, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 8, 2025
Standing Items
9.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair -
-
Report of Chair and Vice Chair.
10.
Report and Announcements from the Executive Director -
-
Report of the Executive Director, including a review of Council information items and
announcements. The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to
City Council business, including but not limited to
•Letter Approval; and
•Scheduling Items.
11.Tentative Closed Session -
-
The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session. A closed meeting described
under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including, but not limited to:
a. discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health
of an individual;
b. strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining;
c. strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation;
d. strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property,
including any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the
transaction would:
(i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration; or
(ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best
possible terms;
e. strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water
right or water shares, if:
(i) public discussion of the transaction would:
(A) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration; or
(B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best
possible terms;
(ii) the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be
offered for sale; and
(iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body
approves the sale;
f. discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and
g. investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct.
A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to
Utah Code § 78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements
of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act.
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
On or before 10:30 a.m. on Friday, March 28, 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.
Salt Lake City Wildland Fire Assessment Briefing
Salt Lake City Fire Department
April 2025
Los Angeles, CA Fire Review (Palisades/Eaton)
Ignition
Previous smoldering fire, arson, sparking power line?
Spread
10 to 200 acres in 20 minutes/700 acres after 3.5 hours – 270 FF’s on scene; multiple
ember ignition sources, access routes clogged, water disruptions
Impact
29 deaths (12 Palisades/17 Eaton)
38k acres, 16k structures, burned over 24 days
20 billion in insured losses/50 billion economic losses
Wildland Fire Triangle: Factors that determine the size of severity of the incident
Weather – hot (near drought), low humidity, Santa Anna winds 60-80mph/G to 90
continuous, traveling embers
Topography – flat basin to increasing grade, canyons create wind tunnels &
access/egress challenges
Fuel – non-native grass, chaparral brush, sagebrush, buckwheat, structures
+Mitigation – density, WUI public education, capable FD (training, experience), water
supply challenges, public messaging, narrow egress lanes, interoperability, pre-staged
units, political/media pressure
Similarities to L.A.
Heat, low humidity, occasional “Wasatch Wind” events (SLC Windstorm Sept, 2020)
Flat basin to increasing grade, canyons create wind tunnels & access/egress challenges
High grass, cheatgrass, gambel oak Brush, structures
Large-footprint homes on benches adjacent to wildland/urban interface, ongoing WUI
public education, capable FD (training), interoperability, pre-stage units on holidays
Differences to L.A.
High wind events in SLC are short lived, usually <12 hrs. Santa Ana’s are 2-3 days
duration
Wildland fuels in LA do not experience winter leaf loss, dry winters decrease fire
potential
Implemented Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) for public
messaging
Wide/multiple egress routes (most cases) for public evacuation
Ratio & proximity of homes to fire stations is different in SLC vs LA.
Current Capabilities & Risk Assessment
Personnel: Wildland focused stations, 4-handed staffing
Equipment: Type III (1), Type VI (6), Water tender, additional reserves
Training: Red Card, advanced certs, annual WUI training & tactics
Public Education (fire.slc.gov)
Ready Set Go – neighborhood education and communication
Fireworks education and signage
Defensible Space assessments
Public Messaging
Crisis Communications Plan (CCP) – IPAWS (Integrated Public Alert & Warning
System), JIC (Joint Information Center), social media, coordinate with Policy Group
Plans
Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP)
Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP) – based on threats and hazards
Evacuation Plans (routes & shelters)
SLC Vulnerable Areas
1.Salt Lake City Watershed/City Creek Canyon
2.North Cove Estates
3.East Capitol Blvd
4.Northmont Way/18th Ave
5.Carrigan Canyon
6.This is the Place SP
Improvement Opportunities
Personnel – National mid-size city ratio is 1.8-2 FF’s per 1,000 residents. SLCFD is 1.6.
Key to reducing loss: high number of FF’s with water to fire scene quickly.
Wildland Urban Interface Coordinator – Training, certifications, readiness for deployments,
CWPP updates, SOP’s
Public Education – Ready, Set, Go, Defensible space, evacuation routes, capability vs
vulnerability
Legislation – HB48 mandates adoption of WUI Code – improves resilience through building
codes and fees.
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Nick Tarbet
DATE:April 1, 2025
RE: 500 South and 600 South Grand Boulevards
Concept Development Plan
PROJECT TIMELINE:
Briefing: April 1, 2025
Set Date:
Public Hearing:
Potential Action:
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will receive a briefing about the 500 and 600 South Grand Boulevards concept development
project, deliverables and scope of work. The project will assess potential changes to the 500 South and 600
South, from Interstate 15 on/off-ramps of to residential areas near 700 East.
The Grand Boulevards Concept Development and the accompanying visioning process will align with the
requirements set forth by Senate Bill 195 which was adopted by the legislature this year. This bill requires
Salt Lake City to develop a mobility plan and submit to UDOT for approval.
This development project will be funded through the Transportation and Land Use Connection (TLC)
program and developed in collaboration with the Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) and the Utah
Department of Transportation (UDOT). Sources of funding to implement the final scope of work have not
been identified.
In May 2020, the Council adopted a resolution outlining the policy and objectives for preparing master
plans (Resolution 14 of 2021). The resolution states the “City Council policy input to be included early in
the process so that such input can be incorporated into broad community outreach efforts.” This check-in
is meant to fulfill that goal and give the Council the opportunity to review and provide feedback on the
public engagement process.
Page | 2
The transmittal letter includes the response from the firm who was awarded the project. It outlines the
goals and objectives of the study, the proposed timeline, public and stakeholder engagement and
management team members. Attached to the transmittal letter is the scope of work that provides insight
into process and timelines.
Policy Questions
1. Does the Council have any general policy direction or goals that they would like to ensure are part
of the project.
2. The Council may wish to ask about the options for funding the work that would be done to develop
the Boulevards.
3. Section three of the consultant’s report outlines the public engagement process. Does the Council
have any questions about the public engagement process?
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:April 1, 2025
RE: ORDINANCE: ASSESSMENT ORDINANCE FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY CENTRAL
BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT ASSESSMENT AREA - 25 (CBIA-25)
MOTION 1 – ADOPT ORDINANCE
I move that the Council accept and adopt the findings and recommendations of the Board of
Equalization for the Central Business Improvement Assessment Area (CBIA-25). I further
move that the Council adopt an ordinance confirming the equalized assessment list, levying
the assessment, and related matters.
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:April 1, 2025
RE: ORDINANCE: ASSESSMENT ORDINANCE FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY CENTRAL
BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT ASSESSMENT AREA - 25 (CBIA-25)
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The City Council will consider adopting an ordinance at its April 1 formal meeting to authorize the Salt Lake City
Central Improvement Assessment Area (CBIA). Two special assessments would be reestablished if adopted: one
for downtown economic promotion and another for holiday lighting on certain streets. The consideration of this
ordinance is the last step by the City Council in establishing the CBIA-25 special assessment area, which the
administration anticipates starting May 19, 2025. The assessment is projected to raise $5,991,192 over the
area's three-year life.
The ordinance would do two primary things:
1. Accept the recommendations of the Board of Equalization for 21 of the overall parcels in the
assessment district based on the reasons outlined below for protest or adjustment.
2. Confirm the equalized assessment list and levy an assessment for the Central Business Improvement
Assessment Area (CBIA-25).
Goal of the briefing: To learn about the final steps in reestablishing two special assessment districts for
downtown economic promotion activities and special holiday lighting for specific properties, and review the
recommendations from the Board of Equalization.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. The Council may wish to inquire about communication strategies that the Department of Economic
Development or the Downtown Alliance plans to implement to keep property owners informed about
the services and benefits they can expect to receive from the CBIA-25 assessment.
2. The Council may wish to have a conversation about the current nonworking holiday lights and request
the administration find ways to repair the lighting infrastructure.
Item Schedule:
1st Briefing: July 2, 2024
Council Action: July 9, 2024
Public Hearing: Sept. 3, 2024
2nd Briefing and Council Action: Nov. 12, 2024
3rd Briefing: Feb. 4, 2025
4th Briefing and Final Adoption Vote: April 1, 2025
Page | 2
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS
A Board of Equalization (BOE) held two rounds of hearings to consider objections and arguments from property
owners protesting proposed assessments to be levied or relating to the amount of benefit or cost of the proposed
assessment. The Council appointed the BOE in November 2024, consisting of representatives from the City
Council Office, the Treasurer’s Office, and the Engineer’s Office. The BOE’s role is to consider all facts and
arguments presented at the hearings and provide recommendations to the City Council. The BOE met on Jan. 7,
8, and 9 and on Feb. 18, 19, and 20 for this purpose.
During the six meetings, the BOE heard from 11 property owners regarding 21 parcels. A detailed chart of
specific property owner concerns and the BOE recommendations for each argument can be found below. In
summary, the BOE proposes:
1.Remove holiday lighting assessment for three parcels with nonworking lights,
2.Remove the assessments for six parcels with residential, which were misidentified as
hotels/commercial properties,
3.Reduce the assessments for eight parcels that successfully disputed valuations with the Salt Lake
County Assessor, and
4.Reduce the assessment by a one-third reduction for four parcels owned by a single entity to
reflect their location outside the Downtown Ambassador’s service area.
The anticipated revenue of $5,991,192 is $196,467 less than the initially projected amount of $6,187,659, after
taking into account the recommended adjustments from the Board of Equalization. The administration notes it
is confident that the budget will be sufficient to deliver the services promised by the special assessment area.
However, if additional funding is required over the three-year period, other available funds may be used to meet
budgetary needs. This could include any surplus remaining in existing accounts, reserves withheld, and/or
reduced contractor fees.
Summary of BOE Recommendations
Property Address Concerns BOE Recommendation
250 and 260 E.
South Temple St.
The property owner was incorrectly
assessed a holiday lighting fee when no
holiday lighting exists.
The property owner also expressed concern
that the properties do not benefit from the
Central Business District's economic
promotion and believes the assessment does
little to address other concerns in the area.
The Board recommends this property
not be assessed for holiday lighting.
The Board also recommends upholding
the base assessment as appropriate.
42 E. Exchange Pl.The property owner appeared to contest the
linear footage listed on the holiday lighting
notice he received.
Upon further investigation, the Board
determined that this parcel does not
receive holiday lighting. Therefore, the
Board recommends that this property
not be assessed for holiday lighting.
10 W. 300 S.The property owner successfully appealed
with Salt Lake County regarding the
property value as determined by the County
Assessor’s Office. The property owner
requested that the BOE adjust the estimated
CBIA assessment to reflect the updated
value.
The Board recommends updating the
CBIA assessment amount to reflect the
successful valuation appeal.
Page | 3
330, 334, and 335 S.
West Temple St.,
and 48 W. Market
St.
The property owner expressed support for
the special assessment area but requested
that the assessment amount be adjusted.
The owner explained that there is a vacancy
at their property and feels the assessment is
too large to pass down to current tenants,
which may make it more difficult to keep
tenants or attract new ones.
The property owner also requested that the
three parcels be billed as one assessment
instead of separately.
The Board discussed that the Statute
governing special assessment areas only
enables them to adjust assessment
amounts based on benefits received or
proof of lack thereof and does not make
provisions for hardship. Therefore, the
Board recommends upholding the base
assessment as appropriate.
The Board learned that the owner may
combine assessment charges for the
three parcels, yet the amount would not
change. The Board suggested that City
staff contact the property owner to
explain this.
151 S. State St.The property owner appeared to explain
that the property is residential with no
commercial space. They requested that the
property not be included in the assessment
area.
The Board found a minor discrepancy
showing an overlap of hotel properties
and apartment/condo properties listed
under the same property type on the
Salt Lake County Assessor database.
The Board recommends not including
this property in the assessment area and
removing two additional residential
parcels.
735 and 751 W. 300
S, and 760 W. 400 S.
The property owner claims there is a lack of
benefit to their property due to the location
of the property being at the very western
edge of the CBIA-25 district. The property
owner requests the boundary line be
redrawn to exclude these properties. They
also request a reduction in the overall
assessment cost.
Additionally, the property owner incorrectly
received a holiday lighting assessment,
while the property does not receive holiday
lighting.
The Board first clarified that they have
no authority to redraw the boundary
map and suggested that the property
owner contact his Council
representative to discuss this matter
further. The Board recommends that
the Council review this particular area
of the map when it considers adopting a
notice of intention to designate the
CBIA in 2027 to potentially consider
expanding services to this area.
The Board believes that while the
properties are on the edge of the
assessment area, they still receive
benefits. However, the Board confirmed
that the parcels are not included in the
Downtown Ambassador’s program
service area map. Therefore, the Board
recommends reducing the assessment
amount by 1/3, proportionate to the
Ambassador program’s share of the SAA
budget, to reflect this lack of benefit.
Page | 4
The Board recommends the holiday
assessments be removed from the three
parcels.
234, 268, and 280 S.
400 W.
The property owner appeared to request
that the holiday lighting assessment be
removed, as the properties do not receive
holiday lighting.
The Board recommends the holiday
assessments be removed from the three
parcels.
247 and 266 W. 100
S.
The property owner appeared to request
that the holiday lighting assessment be
removed, as the properties do not receive
holiday lighting.
The property owner expressed issues with
litter, biowaste, and graffiti and hoped the
CBIA-25 could help provide services to
address these issues.
The Board recommends the holiday
assessments be removed from the two
parcels.
The Board suggested City staff connect
the property owner to the Ambassador
program staff and the Downtown
Alliance to request services for this area.
328 and 338 S. State
St.
The property owner appeared to appeal the
holiday assessment due to nonworking
holiday lighting.
Following confirmation that the holiday
lighting is damaged, the Board
recommends removing these parcels
from the holiday lighting assessment.
Further, the Board recommends
removing 342 S. State St. since this
property has the same issues.
175 E. 400 S.The property owner successfully appealed
with Salt Lake County regarding the
property value as determined by the County
Assessor’s Office. The property owner
requested that the BOE adjust the estimated
CBIA assessment to reflect the updated
value.
The Board recommends updating the
CBIA assessment amount to reflect the
successful valuation appeal.
50 S. Main St., 51 S.
Main St., and 65 S.
Regent St.
The property owner successfully appealed
with Salt Lake County regarding the
property value as determined by the County
Assessor’s Office. The property owner
requested that the BOE adjust the estimated
CBIA assessment to reflect the updated
value.
The Board recommends updating the
CBIA assessment amount to reflect the
successful valuation appeal.
ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1. History
Salt Lake City established the Central Business Improvement Area (CBIA) in 1991 to fund economic
promotional activities in the downtown area. The current base assessment boundaries were most
recently updated in 2022 (see below for more information about the CBIA-25 boundaries). Additionally,
a separate assessment within the CBIA is designated for holiday lighting along specific properties,
although not all properties within the CBIA are required to pay this holiday lighting assessment.
The CBIA covers over 2,500 businesses and is assessed exclusively to commercial properties, with
residential properties being exempt from these fees.
Page | 6
To carry out economic promotion activities, the CBIA contracts with the Downtown Alliance to manage
programs, including the Downtown Street Ambassador Program (in partnership with Salt Lake City and
Visit Salt Lake), the Downtown Farmers Market, and an advertising program featuring over 730 banners
and four kiosks on Main Street.
1. CBIA-25 Boundaries
A. The boundaries of the base CBIA-25 assessment area are:
a) North Temple from State Street to the east right-of-way line of Interstate 15 (includes parcels on
both sides of the street),
b) East right-of-way line of I-15 from North Temple to 400 South,
c) 400 South from the east right-of-way line of I-15 to 300 East (includes parcels on both sides of
the street),
d) 300 East from 400 South to South Temple (includes parcels on both sides of the street),
e) South Temple from 300 East Street to State Street (includes parcels on both sides of the street),
f) State Street from South Temple to North Temple (includes parcels on both sides of the street).
B. The Holiday Street Lighting Assessment applies to the following streets:
a) 200 South between 300 West and 400 West,
b) 200 South between West Temple and 200 West (south side only),
c) Pierpont Street between West Temple and 200 West,
d) West Temple Street between 400 South and 200 South,
e) Main Street between 400 South and South Temple,
f) Market Street between West Temple and Main Street (north side only), and
g) State Street between 400 South and South Temple.
Page | 6
3. Estimated Financial Summary for CBIA-25
The chart below is copied from page 5 of the Administrative Transmittal.
Page | 7
2. Holiday Lighting Mapping Error
At its Feb. 4 work session meeting, the Council received an update from Council and Economic
Development staff regarding a software error that occurred with the special assessment area (SAA)
noticing, which is required by State Code, and corrective steps to ensure transparency and compliance
with state law. Please see Attachment B for the Feb. 4 Council Staff Memo.
In summary, during the Board of Equalization meetings in January, mapping errors were discovered in
the holiday lighting assessment, resulting in incorrect assessments of some properties for holiday
lighting where holiday lighting does not exist and the failure to assess other properties that do have
holiday lighting. This error did not affect the CBIA base assessment for economic promotion activities.
In response to the error, in consultation with the Attorney’s Office and Board of Equalization, the
Economic Development Department reissued assessment notices to the correct properties and held a
new series of Board of Equalization meetings in February. Economic Development continues to work
with the City’s Information Management Services (IMS) Department to prevent future mapping and
notice.
ATTACHMENTS
A.Administrative Transmittal
B.CBIA and Board of Equalization Update Staff Memo, Feb. 4
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY25
TO:Council Members
FROM: Austin Kimmel, Sylvia Richards, and
Allison Rowland
Budget and Policy Analysts
DATE: April 1, 2025
RE: Budget Amendment Number 5 of Fiscal Year (FY) 2025
Budget Amendment Number Five includes 20 proposed amendments, including $2,855,699 in revenues and $9,109,320 in
expenditures. The amendment proposes changes in six funds and moving 2.0 general fund positions from the Mayor’s
Office; 1 position will be moved to Public Lands, and one will move to IMS. With the adoption of Budget Amendment #5,
the available fund balance will be 20.81 percent of the FY 2025 Adopted Budget. If the item is adopted as proposed, then
Fund Balance would be $37,533,578 above the 13% minimum target.
Fund Balance
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 to
the right 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. The total new ongoing costs from
Budget Amendments 1 through 5 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.
Project Timeline:
Consent: April 1, 2025
1st Briefing: April 1, 2025
2nd Briefing (if needed) & Public Hearing: April 15, 2025
Potential Adoption Vote: May 6, 2025
UPDATED Fund Balance Chart
The Administration has provided an updated revenue chart. Based on revenue data across the first part of the fiscal
year, it is proposed that revenues will be approximately $8.59 million above the FY 2025 Adopted Budget.
UPDATED Fund Balance Chart
The table below presents updated Fund Balance numbers and percentages based on the proposed changes included in
Budget Amendment #5.
As mentioned earlier, with the complete adoption of Budget Amendment #5, the available fund balance will increase to
20.81 percent of the FY 2025 Adopted Budget. If all the items are adopted as proposed, then Fund Balance would be
$37,533,578 above the 13% minimum target.
A summary spreadsheet outlining proposed budget changes is attached, which can be modified as determined
by the Council.
Impact Fee Unallocated “Available to Spend” Balances and Refund Tracking
The table below is current as of February 28, 2025. 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 $750,546 More than two years away -
Parks $8,807,661 More than two years away -
Police $1,625,193 More than two years away -
Transportation $3,682,347 More than two years away -
Note: Encumbrances are an administrative function when impact fees are held under a contract
PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing
Section A: Grants Requiring No Staff Resources
A-1: 400 South Bridge Reconstruction over Jordan River – ($3,5000,000 – one-time from the County
Quarter Cent Fund Balance)
The Administration is requesting $3.5 million from the County quarter cent sales tax fund balance to fully fund
the 400 South bridge over the Jordan river. $4 million was allocated in FY 25, bringing the total to $7.5
million. Based on structural analysis, the bridge is at risk of being further downgraded, meaning emergency
vehicles and UTA buses may not be allowed on it until it is fixed. Funding it now would enable sooner
construction. The remaining fund balance in that account would be approximately $2 million if this item is
approved.
For more background on the inspection of the bridge and other funding for the project please refer to the
Administration’s transmittal.
A-2: Withdrawn prior to transmittal
A-3: Community Land Trust Program Funds Allocation – ($310,000 – one-time from Community Land
Trust)
The Administration is requesting funding from dormant program income fund dollars to repair various homes
in the Community Land Trust program. In previous discussions the Council indicated a willingness to allocate
funding within the program, acknowledging that the Administration was working on a more comprehensive
policy for the CLT. The administration indicates they expect to transmit that in April.
Policy question – the Council may wish to schedule a more in depth discussion on the Community
Land Trust when that policy is received from the Administration, particularly if there are budget
adjustments that could/should be made for the FY 26 budget.
A-4: Hive Pass Funding for Passes and Continuing Greenbike Membership – ($135,000 – one-time from
the General Fund
Due to increased usage of the HIVE pass, the administration is requesting $114,000 to help keep up with
demand. The budget was reduced a few years ago to align with usage, but between FY 24 and FY 25, usage
increased. This will bring the total general fund amount to $464,000, which is based on projected usage. The
Administration indicates it will include this increased cost in the upcoming budget year.
The Administration is also requesting $8,500 to cover related GreenBike memberships for HIVE pass users.
For the last seven years UTA has been paying for these memberships. However, current UTA leadership is not
interested in continuing the investment. The Administration is planning to include this in the budget for the
next three years.
Policy question – The Council may wish to discuss whether it is interested in the City providing the
GreenBike memberships, and if the Council is interested in funding this service long-term. Council
may wish to ask the Administration if UTA was approached to identify additional funds.
A-5: Expanding Scope of FY25 Funded Restroom Study to Include Assessment of All Public Restrooms –
($75,000 one-time from the General Fund)
Note: Public Lands coordinated with CAN on Items A-5&6. The Administration is proposing to allocate
$75,000 of the $500,000 set aside by the Council for “Public Hygiene Pilot program” to expand the scope of
the Fairmont Park Restroom Study. $100,000 was allocated in FY 25, and the additional $75,000 will enable
the study to be City-wide.
Policy question – the Council may wish to ask the administration for more information about
what is expected to be included in the scope and if there are any specific policy goals they wish to
achieve with this study?
A-6: Public Hygiene Pilot Program – ($425,000 – one-time from the General Fund)
Note: Public Lands coordinated with CAN on Items A-5&6. The Administration is requesting the Council
release funding for the Public Hygiene pilot program, originally allocated in FY 2025. The new amount would
be $425,000. The Administration is working on releasing an RFP for proposals. The Administration’s
transmittal indicates that the RFP would ask for providing “new and/or increased hygiene and outreach
services for unsheltered individuals experiencing homelessness in SLC. Proposals can include mobile services
or improving/expanding existing stationary facilities.”
Policy question – the Council may wish to evaluate whether reducing the funding from the
original $500k allocated would potentially reduce the scope of impact of this pilot project. The
Council could elect to make up the funding from fund balance.
A-7: Additional Funding for Construction Mitigation – ($270,000 – one-time from the General Fund)
Due to high demand, the Administration is requesting $270,000 from general fund balance to add to the
construction mitigation grants administered by Economic Development. When the Council increased this
funding in the FY 25 budget, several Council Members expressed an interest in fully funding requests, given the
increased construction activity in the City. In FY 25 the Council allocated $600,000. Economic Development
anticipates $270,000 in additional funding will fully address requests for the remainder of the fiscal year.
Additionally Economic Development indicates that they will make these funds available to businesses that have
been awarded funds in previous rounds. This funding would allow an additional 90 small businesses to receive
grants. Staff asked the Administration if the new amount of $870,000 should be included in the FY 26 budget.
The Administration indicates that they expect most major street construction projects to be wrapped up by the
next fiscal year.
Policy question – the Council may wish to have further discussion about other anticipated
construction projects that may have business impact, to inform the FY 26 budget.
A-8: Animal Services Contract Increase True-Up – ($398,281 – one-time from the General Fund)
The Administration is requesting additional funding for the contract with Salt Lake County for animal services.
The Contract was finalized after the FY 25 budget was adopted, which is why it wasn’t included. The new
contract pricing is $398,281 more than the current budget, and is due largely to inflationary increases, and
does not include any service level increases.
The Council may wish to ask the Administration if there is a way to adjust the timing of contract
negotiations so they can be included in the timing of the annual budget process.
A-9: FY25 Water Stabilization Monthly Fixed Fee (Water for $281,965); FY25 Water Stabilization
Monthly Fixed Fee (Sewer for $65,495); FY25 Water Stabilization Monthly Fixed Fee (Franchise Fee Tax
$72,752) for a total of $420,212 one-time funds from the General Fund
The Administration is requesting $420,212 of funding from general fund balance to cover the cost of the water
stabilization fee charged to the City as a water user (water, sewer, and stormwater) – calculated based on each
meter, and the size of each meter. The Public Lands department was not aware of this fee proposal at the time
of the FY 25 budget. Public Utilities will likely have a new rate structure in time for the FY 26 budget request, at
which time Public Lands will evaluate the budget need.
A-10: Storm Water Impact Fees ($36,091 one-time from the General Fund; $269,654 one-time from the
General Fund and $269,654 from the CIP Fund)
The Administration is requesting one-time funds to cover $305, 745 in stormwater impact fees relating to
Parks/CIP projects that were not included in those original project budgets – including Sugar House Park
Pavilion and several other CIP projects funded in FY 25. The Administration is evaluating how to
operationalize including these fees in project budgets in the future.
For background information on the City’s stormwater fee and fun, please refer to the Administration’s
transmittal.
A-11: Public Safety Plan – Westside Parks Security Guards – ($59,430 one-time from the General Fund)
The Public Lands department is requesting $59,430 to add additional security detail in westside parks, as
contemplated in the Public Safety plan proposed by the Mayor in January 2025. This funding would provide
funding for services from April-June.
Policy question – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration whether funding for
security services will be included in the FY 26 budget, and if so, the duration of those services.
A-12: Updating Four Sections of the Impact Fees Facilities Plan – ($80,000 one-time from the CIP Fund)
The Administration is requesting $80,000 from the various impact fee accounts to update all sections of the
Impact Fee Facility Plan – Fire, Police, Parks and Transportation. The Council previously approved an update
to the transportation in FY 24. This would enable all sections to be updated. The last comprehensive update
was in 2016. Updated plans ensure that impact fees are set based on realistic/current cost estimates for
improvements relating to growth, and that growth estimates are based on current data. State code governs the
impact fee facility plan process, including allowable uses for impact fees. The analysis must be completed by a
consultant approved in the impact fee analysis field.
A-13: Mayor’s Office Transfer of 2 FTE’s to Two Departments – (Budget Neutral)
The Administration is proposing to shift two FTEs out of the Mayor’s office into other City departments:
-One is a Constituent Services and Office Coordinator (N19), which is currently occupied, to
support the administrative functions of the Public Lands Department, in a project coordinator
role.
-One is a vacant Community Liaison position (E26), currently focused on language access, that
would move to IMS and reclassified as a Communication Specialist I (E27). Due to the
reclassification, the position would cost more annually, but for FY 25 would be absorbed by IMS.
This is a budget amendment request because the dollar amounts would need to be moved from the Mayor’s
office to Public Lands and IMS.
Policy question – The Council may wish to ask the Administration for an update on City-wide
communication strategy, including any relevant metrics.
A-14: Ranked Choice Voting Education and Outreach – ($50,000 one-time from the General Fund)
As discussed during the Council’s December discussion on Ranked Choice Voting, the Administration is
proposing to add $50,000 in one time money from the general fund balance to support outreach efforts
relating to this voting process. This is in addition to funds that are anticipated to be included in the FY 26
budget. Adding funds in this budget amendment would enable efforts to get underway immediately rather than
waiting for July 1 to begin. The Council straw polled support of this approach for the 2025 election cycle.
A-15: Additional Funding for City Hall Security Guards – ($700,000 ongoing from the General Fund)
The Administration is proposing to add $700,000 in funding from general fund balance to account for
increased security needs at the City and County building and overall Civic Campus (Washington Square,
Library, Public Safety Building). This would be in addition to the $916,000 approved in FY 26, for a total of
$1.616 million. The Administration indicated this likely reflects the actual ongoing need, and will plan to
include it in the FY 26 budget.
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources
(None)
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources
(None)
Section D: Housekeeping (write-ups from Administration’s transmittal)
D-1: Engineering Reappropriation for Fencing – ($63,953 one-time from the General Fund to the CIP
Fund)
One-time funding was provided to Public Service's Engineering Division in FY 2024 in a late-fiscal year budget
amendment for fencing adjacent to the North Temple bridge over the Jordan River, Archuleta Bridge, and Folsom Trail.
This funding was to be used for temporary fencing associated with a CIP project but could not be transferred to CIP
because it didn’t meet certain CIP criteria requirements. Instead of going to CIP, the budget was loaded into
Engineering Operations. However, because Engineering was not fully aware of the circumstances associated with the
appropriation, the funds were not encumbered and subsequently were not rolled over to the FY 2025 budget. This
housekeeping initiative is to reappropriate the $63,953.04 in funds that lapsed to the Fund Balance so the invoice from
Mountain States Fence can be paid.
D-2: Streets Mini Planer Replacement – ($394,000 one-time from the General Fund)
Earlier this year a planer used for the Roadway Preservation Program was damaged in an at-fault accident. A repair
estimate was obtained by Fleet, however, it was predicted to exceed the value of the asset. After discussion with the
manufacturer, leadership at Fleet and Streets determined it made fiscal sense to send the damaged planer out to an
auction, with the hope of finding an interested buyer who may want it for spare parts.
Given the robust demands of the Roadway Preservation Program, it is essential for the Streets Division to replace the
planer, which is used in removing and replacing old asphalt. The Roadway Preservation Program is an umbrella title
that includes among other sub-programs Asphalt Mill & Overlay. This would enable each asphalt team to have access to
a dedicated planer, eliminating the need to rely on the availability of another team's equipment, which significantly
limits productivity and operational efficiency. Replacing the planer will ensure the Streets Division can operate at full
capacity.
Since the City is self-insured, Streets must cover the cost of the replacement equipment. Public Services proposes using
$394,000 in end-of-year savings be transferred from its division budget to the Fleet Division to cover the replacement
cost. This end-of-year savings exists largely due to the mild winter that occurred this season, which resulted in lower
weather-related expenses including the salt budget, equipment rentals, and fleet fuel.
D-3: Fire Wildland/Hurricane Deployment Reimbursements – ($1,013,067 one-time reimbursement to
the General Fund and $38,558 one-time reimbursement to the Fleet Fund)
The Fire Department has been deployed several times this fiscal year to three wildland fires and two hurricanes. The
department expects to receive a full reimbursement of costs to the General Fund and a portion to Fleet. The costs are
itemized below:
• California Wildland Park Fire (August 2024) - $195,075
• California Wildland Line Fire (September 2024) - $165,412
• Utah Task Force 1/USAR Hurricane Helene (September 2024) - $121,861
• Utah Task Force 1/USAR Hurricane Milton (October 2024) - $148,926
• California Wildland Palisades Fire (January 2024) - $420,351
Total Reimbursement - $1,051,625
Staff inquired about federal funding uncertainties and the Fire Department indicates their counterparts have promised
a 75% advance on reimbursements. They will continue to monitor the situation.
D-4: Cultural Core Funding – ($241,000 one-time from the General Fund)
This funding is being requested to replace funding that fell to fund balance at the end of fiscal year 2024. The amount
was housed in Non-Departmental and was meant to be expended in the amount of $50,000 annually to supplement the
existing $250,000 annual funding level for the Cultural Core contract. The new total amount the City has committed to
pay Cultural Core annually is $300,000. If the reappropriation is approved, then the funds would be encumbered
through a purchase order process.
In FY 2023, the City Council approved the Cultural Core Surplus Funds be added to the city’s $250,000 annual
contribution. The $291,000 surplus would be divided, adding $50,000 to the city’s contribution which would then total
$300,000 for five years. In the sixth year $41,000 would be added to the city’s contribution.
D-5: Cultural Core Funding Move – ($250,000 – ongoing from General Fund)
In Budget Amendment #3 of FY 2024, Cultural Core funding in the amount of $250,000 was moved from the
Department of Economic Development to Non-Departmental. When the budget for FY 2025 was being developed, this
budget was initially captured in the Economic Development Department. However, it should have been captured in the
Economic Development Non Departmental Cost Center. This amendment formally corrects that discrepancy.
Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
E-1: BEMS – Bureau of Emergency Medical Services – ($6,003 – Misc. Grant Fund)
This amendment is to recognize the City's funding availability for an increase in an existing grant award of
$6,003. In August of 2024, the Salt Lake City Fire Department was awarded $9,642 through the Bureau of Emergency
Medical Services. In February of 2025 that award was increased by $6,003 which gave SLC a total award of $15,645.
Original Public Hearing was held March 5, 2024.
Section F: Donations
(None)
Section G: Consent Agenda
G-1: Utah State University Wildlife Foundation – ($85,356 – Misc. Grant Fund)
Utah State University has been awarded a grant by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation as part of their pollinator
program. Part of this grant has been awarded to the Trails and Natural Lands division of the Public Lands Department
of Salt Lake City as a subaward. Salt Lake City will use the grant to accomplish three main objectives: 1) Species
Development. 2) Seedling Production and 3) Native Seed Farm. The goal of these objectives is to supply the Utah
Pollinator Habitat Program and the city’s Trails projects with seedlings which will be used to enhance and restore public
lands along trails with pollinator habitat to the benefit of the urban population. The Public Hearing was held Feb. 4, 2025.
G-2: Utah Department of Natural Resources/Forestry, Fire, and State Lands – ($63,255 – Misc. Grant
Fund)
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. The proposed uses of the funds were
brought before a grant selection committee and approved. The FFSL has awarded Salt Lake City Corporation for the
implementation of a Jordan River invasive species control and restoration project. The Public Hearing was held Feb. 4,
2025.
G-3: State of Utah: Department of Environmental Quality Drinking Water Board – 4th Avenue Well –
($800,000 – Misc. Grant Fund)
Public Utilities applied for and was awarded a planning loan through the Drinking Water Board. The loan amount is up
to $800,000 for planning and design costs to address PFAS contamination in the 4th Avenue Well. In addition to
awarding the loan, the State will also forgive 100% of the principal cost of the loan to pay for an engineering study to
address the contamination issue. While this is a loan and not a grant, the mechanism for receiving the money is similar
to a grant. Typically, when receiving a loan, the loan recipient receives all the money at once and thus can spend funds
once the money is received. In this instance, the funder (lender) is requiring Salt Lake City to initially incur the expenses
and then submit reimbursement requests to receive the money. The agreement for this loan is that 100% of the
principal will be forgiven and there will be no expectation of repayment. Due to the unique requirements of this loan,
the management of funds will follow grant approval and reimbursement processes. The Public Hearing was held Feb. 4,
2025.
G-4: Salt Lake City Bike Share Expansion – ($121,236 – Misc. Grant Fund)
Transportation Division received a grant from the Utah Department of Transportation for $614,790 in August of 2022.
In October of 2024, UDOT increased that amount by $121,236 for a new total of $735,026. This item is to obtain
approval for the additional $121,236. This grant was awarded to Salt Lake City to expand the Bike Share program in
collaboration with Green Bike. The original public hearing for the grant was March 22, 2022.
ATTACHMENTS
Ongoing Costs to the General Fund (See chart below)
ACRONYMS
CAFR – Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
CIP – Capital Improvement Program
CDBG – Community Development Block Grant Program
CLTPF – Community Land Trust Program Funds
FFSL – Forestry, Fire and State Lands
FOF – Funding Our Future
FTE – Full time Employee / Equivalent
FY – Fiscal Year
GF – General Fund
HUD – Housing and Urban Development
IMS – Information Management Services
PFAS – Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
UDOT – Utah Department of Transportation
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.
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
.50 Graphic Design
position was requested
but NOT approved by the
Council.
#5
A-4: Hive Pass Funding
Additional Passes and
Continuing Greenbike
Membership
$135,000 for
additional Hive
passes
($114,000) and
continuing
Greenbike
membership
($8,500)
None
#5
A-8: Animal Services
Contract Increase True-
Up
$398,281
ongoing
Price increase of old contract plus increase of new
contract.
Budget
Amendment Item
Potential Cost
to FY2026
Annual Budget
Full Time Employee
(FTEs)Notes
#5
A-15: Additional Funding
for City Hall Security
Guards
$700,000
ongoing for City
Hall Security
Guards
None
TOTAL $7,216,054 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
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Allison Rowland, Senior Policy Analyst
DATE:March 18, 2025
RE: Fiscal Year 2025-26 Funding Allocations and One-year Action Plan for U.S. Housing and
Urban Development Department Grants, including Community Development Block
Grants & Others
UPDATES FOR APRIL 1 BRIEFING
On March 25, the Council strawpolled and approved of proposed funding for CBDG categories Neighborhood
Improvements and Public Services (after shifting $30,000 from #24 South Valley Services to #32 YWCA), as
well as Emergency Solutions Grants Parts 1 and 2. Strawpolls are still needed for the CBDG category Housing,
plus the proposed HOME and HOPWA allocations.
Responses to Council Member Questions:
-CDBG #6 Habitat for Humanity. The organization provided a detailed response to questions about the
minimum funding level for their proposal and a potential change in the proposed number of projects:
“We [have] outlined the following outputs for a $500,000 (down from $600,000) allocation:
40 homes repaired with critical improvements that directly enhance health and safety.
Of those, 4 homes will receive accessibility modifications, allowing older adults and residents with
disabilities to age in place safely. (Currently, 12% of our applicants are homeowners living with a
disability.)
25 of the 40 homes will also receive energy-efficiency upgrades in addition to the critical repairs—
lowering utility bills and reducing environmental impact.
That said, we could immediately and effectively invest the full $600,000 if awarded. However, we could
also work with a minimum of $450,000 to ensure we can continue partnering with Salt Lake City to
meet the growing demand for essential home repairs among low-income homeowners. We would
continue our part to invest and fundraise to supplement the CDBG funding provided through Salt Lake
City.
We do understand the difficult task of allocating limited funds to many valuable requests. We deeply
value our partnership with the City and share your commitment to creating safe, healthy, and stable
homes for all Salt Lake residents. Thank you for your consideration and for the opportunity to keep
building a stronger, healthier community—together.”
Project Timeline:
Set Date: February 18, 2025
1st Briefing & Public Hearing: March 4, 2025
2nd Briefing: March 18, 2025
3rd Briefing: April 1 or 8, 2025 (if needed)
Potential Adoption Vote: April 15, 2025
-CDBG #7 Salt Lake City NIS Team.
a. The Housing Stability Division provided the following response to how funding would be split
among the three programs in their proposed project:
45% – Home Repair Program
32% – Fix the Bricks
20% – Operations & Staffing
3% – Minor Repair/Handyman Program
The Division also notes: “These allocations are based on average project costs. Home Repair is the
most expensive, with projects costing up to $50,000, as they often involve comprehensive home
rehabilitation. Fix the Bricks has a more consistent average cost of $25,000 per project since it
focuses specifically on seismic retrofitting, including strengthening roof/wall connections and
bracing chimneys. Minor Repair/Handyman grants are capped at $1,500, requiring less funding.”
b. The Housing Stability Division clarified the use of CDBG funds for Fix the Bricks efforts:
“There are no specific priority areas or neighborhoods for the Fix the Bricks program; it is available
citywide and operates on a first-come, first-eligible basis from a waitlist that includes District 4.
However, the City Council could designate priority areas if desired. To qualify, homes must be
owner-occupied, and the household must earn 80% or below the Area Median Income (AMI) to
receive full retrofit funding. The 80% AMI requirement applies only to Fix the Bricks (FTB) projects
funded through CDBG. For FTB projects funded through FEMA, there is no income limit, but
homeowners must cover 25% of the costs. In addition, to assist those at or below 100% AMI, $84K
in general funds is allocated annually to help cover their 25% share. If a home is in severe disrepair,
the Home Repair Program may assist with rehabilitation before a Fix the Bricks project can proceed.
Since Fix the Bricks only funds seismic retrofits, any additional repairs must be completed
separately.”
UPDATES FOR MARCH 25 BRIEFING
Responses to Council Member Questions:
- CDBG #2 ASSIST, Inc., and CBDG #6 Habitat for Humanity: Funding received through Salt Lake City
must be used within the entitlement jurisdiction or to directly benefit its residents.
- CBDG #7 Home Repair: SLC Neighborhood Improvement & Stabilization Team ($845,381 request) is
recommended for funding, but CBDG #8 NeighborWorks ($400,000 request) is not. This is because the
Board made their decisions based on the application scores. NeighborWorks just missed the cutoff.
Additional details on CBDG #5,6,7,8:
o #5 Housing Authority of Salt Lake (Revitalize the Riverside Apartments): 41 units within the
apartment complex.
o #6 Habitat for Humanity (Critical Home Repair): Urgent home rehabilitation for an estimated
41 homes.
o #7 Salt Lake City Housing Stability Division (Home Repair Program): Various levels of home
rehabilitation and "Fix the Bricks" seismic retrofits for an estimated 33 homes.
o #8 NeighborWorks (Rehab Program): Estimated 14 homes. Not recommended for funding;
estimate based on their application request.
- Legally, funding could be shifted to CBDG #32 YWCA (Meals for Survivors) from CBDG #24 South
Valley Services (DV Shelter Services), which is also recommended for $178,431 for HOME Tenant Based
Rental Assistance. Pending Council support.
Note for Council – an Excel version of the full funding log has been sent in email, and Attachment 5 has been
updated.
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
Each year the Council is responsible for allocating millions of dollars in grants from the U.S. Housing and Urban
Development Department (HUD) among local organizations that serve Salt Lake City residents. The
organizations are primarily non-profits that specialize in providing services to the most economically vulnerable
people in the City. For Fiscal Year 2025-26 (FY26), over $7.7 million dollars is expected to flow through the
Division of Housing Stability to organizations selected by the Council. The HUD programs that provide this
funding and define the eligible activities for grant recipients are: Community Development Block Grants
(CDBG); the HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME); Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG); and,
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA). Details on the proposed grants that make up these
totals can be found in Attachment C1.
FY26 Funding (Estimated) by Grant Category and Source
Grant Source Amount Total
HUD Award $3,335,779
Recaptured
Funding $650,000CDBG
Program Income $900,000
$4,885,779
HUD Award $298,628
ESG Recaptured
Funding $0 $298,628
HUD Award $823,258
Recaptured
Funding $122,000 HOME
Program Income $700,000
$1,645,258
HUD Award $945,200
HOPWA Recaptured
Funding $0 $945,200
The City’s longer-run funding goals and strategies for using HUD funds are guided by a five-year Consolidated
Plan. The updated Plan, which was drafted by the Division of Housing Stability for the period FY2025 to 2029, is
also under Council consideration (See Attachment C2). Along with the local goals and strategies that the
successful applications must support to access annual grant funding, the draft Plan also proposes slight
modifications to the geographical area that must be defined for targeted CDBG spending on public infrastructure
and economic development. A map of the proposed target area appears in Attachment C3.
Goal of the briefing: Discuss the Council’s federal grant priorities, ask questions about applications, and
ultimately, award funding to eligible programs and projects.
ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Grants offered through HUD provide substantial funding amounts to local organizations that serve people with
low- and moderate-income (LMI) levels; people experiencing or on the verge of homelessness; potential
homeowners; and people with AIDS/HIV who need affordable housing. Most of the funds are “passed through”
the City to specific recipients or programs, including several programs that are administered by the City through
an annual competitive grant process.
A. Sources of Annual Funds. For FY26, the Division of Housing Stability (which is part of CAN, the
Department of Communities and Neighborhoods) estimates that the total amount available in HUD funding
for use in housing and related activities is nearly $7.8 million. These grants are considered “entitlement”
funds—that is, Federal money provided on a recurring basis, with amounts linked to formulas that consider
population and other demographics variables. The amount available to the City also varies each year because
it draws from three different sources: new funding, recaptured funds, and program income. The total
estimate is the sum of the grants awarded in the previous funding year, combined with any recaptured funds
and program income (see below).
Staff note: In the past, HUD award amounts have been received sometime between March and May. Since
these funds depend on Congressional approval of an annual Federal budget and, as of this writing,
Congress is still operating under a Continuing Resolution for Federal FY25, HUD cannot yet issue its
finalized award notifications. HUD typically finalizes and announces awards within 30 days.
POLICY QUESTION: The Council may wish to discuss potential options with the
Administration, should adoption of a Federal budget be further postponed.
1.New Funding. Because the precise amount of new grants is typically not determined before the
Council discussion and allocation process, the Division of Housing Stability provides estimates based
on awards from the previous funding year. The funding amounts are updated by the Division once
final notification is received from HUD, and these are adjusted for each grantee based on
contingencies approved by the Council as part of the allocation process (see section E, below).
Approximately $6,224,865 in new funds is estimated to be available through the four HUD programs
for FY26. Specifically,
- Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), $3,335,779;
- HOME Investment Partnership Program, $1,645,258;
- Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG), $298,628; and,
- Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA), $945,200.
2. Recaptured Funds. At the close of each HUD program year, once agreements expire or projects are
completed, funds available for “recapture” are identified. This occurs when, for example, a project is
completed under budget, contracts expire before funds are used, or a project or program is somehow
unsuccessful. The City can use these funds in the next round of allocations, subject to the federal
requirements, eligibility criteria, and limitations of the original federal funding source. They are not
allowed to be used for City administration and planning activities, or for CDBG Public Services
programs. For FY26, recaptured CDBG funds amounted to $650,000, and HOME funds to $122,000
(details of specific programs, activities and funding amounts can be found on page 4 of the
transmittal).
3. Program Income. Several income-generating programs are funded by CDBG and HOME, including
downpayment assistance, first-time homebuyer mortgages, and certain home rehabilitation programs.
The amounts fluctuate from year to year. All program income generated by HUD funding must be
spent before any entitlement funds are drawn down, so the City typically allocates anticipated
program income at the same time as annual entitlement funding. Contingencies are built in for
differences between the estimates and actual revenue, since the amount of program income allocated
is based on estimates of revenue not yet received.
For FY26, the estimated amount of Program Income available for allocation are $900,000 in CDBG
funds, and $700,000 in HOME funds. The transmittal notes: “Due to increasing administrative
burden in the deployment and oversight of these funds, the Administration is requesting the full
allowable 20% (including from Program Income) for the 2025-2026 program year.”
B. Estimated Available FY26 Funding by Grant Category and Source. As noted above, any prior-year
grant awards that remain unused by the grantee during the year are “recaptured” and made available for
other use in the following HUD cycle. The City also adds any “program income” to the annual HUD grant
allocations to ensure it is reallocated promptly, per HUD guidance.
FY26 Funding (Estimated) by Grant Category and Source
Grant Source Amount Total
HUD Award $3,335,779
Recaptured
Funding $650,000CDBG
Program Income $900,000
$4,885,779
HUD Award $298,628
ESG Recaptured
Funding $0 $298,628
HUD Award $823,258
Recaptured
Funding $122,000 HOME
Program Income $700,000
$1,645,258
HUD Award $945,200
HOPWA Recaptured
Funding $0 $945,200
The City allocates these funds through an open and competitive process. Applications are evaluated based
on HUD requirements and how well they align with the City’s Five-Year Consolidated Plan goals (see
section F below). The Council considers all public comments received, along with the recommendations
from the Mayor and the Community Development and Capital Improvement Program (CDCIP) advisory
board before making funding decisions. All funding decisions made by the Council are ultimately subject
to HUD approval. See section G, below, for trends in program funding for Salt Lake City over recent years.
1.Community Development and Block Grant (CDBG). This program provides annual grants to
states, cities, and counties to create safe and affordable housing opportunities, expand neighborhood
transportation and economic opportunities, invest in social service programs, and more. As noted in
the chart above, in FY26 approximately $4,885,779 is available for allocation to CDBG programs. The
total sum of local requests for these funds was $9,572,869, nearly double the amount available (see
table in section C1 below).
CDBG grants focus on community development with an emphasis on physical improvements. CDBG
funds are allocated to organizations in three categories, listed below. City administration fees are
limited to 20% of the annual grant award and program income received during the program year.
a. Housing
b. Neighborhood Improvements: This category funds transportation and economic
development infrastructure (within the designated target area, see Attachment C3 for
map).
c. Public Services: This category focuses on services for individuals in need, and not
necessarily on physical improvements as other CDBG categories do, and it is typically
the most competitive category. Its total amount is limited to 15% of the annual CDBG
award, and the recommendations for funding requests from the CDCIP Board and
Mayor add up to this maximum. This means that if the Council would like to allocate
money to any application beyond the Mayor’s recommended funding in this category,
those funds must be shifted from another Public Services application.
2.Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG). The ESG program focuses on preventing homelessness
and providing services to individuals who are experiencing homelessness. Examples are street
outreach, emergency shelter, prevention efforts, and rapid re-housing assistance. As noted in
the chart above, in FY26 approximately $298,628 is available for allocation to ESG programs.
The total sum of local funding requests for these funds was $728,481, about two-and-a-half
times the amount available (see table in section C1 below).
ESG funds are allocated to organizations providing services in two categories. City administration fees
are limited to 7.5% of the annual grant award.
a. ESG Part 1: Street Outreach and Emergency Shelter (limited to 60% of the total
annual grant award).
b. ESG Part 2: Homelessness Prevention, Rapid Re-Housing, and Homeless
Management Information Systems.
3.HOME Investment Partnership (HOME). This is the only grant program entirely focused
on expanding the supply of quality affordable housing for low-to-moderate-income residents. It
allows states and municipalities to fund a wide range of activities, such as building, buying, or
rehabilitating affordable housing for rent or homeownership, and may provide direct rental
assistance to renters. As noted in the chart above, approximately $1,645,258 is available in FY26
for allocation to CDBG programs. The total sum of local funding requests for these funds was
$3,292,861, or double the amount available (see table in section C1 below).
HOME funds are allocated to organizations providing services in two categories. City administration
fees are limited to 10% of the annual grant award and program income received during the program
year.
a. Standard HOME Funds.
b. Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDO). This program specifically,
15% of the annual grant award goes to certified projects for which create or develop
affordable rental or homebuyer housing. Rental assistance, homeowner
rehabilitation, and down payment assistance are not eligible expenses. For this
reason, the Housing Stability Division is working with the Community Reinvestment
Agency (CRA) to include these funds in the CRA’s annual Notice of Funding
Availability (NOFA) process for funding affordable housing development. The
Community Development Corporation of Utah is seeking certification as a CHDO in
Salt Lake City, but the Housing Stability Division states that expanding the number of
CHDOs remains challenging. Other areas of the country have similarly struggled to
meet the certification criteria.
4.Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA). The HOPWA Program is the
only Federal program dedicated to the housing needs of people living with HIV/AIDS. It
provides funding for projects that address the needs and benefit individuals living with
HIV/AIDS and their families. As noted in the chart above, approximately $945,200 is available
in FY26 for allocation to CDBG programs. The sum of local funding requests for these funds was
$812,720, or only 86% of the amount
available so both the CDCIP Board and the Mayor recommend providing amounts larger than those
requested for the two applicants. The Housing Stability Division is working with the two organizations
to determine whether they will be able to make good use of these additional funds. City administration
fees are limited to 3% of the annual grant award.
C. The Funding Recommendation Process. The Council bases its selection of final HUD grant awards on
information from the Division of Housing Stability, as well as the reviews and recommendations of the
Community Development and Capital Improvement Program (CDCIP) resident advisory board, and the
Mayor. These recommendations are presented in Attachment C1. An additional source of information is the
public hearing held at a Formal Meeting early in the deliberation process.
1.A Competitive Process. Typically, the combined amount of total funding requested by applicants
significantly exceeds available funds. For FY26, requests total 185% of available funding, with
$14,406,932 requested, and only an estimated $7,774,865 available (see table below). As noted in
section A above, HUD has not yet confirmed the City’s final award amounts, so at this stage the City
works with estimates of available funding that are based on the previous year’s amounts.
Estimated FY26 Funding from All Grant Programs
Grant Available
Funds
Total
Requests
Requests as %
of Available
Funds
CDBG $4,885,779 $9,572,869 196%
ESG $298,628 $728,481 244%
HOME $1,645,258 $3,292,861 200%
HOPWA $945,200 $812,720 86%
Total $7,774,865 $14,406,932 185%
2.Recommendations for the Council. In preparation for the Council’s decisions on grant amounts
to specific organizations, each application receives a score and a funding recommendation from the
CDCIP Advisory Board. These scores and recommendations are provided to the Mayor, who adds
funding recommendations of her own. Attachment C4 shows each FY26 application ranked by score
within each grant category. These scores are calculated by combining the advisory board's raw score
with City staff's administrative and risk assessment scores.
The resident advisory board also provides recommendations for funding contingencies, which are
applied in the event that actual funding is more or less than estimated. These recommendations are
listed in section E, below. These are also subject to Council approval.
Additional details for applications in all four annual HUD grants are provided in Attachment C1.
These details include project and program descriptions and prior-year award amounts for returning
applications.
3.Minimum Funding Threshold. In a previous Council briefing, the Housing Stability Division
proposed to increase the minimum funding threshold for HUD Grant applicants from $30,000 to
$50,000 annually, which conforms to with best practices. This floor would be included in the new
five-year Consolidated Plan and future Annual Action Plans, but the Housing Stability Division opted
to keep the funding floor at $30,000 for FY26 since the application process was already underway.
The Division reported that applicants and past recipients largely supported increasing the funding
floor to $50,000, which is proposed to begin in FY27 to provide sufficient notice to potential
applicants.
2.POLICY QUESTION: Would the Council like to discuss the advantages and
drawbacks of increasing the minimum funding threshold to $50,000?
D. Overview of FY26 Funding Recommendations.
1.Mayoral versus Board Recommendations. As in most other years, the Board and the Mayor
agree on the majority of their recommendations for FY26. The two sets of recommendations differ
only for the items listed below. See Attachment C4 for the FY 2025-26 Grant Recommendations by
score.
a.CDGB #6. The board recommends fully funding the $600,000 requested for Habitat for
Humanity’s Critical Home Repair Program, while the Mayor recommends funding only
$500,000, and moving the remaining $100,000 to Salt Lake City NIS Team. (Also a new
application.)
b.CDGB #7. The Salt Lake City NIS Team requested $1,377,500 for the Home Repair
Program and the Fix the Bricks Program, but both the board and the Mayor recommend
much lower amounts, of $745,381 and $845,381, respectively.
c.ESG #2 (Part 1). The board recommends fully funding the $60,000 Volunteers of
America request for the Youth Resource Center, while the Mayor recommends funding only
$50,000, and splitting the remaining $10,000 between items f. and g. below.
d.ESG #3 (Part 1). The board recommends fully funding the $60,000 Volunteers of
America request for the Geraldine E. King Women's Resource Center, while the Mayor
recommends funding only $35,000, and splitting the remaining $25,000 between items f.
and g. below.
e.ESG #4 (Part 1). The board recommends funding $59,176 of the $60,000 First Step
House request for its Resource Center Program, while the Mayor recommends funding only
$34,176, and splitting the remaining $25,000 between items f. and g. below.
f.ESG #6 (Part 1). The board does not recommend funding the $50,000 Shelter the
Homeless request for its Shelter Operations, but the Mayor recommends funding it at
$30,000, moving the amount from items c., d., and e. above.
g.ESG #7 (Part 1). The board does not recommend funding the $30,800 Ruff Haven
request for its Street Outreach, while the Mayor recommends funding it at $30,000, moving
the amount from items c., d., and e. above.
2.Disqualified Applications. Two applications were determined to be ineligible this year because
they were not eligible uses of the CDBG program funds. The applications are:
a.CDGB #9. International Center for Appropriate and Sustainable Technology, Electric
Vehicle Charger Installation. (Also a new application.)
b.CDGB #44 (Public Services). English Skills Learning Center, Increasing
Communication Capacity. (Also a new application.)
3.Returning Project Applications Not Recommended for FY26 Funding. There are 13
returning applications that received grant awards last year but did not receive a funding
recommendation this year.
a.CDGB #9. NeighborWorks Salt Lake, Home Repair Program and Fix the Bricks Program.
$400,000.
b.CDGB #25 (Public Services). Wasatch Community Gardens, Green Team
Program. $40,000.
c.CDBG #26 (Public Services). Boys and Girls Club of Salt Lake City, Childcare
Services. $85,000.
d.CDBG #27 (Public Services). First Step House, Employment Preparation
Program. $68,518.
e.CDBG #29 (Public Services). Neighborhood House. Childcare Staffing. $87,387.
f.CDGB #31 (Public Services). First Step House, Peer Supportive Services.
$90,000.
g.CDGB #34 (Public Services). Community Development Corporation of Utah,
Community Navigation Program. $75,000.
h.CDGB #37 (Public Services). Advantage Services, Employment Services.
$100,000.
i.CDGB #38 (Public Services). The Road Home, Housing Staffing. $50,000.
j.CDGB #39 (Public Services). Shelter the Homeless, Security and Food at
Homeless Resource Centers. $50,000.
k.CDGB #41 (Public Services). Catholic Community Services, Chef Trainer.
$50,000.
l.CDGB #42 (Public Services). Catholic Community Services, Employment/Life
Skills Coordinator. $50,000.
m.CDGB #43 (Public Services). Utah’s Promise, Connecting with Essential
Resources. $45,000.
5.New Applications. This year there are 15 new applications for CDBG, which is more than
usual. There are also three new applications for ESG. Note that some of these applications are
for new programs that would be offered by returning organizations.
a.CDGB #3. Odyssey House, Replace HVAC System. Recommended for $250,000.
b.CDGB #5. Housing Authority of Salt Lake City. Revitalizing Riverside Apartments.
Recommended for $146,625.
c.CDGB #6. Habitat for Humanity, Critical Home Repair Program. The board
recommends fully funding the $600,000 requested, while the Mayor recommends
funding only $500,000, and moving the remaining $100,000 to Salt Lake City NIS
Team.
d.CDGB #9. International Center for Appropriate and Sustainable Technology,
Electric Vehicle Charger Installation. Not recommended for funding.
e.CDGB #11. Utah Film Center, Update Film Center. Not recommended for funding.
f.CDGB #17 (Public Services). THRIVE Center for Survivors of Torture, Mental
Health Services for Refugees. Recommended for $30,000.
g.CDGB #20 (Public Services). Food Justice Coalition, Food Services.
Recommended for $30,000.
h.CDGB #22 (Public Services). International Rescue Committee, VESL Program.
Recommended for $40,000.
i.CDGB #28 (Public Services). Asian Association, Refugee Financial Education
Program. Not recommended for funding.
n.CDGB #30 (Public Services). Salt Lake City Public Library, Case Management.
Not recommended for funding.
o.CDGB #32 (Public Services). YWCA, Domestic Violence Shelter Meals. Not
recommended for funding.
p.CDGB #33 (Public Services). Salt Lake American, Refugee Services for Survival.
Not recommended for funding.
q.CDGB #35 (Public Services). Utah Community Action, Childcare Services. Not
recommended for funding.
r.CDGB #36 (Public Services). Big Brothers Big Sisters of Utah, Support Staffing.
Not recommended for funding.
s.CDGB #40 (Public Services). Odyssey House, Explorers Program. Not
recommended for funding.
t.ESG #5 (Part 1). YWCA, Shelter Advocacy. Not recommended for funding.
u.ESG #9 (Part 2). Housing Authority of Salt Lake, Homeless Prevention. Not
recommended for funding.
v.ESG #11 (Part 2). Asian Association, Homeless Prevention. Not recommended for
funding.
6.Projects Recommended for More Funding than was Requested. Two applications,
both in the HOPWA program, received recommendations from both the Board and the Mayor,
for more funding than they had requested. Housing Stability Division staff is checking with the
two organizations to ensure they can make use of the additional funding amount.
a.HOPWA #2. Utah Community Action, HOPWA. Requested $191,585; recommended
for $227,844.
b.HOPWA #3. Housing Connect, Housing Assistance. Requested $589,779;
recommended for $689,000.
7.Organizations with Multiple Applications. Some organizations submit a single
application for a program for which they seek funding from multiple grants. Others submit
multiple applications for different programs which are narrowly tailored to each grant.
Organizations with multiple applications are listed alphabetically in Attachment C5, with total
funding requested and the recommended award amounts.
E. Funding Contingencies. Annual HUD program funding is allocated by the Council on the basis of
estimates of funding that has not yet been received. For this reason, contingencies are needed to compensate
for differences between estimates and actual grant amounts received. Each year the advisory board
recommends specific contingencies, which are summarized in the table below. The Council may wish to
review the contingencies listed below and identify any changes they wish to make in case HUD’s
confirmation of final funding amounts is not available by the scheduled vote on April 15.
FY26 Council Funding Contingencies
If MORE funding is available If LESS funding is available
CDBG
Allocate 20% of the annual CDBG award
to program administration. Allocate 15%
of the annual award and estimated 2024-
25 CDBG Program Income to Public
Services. Add additional funding to the
highest-scoring applications up to the full
ask before moving to the next highest-
scoring application. As much as
practicable, round to the nearest $1,000
or $10,000.
Allocate 20% of the annual CDBG award to program
administration. Allocate 15% of the annual award and
estimated 2024-25 CDBG Program Income to Public Services.
Remove funding from the lowest-scoring activities down to the
minimum amount required to run the program, moving up
from the lowest-scoring, funded activity. If you reach the top
of the programs and funding still needs to be decreased,
remove the lowest scoring, funded activity, and reallocate the
funding to the highest scoring activity up to the board's
recommended amounts, moving down the list. Round to the
nearest $1,000 or $10,000.
ESG
Allocate 7.5% of the annual ESG award to
program administration. Do not exceed
the 60% Part 1 funding cap. Add
additional funding to the highest-scoring
applications up to the full ask before
moving to the next highest-scoring
application. As much as practicable,
round to the nearest $1,000.
Allocate 7.5% of the annual ESG award to program
administration. Remove funding from the lowest-scoring
activities down to the minimum amount required to run the
program, moving up from the lowest-scoring, funded activity.
If you reach the top of the programs and funding still needs to
be decreased, remove the lowest scoring, funded activity, and
reallocate the funding to the highest scoring activity up to the
board's recommended amounts, moving down the list. Round
to the nearest $1,000.
HOME
Allocate 10% of the annual HOME award
to program administration. Allocate 15%
of the annual award for the CHDO Set-
Aside. Add additional funding to the
highest-scoring applications up to the full
ask before moving to the next highest-
scoring application. As much as
practicable, round to the nearest $1,000
or $10,000.
Allocate 10% of the annual HOME award to program
administration. Allocate 15% of the annual award and 15% of
the estimated 2024-25 CDBG Program Income to Public
Services. Remove funding from the lowest-scoring activities
down to the minimum amount required to run the program,
moving up from the lowest-scoring, funded activity. If you
reach the top of the programs and funding still needs to be
decreased, remove the lowest scoring, funded activity, and
reallocate the funding to the highest scoring activity up to the
board's recommended amounts, moving down the list. Round
to the nearest $1,000 or $10,000.
HOPWA
Allocate 3% of the annual HOPWA award
to program administration. Add
additional funding to the highest-scoring
applications up to the full ask before
moving to the next highest-scoring
application. As much as practicable,
round to the nearest $1,000 or $10,000.
Allocate 3% of the annual HOPWA award to program
administration. Remove funding from the lowest-scoring
activities down to the minimum amount required to run the
program, moving up from the lowest-scoring, funded activity.
If you reach the top of the programs and funding still needs to
be decreased, remove the lowest scoring, funded activity, and
reallocate the funding to the highest scoring activity up to the
board's recommended amounts, moving down the list. Round
to the nearest $1,000 or $10,000.
F. FY26 HUD Entitlement Allocations and the FY25-29 Consolidated Plan
1.The FY25-29 Consolidated Plan. Each successive five-year Consolidated Plan spells out the goals
and strategies that determine eligibility for HUD grant funding and identifies geographic target areas
for the CDBG neighborhood improvement category funding (see below). A comparison of the goals
and strategies of the current consolidated plan with the proposed FY25-29 Consolidated Plan can be
found in Attachment C2.
2.CDBG Neighborhood Improvements Category Target Area in the 2025-2029
Consolidated Plan. The target area delineates the geographic boundaries for spending CDBG
funding on economic development and public infrastructure improvements (Attachment C3).
Focusing federal grants in specific target areas is intended to maximize community impact and
stimulate investments from other entities in these neighborhoods. These applications are included in
the CDBG Neighborhood Improvements category on the funding log. Examples of these project types
include small business façade improvement grants, public transit improvements, and creation of ADA
ramps. A city which does not fund applications that advance the five-year plan could be considered by
as underperforming, which may lead to reductions in future grant awards, and audits of the program.
Policy Question: Would the Council like to discuss the proposal to shift the
current CDBG boundaries as depicted in Attachment C3?
8. Timeline for Allocations and New Consolidated Plan.
FY26 HUD Entitlement
Allocations
FY25-29 Consolidated Plan
April 15 Council adoption of FY26 HUD
entitlement allocations
Council adoption of Consolidated
Plan
April 1 Third briefing (if needed)
March 25 Second briefing
March 18 First briefing
March 4 Mayor’s funding recommendations.
Council public hearing.
Council public hearing
February 18 Set date for public hearing Set date for public hearing
February 11 Follow-up briefing for Draft 5-
year HUD Consolidated Plan
FY25-2029 (initial briefing
October 1, 2024).
G. Trends in City Housing Funding. As seen in the chart below, HUD Grant funding has remained
relatively stable throughout recent years. The largest exception is the sharp increase in HOPWA funding
over the period, which resulted from 2016 Federal legislation that adjusted the funding formula to better
reflect HIV epidemic data. Continued funding increases are not expected because the phased formula
adjustment has now been fully implemented.
POLICY QUESTION: The Council might wish to engage the Administration in a
discussion about funding shifts in the other HUD Grant programs over this period.
GENERAL POLICY QUESTIONS
1. Does the Council have any questions about the funding recommendations from the Advisory Board and the
Mayor?
2. Would Council Members like to suggest any potential funding shifts among applications?
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment C1. Recommended Uses of FY2025-26 Federal Funding.
Attachment C2. Proposed FY2025 to 2029 Consolidated Plan Goals and Strategies.
Attachment C3. Target Area Map for CDBG Neighborhood Improvements (2025-2029 Consolidated Plan).
Attachment C4. FY 2025-26 Grant Recommendations by Score.
Attachment C5. Organizations with Multiple Applications.
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
$4,000,000
FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26*
CDBG
ESG
HOME
HOPWA
Trends in Final Allocations from HUD Programs
All data provided by the Housing Stability Division.
*Allocation for FY26 is an estimate based on previous years' funding.
Attachment C5. Organizations with Multiple Applications. Where funding recommendations are the same for the Board
and the Mayor, a single dollar figure appears. Exceptions are noted.
Application Funding
Requested
Recommended
for funding?
CDBG #28 (Public Services). Refugee Financial Education
Program
$114,387 No
Asian Association
ESG #11 (Part 2). Homeless Prevention $49,669 No
CDBG #41 (Public Services). Chef Trainer $50,000 NoCatholic
Community
Services
CDBG #42 (Public Services). Employment/Life Skills
Coordinator
$50,000 No
HOME #9. Down Payment Assistance $210,000 NoCommunity
Development
Corporation of
Utah
CDBG #34 (Public Services). Community Navigation Program $75,000 No
CDBG #4. Building Renovations $330,000 $280,000
CDBG #27 (Public Services). Employment Preparation and
Placement Program
$68,518 No
CDBG #31 (Public Services). Peer Supportive Services $90,000 No
ESG #4 (Part 1). Resource Center Program $60,000 $59,176 by Board;
$34,176 by Mayor
First Step House
HOME #6. Tenant-Based Rental Assistance $283,119 $283,119
ESG #9 (Part 2). Homeless Prevention $82,500 NoHousing Authority
of Salt Lake City CDBG #5. Revitalizing Riverside Apartments $189,750 $146,625
HOME #10. New City Plaza Construction $1,000,000 No
Housing Connect HOPWA #3. Housing Assistance $589,779 $689,000
HOME #8. Down Payment Assistance $200,000 NoNeighborWorks
Salt Lake CDBG #8. Home Repair Program $400,000 No
CDBG #3. Replace HVAC System $250,000 $250,000
CDBG #19 (Public Services). Treatment Support.$150,000 $75,000
CDBG #21 (Public Services). Bus Passes $90,000 $33,366Odyssey House
CDBG #40 (Public Services). Explorers Program $112,000 No
CDBG #7. Home Repair Program and Fix the Bricks Program $1,377,500 $745,381 by Board;
$845,381 by MayorSalt Lake City NIS
Team CDBG #10. Neighborhood Business Improvement Program $950,000 $650,000
CDBG #39 (Public Services). Security and Food at Housing
Resource Centers
$50,000 No
Shelter the
Homeless ESG #6 (Part 1). Shelter Operations $50,000 $0 by Board;
$30,000 by Mayor
CDBG #24 (Public Services). Domestic Violence Shelter
Services
$40,000 $30,000South Valley
Services HOME #3. Tenant-Based Rental Assistance $178,431 $178,431
continued on next page
Application Funding
Requested
Recommended
for funding?
CDBG #23 (Public Services). Resource Center Staffing $101,048 $30,000
CDBG #38 (Public Services). Housing Staffing $50,000 No
ESG #10 (Part 2). Rapid Re-Housing $91,888 $30,000The Road Home
HOME #7. Tenant-Based Rental Assistance $350,000 $340,885
CDBG #35 (Public Services). Childcare Services $240,000 No
ESG #8 (Part 2). Rapid Re-Housing $146,227 $67,054
HOME #4. Tenant-Based Rental Assistance $287,141 $287,141
Utah Community
Action
HOPWA #2. HOPWA $194,585 $227,844
ESG #2 (Part 1). Youth Resource Center $60,000 $60,000
ESG #3 (Part 1). Geraldine E King Women's Resource Center $60,000 $60,000 by Board;
$35,000 by MayorVolunteers of
America HOME #5. Tenant-Based Rental Assistance $174,867
4174,867
CDBG #32 (Public Services). Domestic Violence Shelter Meals $60,000 No
YWCA ESG #5 (Part 1). Shelter Advocacy $75,000 No
RESOLUTION NO. OF 2025
(Creating the Downtown Revitalization Public Infrastructure District and Authorizing and Approving the
Governing Document and the form of the Interlocal Agreement)
WHEREAS, during the 2025 general legislative session, the Utah legislature passed the Housing
and Transit Reinvestment Zone amendments, which, among other things, provides for the creation of a
convention center public infrastructure district in a capital city for the purposes of financing any
improvements that serve the County-owned convention center (commonly known as the Salt Palace),
privately owned improvements if the improvements are allowed use of funds under Section 63N-3-1403
(Capital City Revitalization Zone), and a convention center revitalization project as defined in Section
63N-3-602 (Housing and Transit Reinvestment Zone); and
WHEREAS, the Housing and Transit Reinvestment Zone amendments provide for an expedited
timeline for the City to act once it receives a petition to create a convention center public infrastructure
district in a capital city including providing the City a limited timeframe to propose modifications to the
petition and associated documents; and
WHEREAS, on March 17, 2025, the City received a petition filed by John Larson on behalf of
Jazz Arena Investors, LLC, requesting adoption by resolution approving the creation of a convention
center public infrastructure district in a capital city (District) pursuant to the Public Infrastructure District
Act, Title 17D, Chapter 4 and relevant portions of the Limited Purpose Local Government Entities -
Special Districts, Title 17B (collectively, the PID Act), within the City for the purpose of financing
certain Improvements, as more specifically defined in the Governing Document attached as Exhibit A;
and
WHEREAS, the petition proposes that the District boundaries are Block 79 in downtown Salt
Lake City, more commonly known as the Delta Center and as described and depicted on the map attached
as Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS, the petition proposes that the District is necessary for the purpose of financing the
construction of certain Improvements, as defined in the Governing Document; and
WHEREAS, the petition provides that the District’s Trustees shall be appointed consistent with
the PID Act, and as more specifically set forth in the Governing Document; and
WHEREAS, the PID Act provides that the District and City shall enter into an Interlocal
Agreement pledging certain City funds to the District, including the .5% sales and use tax authorized
under the Section 59-12-402.5 and 63N-3-1403 (Capital City Revitalization Zone) and Section 59-12-
2220 (County Option Sales and Use Tax), the form of the Interlocal Agreement is attached as Exhibit C;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of the PID Act, the City may create a public infrastructure
district by adopting a resolution of the City Council and with consent of 100% of all surface property
owners proposed to be included in the district (the Property Owners); and
WHEREAS, the petition, containing the consent of the single Property Owner, has been certified
by the City Recorder pursuant to the PID Act; and
WHEREAS, the City, prior to consideration of this Resolution, held a public hearing after 6:00
p.m. to receive input from the public regarding the creation of the District and the Property Owner waived
the 60-day protest period pursuant to Section 17D-4-201 of the PID Act; and
WHEREAS, the hearing on the Petition was held at the City Hall because there is no reasonable
place to hold a public hearing within the District’s boundaries, and the hearing at the City Hall was held
as close to the applicable area as reasonably possible; and
WHEREAS, the City properly published notice of the public hearing in compliance with Section
17B-1-211(1) of the Act; and
WHEREAS, the Property Owner did not submit a withdrawal of consent to the creation of the
District before the public hearing on the Petition; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to authorize the creation of the District under and in compliance with
state law and to authorize other actions in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, the governance of the District shall be in accordance with the PID Act and the terms
of the Governing Document; and
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows:
1. The District is hereby created as a separate entity from the City in accordance with the
Governing Document and the PID Act. The boundaries of the District shall be as set forth in
the Governing Document.
2. The District is authorized to provide services relating to the financing of Improvements
within and without the District boundaries, as set forth in the Governing Document.
3. The creation of the District is in the best interest of the City, and the organization of the
District pursuant to the PID Act is hereby approved.
4. The Governing Document in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A is hereby authorized and
approved and the District shall be governed by the terms thereof and applicable law.
5. The Interlocal Agreement in the form attached hereto as Exhibit C is hereby authorized and
approved, subject to any modifications recommended by the City Attorney’s Office. The
effective date of the Interlocal Agreement shall be the date that the agreement is executed by
both parties.
6. The Mayor and City Attorney are authorized to make any corrections, deletions, or additions
to take any actions required by law to formalize the District.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah on , 2025.
Salt Lake City Council
Chris Wharton, Council Chair
Attest:
Keith Reynolds, City Recorder
Approved as to form:
Mark Kittrell, City Attorney
EXHIBIT A
[Governing Document]
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C
[Form of Interlocal Agreement]
GOVERNING DOCUMENT
FOR
DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE DISTRICT
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Prepared
by
Gilmore & Bell, P.C.
15 West South Temple, Suite 1400
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101
[DATE], 2025
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................1
A. Purpose and Intent...................................................................................................1
B. Need for the District................................................................................................1
C. Objective of the Governing Document....................................................................1
II. DEFINITIONS ....................................................................................................................2
III. BOUNDARIES....................................................................................................................5
IV. LIMITATION OF CITY .....................................................................................................5
V. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED POWERS, IMPROVEMENTS AND SERVICES .......5
A. Powers of the District and Governing Document Amendment...............................5
1. Improvements ..............................................................................................5
2. Vesting .........................................................................................................5
3. Construction Standards Limitation ..............................................................5
4. Procurement.................................................................................................6
5. Reserved ......................................................................................................6
6. Annexation and Withdrawal........................................................................6
7. Overlap Limitation.......................................................................................6
8. Reserved ......................................................................................................6
9. No Debt Issuance Limitation .......................................................................6
10. Bankruptcy Limitation .................................................................................6
11. Governing Document Amendment Requirement ........................................7
B. Preliminary Estimate of Improvements...................................................................7
VI. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES ............................................................................................7
A. Board Composition................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
B. Vacancy...................................................................................................................8
C. Compensation..........................................................................................................8
D. Voting. ....................................................................................................................8
E. Conflicts of Interest.................................................................................................8
F. Not a Resident..........................................................................................................8
G. No Liability of City or County................................................................................8
VII. RESERVED .........................................................................................................................8
VIII. FINANCIAL PLAN ............................................................................................................8
A. General.....................................................................................................................8
B. Applicable Debt Requirements................................................................................8
C. Maximum Debt Mill Levy.......................................................................................9
D. Debt Imposition Term..............................................................................................9
E. Maximum Administrative Mill Levy.......................................................................9
F. Debt Repayment Sources.........................................................................................9
G. Debt Instrument Disclosure Requirement.............................................................10
H. Security for Debt....................................................................................................10
4932-8939-7795, v. 5
I. District’s Operating Costs......................................................................................10
IX. ANNUAL REPORT ..........................................................................................................11
A. General...................................................................................................................11
B. Reporting of Significant Events.............................................................................11
X. DISSOLUTION .................................................................................................................12
XI. DISCLOSURE TO PURCHASERS..................................................................................12
XII. CAPITAL PLEDGE AGREEMENT ................................................................................12
LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT A Legal Descriptions
EXHIBIT B The Act
EXHIBIT C Initial District and Annexation Area Boundary Map
EXHIBIT D Capital Pledge Agreement between the District and Salt Lake City
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose and Intent.
The District is a convention center public infrastructure district in a capital city, and
as such is (a) is a body corporate and politic with perpetual succession; (b) is a quasi-municipal
corporation; (c) is a political subdivision of the state; and (d) is separate and distinct from, and
independent of, the City and any other public entity or political subdivision of the state, and, except
as may otherwise be provided for by State law, this Governing Document, and the Participation
Agreement, its activities are subject to review by the City only insofar as they may deviate in a
material matter from the requirements of the Governing Document. It is intended that the primary
purpose of the District will be to finance the Improvements in accordance with the Act and the
Participation Agreement. The District shall be entitled to the full powers of the Act to fulfill the
limited purposes as generally described in this Governing Document. References to the
Participation Agreement herein shall not be construed as a limitation on the powers of the District
other than as a limitation on the use of the Revitalization Sales Taxes (as defined therein) to those
uses described in the Participation Agreement.
B. Need for the District.
There are currently no other governmental entities, including the City, located in
the immediate vicinity of the District that consider it desirable, feasible, or practical to undertake
the financing of the Improvements needed for the Project. Formation of the District is therefore
necessary for the Improvements required for the Project to be provided in the most economic
manner possible.
C. Objective of the Governing Document.
The objective of this Governing Document is to authorize the District to provide
for the financing of the Improvements from the proceeds of Debt to be issued by the District. All
Debt is expected to be repaid by Pledged Revenues, provided however, that this Governing
Document shall not be interpreted to expand or allow any use of Pledged Revenues to finance any
Improvements in a manner not permitted by the Act or the Participation Agreement, as applicable.
This Governing Document is intended to establish a limited purpose for the District
and explicit financial constraints that are not to be violated. The primary purpose is to provide for
the financing of the Improvements There are no divisions of the District.
It is the intent of the District to dissolve upon payment or defeasance of all Debt
incurred or upon a determination that adequate provision has been made for the payment of all
Debt. The District may also be dissolved if the District has no Debt and the Board determines that
the District is not needed to finance the Improvements.
The District shall be authorized to finance the Improvements that can be funded
from Debt to be repaid from Pledged Revenues. It is the intent of this Governing Document to
assure to the extent possible that no taxable property bear an economic burden that is greater than
that associated with the Maximum Debt Mill Levy in amount and that no taxable property bear an
4932-8939-7795, v. 5
economic burden that is greater than that associated with the Maximum Debt Mill Levy Imposition
Term in duration.
II. DEFINITIONS
In this Governing Document, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated below,
unless the context hereof clearly requires otherwise:
Act: means the applicable portions of the District Act, the CCRZ Act, the Capital City
Revitalization Zone Act, and the Assessment Act as of May 7, 2025, provided however,
that any obvious errors or technical corrections after this date that do not affect the business
terms of this Governing Document shall be acceptable. A copy of the Act will be attached
as Exhibit B once the Act is published.
Annexation Area Boundaries: means the boundaries of the area described in the
Annexation Area Boundary Map and as particularly described in Exhibit A-2 which may
be annexed or withdrawn from or into the District upon the meeting of certain
requirements, including the written consent of the related property owners or lessees of
such property, as applicable.
Annexation Area Boundary Map: means the map attached hereto as Exhibit C, describing
the property approved for potential annexation to the District.
Assessment: means (i) the levy of an assessment secured by a lien on property within the
District to pay for the costs of Improvements benefitting such property or (ii) an assessment
by the District levied on private property within such District in accordance with the C-
Pace Act, each as may be levied pursuant to the Assessment Act.
Assessment Act: means collectively, (i) Title 11, Chapter 42, Utah Code as may be
amended from time to time and (ii) the C-PACE Act.
Board: means the board of trustees of the District.
Bond, Bonds, or Debt: means bonds or other obligations, including loans of any property
owner, for the payment of which the District has promised to pledge and collect Pledged
Revenues.
Capital City Revitalization Zone Act: means Title 63N, Chapter 14 of Utah Code, as may
be amended from time to time.
City: means Salt Lake City Corporation, a Utah municipal corporation.
City Code: means the City Code of Salt Lake City.
City Council: means the Salt Lake City Council.
CCRZ Act: means those provisions of Title 63N, Chapter 3, Part 6 that relate to a
Convention Center Reinvestment Zone in a Capital City.
4932-8939-7795, v. 5
Convention Center Reinvestment Zone in a Capital City: means the same as defined and
described in the CCRZ Act.
County: means Salt Lake County, Utah.
C-PACE Act: means Title 11, Chapter 42a of the Utah Code, as amended from time to
time.
C-PACE Bonds: means bonds, loans, notes, or other structures and obligations of the
District issued pursuant to the C-PACE Act, including refunding C-PACE Bonds.
C-PACE Assessments: means assessments levied under the C-PACE Act.
District: means the Downtown Revitalization Public Infrastructure District.
District Act: means the Special District Act and the PID Act.
District Area: means the property within the Initial District Boundary Map and the
Annexation Area Boundary Map.
End User: means any owner, or tenant of any owner, of any taxable improvement within
the District, who is intended to become burdened by the imposition of ad valorem property
taxes subject to the Maximum Debt Mill Levy or an Assessment. By way of illustration, a
resident homeowner, renter, commercial property owner, or commercial tenant is an End
User. The business entity that constructs homes or commercial structures is not an End
User.
Fees: means any legal fee imposed by the District.
Financial Plan: means the Financial Plan described in Section VIII which describes (i) the
potential means whereby the Improvements may be financed; (ii) how the Debt is expected
to be incurred; and (iii) the estimated operating revenue derived from property taxes for
the first budget year.
General Obligation Debt: means a Debt that is directly payable from and secured by ad
valorem property taxes that are levied by the District and does not include Limited Tax
Debt.
Governing Document: means this Governing Document for the District approved by the
City Council.
Governing Document Amendment: means an amendment to the Governing Document
approved by the City Council in accordance with the City’s ordinances and the applicable
state law and approved by the Board in accordance with applicable state law.
Improvements: means any part or all of the public or private improvements authorized to
be planned, designed, acquired, constructed, installed, relocated, redeveloped and financed
by a convention center public infrastructure district in a capital city as generally described
4932-8939-7795, v. 5
in the Act, and includes Public Infrastructure and Improvements as defined under the PID
Act.
Initial District Boundaries: means the boundaries of the area described in the Initial District
Boundary Map and as particularly described in Exhibit A-1.
Initial District Boundary Map: means the map attached hereto as Exhibit C, describing
the District’s initial boundaries.
Limited Tax Debt: means a debt that is directly payable from and secured by ad valorem
property taxes that are levied by the District which may not exceed the Maximum Debt
Mill Levy.
Maximum Debt Mill Levy: means the maximum mill levy the District is permitted to
impose for payment of Debt as set forth in Section VIII.C below.
Maximum Debt Mill Levy Imposition Term: means the maximum term for imposition of
a mill levy for any given series of bonds as set forth in Section VIII.D below.
Maximum Administrative Mill Levy: means the maximum mill levy the District is
permitted to impose for reasonable and actual administrative costs incurred by the District
as set forth in Section VIII.E below.
Participation Agreement: means the Participation, Tax Sharing and Reimbursement
Agreement between the City and SEG Real Estate LLC and Smith Entertainment Group,
LLC as may be amended from time to time pursuant to its terms and conditions.
Petitioner: means Jazz Arena Investors LLC, a Utah limited liability company.
PID Act: means Title 17D, Chapter 4 of the Utah Code, as amended from time to time and
any successor statute thereto.
Pledge Agreement: means any agreement or statutory requirement under the CCRZ Act
pledging all or any portion of revenues to the District, and including but not limited to the
Interlocal Capital Pledge Agreement attached hereto.
Pledged Revenues: means all revenues legally available to the District (including via a
Pledge Agreement, Mill Levy, and Assessments) and pledged in whole or in part to the
repayment of Debt.
Project: means the development or property in and around the District Area as permitted
under the Act and including in any related approved Convention Center Reinvestment Zone
in a Capital City (and the related county-owned convention center).
Special District Act: means Title 17B of the Utah Code, as amended from time to time.
State: means the State of Utah.
4932-8939-7795, v. 5
Taxable Property: means real or personal property within the District Area subject to ad
valorem taxes imposed by the District.
Trustee: means a member of the Board.
Utah Code: means the Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended.
III. BOUNDARIES
The area of the Initial District Boundaries includes approximately 10 acres and the total
area proposed to be included in the Annexation Area Boundaries is approximately 46 acres. A
legal description of the Initial District Boundaries and the Annexation Area Boundaries is attached
hereto as Exhibit A. A map of the Initial District Boundaries and Annexation Area Boundaries is
attached hereto as Exhibit C. It is anticipated that the District’s boundaries may change from time
to time as it undergoes annexations and withdrawals pursuant to Section 17D-4-201, Utah Code,
subject to Article V below.
IV. LIMITATION OF CITY
Approval of this Governing Document by the City does not imply approval of the
development of a specific area within the District, nor does it imply approval of the development
contemplated in the District Area, unless the same is separately approved by the City.
V. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED POWERS, IMPROVEMENTS AND SERVICES
A. Powers of the District and Governing Document Amendment.
The District shall have the power and authority to finance and provide the
Improvements within and without the boundaries of the District as such power and authority is
described in the Act, the Participation Agreement and other applicable statutes, common law, and
the Constitution, subject to any limitations set forth herein.
1. Improvements. The purpose of the District is to plan for, design, acquire,
construct, install, relocate, redevelop, and finance the Improvements. The District shall be
authorized, but not obligated, to own, operate and maintain Improvements not otherwise required
to be dedicated to the City or other public entity.
2. Vesting. The District shall be vested in the Act in effect as of May 7, 2025,
provided however, that any obvious errors or technical corrections after this date that do not affect
the business terms of this Governing Document shall be acceptable. Should the District and the
City agree that future modifications to the Act should apply to the District, the District and City
may execute an amendment to the Governing Document and any Pledge Agreement expressly
adopting such modifications.
3. Construction Standards Limitation Any Improvements financed by the
District must follow all applicable ordinances, laws, rules, and regulations, including obtaining
any zoning, planning, design specifications and approval; obtaining the City’s approval of civil
engineering plans and any applicable permits for construction and installation of Improvements as
4932-8939-7795, v. 5
required prior to performing such work. Improvements shall be subject to only the ordinary and
generally applicable inspection and approval procedures of the City and other governmental
entities having proper authority.
4. Procurement. The District shall be subject to the procurement requirements
of the PID Act. Notwithstanding this requirement, the District may acquire completed or partially
completed Improvements for fair market value, as determined by an engineer selected by the
District.
5. Reserved.
6. Annexation and Withdrawal.
(a) The District shall not include within its boundaries any property
outside the Initial District Area without the adoption of a resolution by the City approving the
annexation. Such area outside of the Initial District Area may only be annexed upon the District
obtaining consent of all property owners or lessors, as applicable, within the area proposed to be
annexed and the passage of a resolution of the City and the Board approving such annexation.
(b) The District shall not withdraw property from the District Area
without the adoption of a resolution by the City approving the withdrawal. Such area may only be
withdrawn upon the District obtaining consent of all property owners or lessors, as applicable,
within the area proposed to be withdrawn and the passage of a resolution of the City and the Board
approving such annexation.
(c) Any annexation or withdrawal shall be in accordance with the
requirements of the PID Act.
(d) Upon the completion of any annexation or withdrawal, the District
shall provide the City a description of the revised District Boundaries.
(e) Annexation or withdrawal of any area in accordance with V.A.6(a)
and (b) shall not constitute an amendment of this Governing Document.
7. Overlap Limitation. The District shall not consent to the organization of any
other public infrastructure district organized under the PID Act within the District Area which will
overlap the boundaries of the District unless the aggregate mill levy for payment of Debt of such
proposed districts will not at any time exceed the Maximum Debt Mill Levy of the District.
8. Reserved.
9. No Debt Issuance Limitation. So long as Debt is issued in accordance with
the provisions of this Governing Document, the Participation Agreement, and the Act, there is no
limit to the amount of Debt that may be issued by the District.
10. Bankruptcy Limitation. All of the limitations contained in the Governing
Document, including, but not limited to, those pertaining to the Pledged Revenues, the
Assessments, Maximum Debt Mill Levy, Maximum Debt Mill Levy Imposition Term and the Fees
4932-8939-7795, v. 5
have been established under the authority of the City to approve a Governing Document with
conditions pursuant to Section 17D-4-201(5), Utah Code. It is expressly intended that such
limitations:
(a) Shall not be subject to set-aside for any reason or by any court of
competent jurisdiction, absent a Governing Document Amendment; and
(b) Are, together with all other requirements of Utah law, included in
the “political or governmental powers” reserved to the State under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (11
U.S.C.) Section 903, and are also included in the “regulatory or electoral approval necessary under
applicable nonbankruptcy law” as required for confirmation of a Chapter 9 Bankruptcy Plan under
Bankruptcy Code Section 943(b)(6).
11. Governing Document Amendment Requirement.
(a) This Governing Document has been designed with sufficient
flexibility to enable the District to provide funding for Improvements under evolving
circumstances without the need for numerous amendments.
(b) Subject to the limitations and exceptions contained herein, this
Governing Document may be amended by passage of resolutions of the City Council and the Board
approving such amendment.
B. Preliminary Estimate of Improvements.
The District shall have authority to provide funding for the planning, design,
acquisition, construction, installation, relocation, redevelopment, maintenance, and financing of
the Improvements within and without the boundaries of the District. An estimate of the costs of
the Improvements which may be planned for, designed, acquired, constructed, installed, relocated,
redeveloped, maintained, or financed was prepared based upon the currently anticipated
Improvements and Pledged Revenues. However, this estimate is not a limitation on the
Improvements ultimately financed by Pledged Revenues over time in accordance with the Act and
the Participation Agreement.
All of the Improvements will be designed in such a way as to assure that the
Improvements standards will be compatible with those of the City and/or any other applicable
public entity. All construction cost estimates are and will be based on the assumption that
construction conforms to applicable local, State or Federal requirements.
VI. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
A. Board Composition. The Board shall be composed of five Trustees who shall be
appointed as set forth in the PID Act. Trustees 1, 2, and 3 shall be representatives of the Petitioner
selected by the Petitioner, Trustee 4 shall be a representative of the City selected by the mayor of
the City (unless withdrawn in accordance with the Act), and Trustee 5 shall be a representative of
the County selected by the Mayor of the County (unless withdrawn in accordance with the Act).
Trustee terms shall be staggered with initial terms as follows: Trustees 1, 3 and 5 shall serve an
initial term of six (6) years; Trustees 2 and 5 shall serve an initial term of four (4) years. Appointed
4932-8939-7795, v. 5
Trustees shall be required to conform with the requirements of the Act. The Board shall be self-
perpetuating and the Board seats shall continue to be filled by representatives of the Petitioner
selected by the Petitioner, City selected by the City Mayor, or the County selected by the County
Mayor, as applicable. In the event the City or County elects to permanently abdicate the board seat
in writing, such seats shall be selected by the Petitioner.
B. Vacancy. Any vacancy on the Board shall be filled pursuant to the Act.
C. Compensation. Unless otherwise permitted by the PID Act, only Trustees who are
residents of the District may be compensated for services as Trustee. Such compensation shall be
in accordance with the Act.
D. Voting. Unless otherwise prohibited by Utah Code, all votes of the board shall be
by majority vote of Trustees that are present constituting a quorum.
E. Conflicts of Interest. Trustees shall disclose all conflicts of interest. Any Trustee
who discloses such conflicts in accordance with 17D-4-202 and 67-16-9, Utah Code, shall be
entitled to vote on such matters.
F. Not a Resident. Trustees that are not residents within the District must be an officer
or agent of Petitioner, City, or County, respective to the Board position they are serving and be a
registered voter at the individual’s primary residence.
G. No Liability of City or County. Actions by the Appointed Trustees from the City
or County shall not be construed so as to create any responsibility or liability on the part of the
City or County in the event of default by the District.
VII. RESERVED
VIII. FINANCIAL PLAN
A. General.
The District shall be authorized to provide funding for the design, acquisition,
construction, installation, relocation, and/or redevelopment of the Improvements from all or any
portion of its Pledged Revenues and by and through the proceeds of Debt to be issued by the
District (but only in accordance with the Act and the Participation Agreement). The parties
acknowledge the supervisory authority of the mayor of the County in the CCRZ Act over the
convention center portions of the Project. The Financial Plan for the District shall be to issue
such Debt as the District can finance from Pledged Revenues. The total Debt shall be permitted
to be issued on a schedule and in such year or years as the District determines and phased to serve
the Project as it occurs. The District may also rely upon various other revenue sources authorized
by law. These will include the power to assess Fees, penalties, or charges, including as provided
in Section 17D-4-304, Utah Code, as amended from time to time.
B. Applicable Debt Requirements.
4932-8939-7795, v. 5
Debt, when issued, will comply with all relevant requirements of this Governing
Document, the Participation Agreement, State law, and Federal law as then applicable to the
issuance of public securities.
H. Maximum Debt Mill Levy.
(a) The “Maximum Debt Mill Levy” shall be the maximum mill levy
the District is permitted to impose upon the taxable property within the District for payment of
Limited Tax Debt shall be 0.015 per dollar of taxable value of taxable property in the District;
provided that such levy shall be subject to adjustment as provided in Section 17D-4-301(8), Utah
Code.
(b) Such Maximum Debt Mill Levy may only be amended pursuant to
a Governing Document Amendment and as provided in Section 17D-4-202, Utah Code.
I. Debt Imposition Term.
Each Bond issued by the District shall mature within Thirty-One (31) years from
the date of issuance of such Bond. Bonds issued by the District shall not be secured by the fee-
simple property Petitioner is leasing from the City’s Community Reinvestment Agency. In
addition, absent written consent of the City, no mill levy may be imposed for the repayment of
Debt after a period exceeding Forty (40) years from the first date of imposition of the mill levy for
any Debt (the “Maximum Debt Mill Levy Imposition Term”).
J. Maximum Administrative Mill Levy. The “Maximum Administrative Mill Levy”
shall be the maximum mill levy the District is permitted to impose upon the taxable property within
the District shall be 0.0005 per dollar of taxable value of taxable property in the District; provided
that such levy shall be subject to adjustment as provided in Section 17D-4-301(8), Utah Code.
Such Maximum Administrative Mill Levy may be imposed by the District but only for the
purposes allowed in the Act.
K. Debt Repayment Sources.
(a) The District may impose a mill levy on taxable property within its
boundaries as a source of revenue for repayment of debt service. The District may also rely upon
Assessments and other various other revenue sources authorized by law. At the District’s
discretion, these shall include other Pledged Revenues, penalties, or charges, including as provided
in Section 17D-4-304, Utah Code, as amended from time to time. Except as described in Section
VIII.C(a), the debt service mill levy in the District shall not exceed the Maximum Debt Mill Levy
or, the Maximum Debt Mill Levy Imposition Term, except for repayment of General Obligation
Debt.
(b) Any Assessments shall be repayable in accordance with the
provisions of the Assessment Act.
(c) The District shall not be permitted to charge an End User the costs
of any portion of the Improvements for which such End User has already paid or is presently
4932-8939-7795, v. 5
obligated to pay through any combination of mill levy, Assessment, property taxes, or impact fees.
This provision shall not prohibit the division of costs between mill levies, Assessments, property
taxes, or impact fees, but is intended to prevent double taxation of End Users for the costs of
Improvements.
(d) On an annual basis, any Pledged Revenue that are not necessary to
meet all obligations with respect to the District’s outstanding Debt, including mandatory
prepayments, the cost to issue and repay Bonds including principal, interest, and redemption
premium, and an excess revenues reserve up to the lesser of $50 million for each series of Bonds
or two times the aggregate annual debt service for each respective series of Bonds (in addition to
any Bond funded reserve and/or any non-Bond funded surplus fund if the City approved such
surplus fund and amount), the District shall reimburse any relevant taxing entities their
proportional share of the sales and use tax increment and property tax increment.
B. Debt Instrument Disclosure Requirement.
In the text of each Bond and any other instrument representing and constituting
Debt, the District shall set forth a statement in substantially the following form:
By acceptance of this instrument, the owner of this Bond agrees and
consents to all of the limitations in respect of the payment of the
principal of and interest on this Bond contained herein, in the
resolution of the District authorizing the issuance of this Bond and
in the Governing Document for creation of the District.
Similar language describing the limitations in respect of the payment of the
principal of and interest on Debt set forth in this Governing Document shall be included in any
document used for the offering of the Debt for sale to persons, including, but not limited to, a
developer of property.
C. Security for Debt.
Approval of this Governing Document shall not be construed as a guarantee by the
City of payment of any of the District’s obligations; nor shall anything in the Governing Document
be construed so as to create any responsibility or liability on the part of the City in the event of
default by the District in the payment of any such obligation. Additionally, nothing in this
Governing Document shall be construed to create any responsibility or liability on the part of the
City in the event of a default by SEG Real Estate, LLC and Smith Entertainment Group, LLC
under the Participation Agreement if such default were to cause the District to default in the
payment of any such obligations.
D. District’s Operating Costs.
As permitted under the Act, the cost of acquiring land, engineering services, legal
services, and administrative services, together with the estimated costs of the District’s
organization and initial operations, will be eligible for reimbursement from Debt proceeds.
4932-8939-7795, v. 5
In addition to the capital costs of the Improvements, the District will require
operating funds for administration and to finance the planning and cause the Improvements to be
constructed. The first year’s operating budget is anticipated to be derived from Petitioner
contributions and ultimately Pledged Revenues.
IX. ANNUAL REPORT
A. General.
The District shall be responsible for submitting an annual report to the City Mayor’s
Office no later than 210 days following the end of the District’s fiscal year. Additionally, no later
than 60 days after the closing of any Bonds issued by the District, the District shall provide a
written report to the City detailing the bond issuance, including the amount of the Bonds, terms,
interest rate, and security.
B. Reporting of Significant Events.
The annual report shall include information as to any of the following:
1. Proposed boundary changes made to the District’s boundary as of last day
of the prior fiscal year;
2. List of current interlocal agreements, if changed (to be delivered to the City
upon request);
3. Names and terms of Board members and officers;
4. District office contact information, if changed;
5. Rules and regulations of the District regarding bidding, conflict of interest,
contracting, and other governance matters, if changed
6. A summary of any litigation which involves the District or the
Improvements as of the last day of the prior fiscal year, if any;
7. General status of the District’s construction of the Improvements and listing
all facilities and improvements constructed by the District;
8. A table summarizing total debt authorized and total debt issued by the
District broken down by source of funds servicing the debt;
9. Financial statements of the District for the most recent completed fiscal year
(such statements shall be audited if required by bond documents or statute); and
10. Notice of any uncured events of default by the District, which continue
beyond a ninety (90) day period, under any Debt instrument.
4932-8939-7795, v. 5
1. Current year budget including a general description of the
Improvements anticipated to be constructed in such year; and
2. Any inability of the District to pay its obligations as they come due,
in accordance with the terms of such obligations, which continue beyond a ninety (90) day
period.
X. DISSOLUTION
Upon an independent determination of the Board that the purposes for which such District
was created have been accomplished or are no longer needed to construct the Improvements, the
District shall file petitions for dissolution, pursuant to the applicable State statutes. In no event
shall a dissolution occur until such District has provided for the payment or discharge of all of
their outstanding indebtedness and other financial obligations as required pursuant to State statutes
and disbursal of any assets of such District.
XI. DISCLOSURE TO PURCHASERS
Within thirty (30) days of the Office of the Lieutenant Governor of the State of Utah issuing
a certificate of creation, the Board shall record a notice with the Recorder of the County. Such
notice shall (a) contain a description of the boundaries of the District, (b) state that a copy of this
Governing Document is on file at the office of the City, (c) state that the District may finance and
repay Improvements through the levy of a property tax, assessments or any other Pledged Revenue;
(d) state the Maximum Debt Mill Levy of the District; and (e) if applicable, state that the debt may
convert to general obligation debt and outlining the provisions relating to conversion. Such notice
shall further be filed with the City.
XII. CAPITAL PLEDGE AGREEMENT
The form of the Capital Pledge Agreement, relating to the pledge of certain sales and use
taxes from the City to the District, is attached hereto as Exhibit D. The District shall approve the
Capital Pledge Agreement in the form attached as Exhibit D at its first Board meeting after its
creation. The City Council shall approve the Capital Pledge Agreement, subject to any mutually
agreeable edits recommended by the City Attorney’s Office, in the form attached as Exhibit D at
the City Council meeting approving the Governing Document.
EXHIBIT A-1
Legal Description of the Initial District Boundaries
All of Block 79, Plat "A", Salt Lake City Survey, according to the official plat thereof on
file and of record in the Salt Lake County Recorder's Office.
2
4932-8939-7795, v. 5
EXHIBIT A-2
Legal Description of the Annexation Area Boundaries
All of Block 68, Plat "A", Salt Lake City Survey.
That portion of 100 South Street between Block 68 and Block 77, Plat “A”, Salt Lake City Survey.
All of Block 77, Plat "A", Salt Lake City Survey.
That portion of 200 West Street between Block 77 and Block 78, Plat “A”, Salt Lake City Survey.
All of Block 78, Plat "A", Salt Lake City Survey.
That portion of 300 West Street between Block 78 and Block 79, Plat “A”, Salt Lake City Survey
All of Block 79, Plat "A", Salt Lake City Survey.
That portion of Deseret Avenue within Block 79, Plat “A”, Salt Lake City Survey.
3
4932-8939-7795, v. 5
EXHIBIT B
[Published copy of the Act to be attached after the Governing Document’s adoption by City
Council]
4
4932-8939-7795, v. 5
EXHIBIT C
Initial District and Annexation Area Boundary Map
Initial District
5
4932-8939-7795, v. 5
Annexation Area
EXHIBIT D
Capital Pledge Agreement
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
SWORN STATEMENT SUPPORTING CLOSURE OF MEETING
I, Chris Wharton, acted as the presiding member of the Salt Lake Council, which met on April 1, 2025 in a hybrid meeting
pursuant to Salt Lake City Proclamation.
Appropriate notice was given of the Council's meeting as required by §52-4-202.
A quorum of the Council was present at the meeting and voted by at least a two-thirds vote, as detailed in the minutes of
the open meeting, to close a portion of the meeting to discuss the following: §52-4-205(l)(a) discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual; §52 -4-205(1)(b) strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining; §52-4-205(l)(c) strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation; §52-4-205(l)(d) strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property, including
any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the transaction would: (i) disclose the
appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (ii) prevent the public body from
completing the transaction on the best possible terms; §52-4-205(l)(e) strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water right
or water shares if: (i) public discussion of the transaction would: (A) disclose the appraisal or estimated
value of the property under consideration; or (B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction
on the best possible terms; (ii) if the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be
offered for sale; and (iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body approves the
sale; §52-4-205(1)(f) discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and §52-4-205(1)(g) investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct. A Closed Meeting may also be held for Attorney-Client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah Code
§78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act. Other, described as follows: _____________________________________________________________
The content of the closed portion of the Council meeting was restricted to a discussion of the matter(s) for which the
meeting was closed.
With regard to the closed meeting, the following was publicly announced and recorded, and entered on the minutes of the
open meeting at which the closed meeting was approved:
(a) the reason or reasons for holding the closed meeting;
(b) the location where the closed meeting will be held; and
(c) the vote of each member of the public body either for or against the motion to hold the closed meeting.
The recording and any minutes of the closed meeting will include:
(a) the date, time, and place of the meeting;
(b) the names of members Present and Absent; and
(c) the names of all others present except where such disclosure would infringe on the confidentiality
necessary to fulfill the original purpose of closing the meeting.
Pursuant to §52-4-206(6), a sworn statement is required to close a meeting under §52-4-205(1)(a) or (f), but a record by
electronic recording or detailed minutes is not required; and Pursuant to §52-4-206(1), a record by electronic recording
and/or detailed written minutes is required for a meeting closed under §52-4-205(1)(b),(c),(d),(e),and (g): A record was not made. A record was made by: : Electronic recording Detailed written minutes
I hereby swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the above information is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge.
Presiding Member Date of Signature
Chris Wharton (Apr 21, 2025 12:25 CDT)Apr 21, 2025
April 1, 2025 Closed Meeting Sworn Statement
Final Audit Report 2025-04-21
Created:2025-04-03
By:DeeDee Robinson (deedee.robinson@slc.gov)
Status:Signed
Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAARQeLQdTjAPvqm1XcLQauRf3AU7gxrhF_
"April 1, 2025 Closed Meeting Sworn Statement" History
Document created by DeeDee Robinson (deedee.robinson@slc.gov)
2025-04-03 - 9:17:04 PM GMT
Document emailed to Chris Wharton (chris.wharton@slc.gov) for signature
2025-04-03 - 9:17:45 PM GMT
Email viewed by Chris Wharton (chris.wharton@slc.gov)
2025-04-04 - 0:22:17 AM GMT
Email viewed by Chris Wharton (chris.wharton@slc.gov)
2025-04-12 - 4:26:53 AM GMT
Email viewed by Chris Wharton (chris.wharton@slc.gov)
2025-04-17 - 6:06:55 AM GMT
Email viewed by Chris Wharton (chris.wharton@slc.gov)
2025-04-21 - 5:25:29 PM GMT
Document e-signed by Chris Wharton (chris.wharton@slc.gov)
Signature Date: 2025-04-21 - 5:25:47 PM GMT - Time Source: server
Agreement completed.
2025-04-21 - 5:25:47 PM GMT
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
SWORN STATEMENT SUPPORTING CLOSURE OF MEETING
I, Chris Wharton, acted as the presiding member of the Salt Lake Council, which met on April 1, 2025 in a hybrid meeting
pursuant to Salt Lake City Proclamation.
Appropriate notice was given of the Council's meeting as required by §52-4-202.
A quorum of the Council was present at the meeting and voted by at least a two-thirds vote, as detailed in the minutes of
the open meeting, to close a portion of the meeting to discuss the following: §52-4-205(l)(a) discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual; §52 -4-205(1)(b) strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining; §52-4-205(l)(c) strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation; §52-4-205(l)(d) strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property, including
any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the transaction would: (i) disclose the
appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (ii) prevent the public body from
completing the transaction on the best possible terms; §52-4-205(l)(e) strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water right
or water shares if: (i) public discussion of the transaction would: (A) disclose the appraisal or estimated
value of the property under consideration; or (B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction
on the best possible terms; (ii) if the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be
offered for sale; and (iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body approves the
sale; §52-4-205(1)(f) discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and §52-4-205(1)(g) investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct. A Closed Meeting may also be held for Attorney-Client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah Code
§78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act. Other, described as follows: _____________________________________________________________
The content of the closed portion of the Council meeting was restricted to a discussion of the matter(s) for which the
meeting was closed.
With regard to the closed meeting, the following was publicly announced and recorded, and entered on the minutes of the
open meeting at which the closed meeting was approved:
(a) the reason or reasons for holding the closed meeting;
(b) the location where the closed meeting will be held; and
(c) the vote of each member of the public body either for or against the motion to hold the closed meeting.
The recording and any minutes of the closed meeting will include:
(a) the date, time, and place of the meeting;
(b) the names of members Present and Absent; and
(c) the names of all others present except where such disclosure would infringe on the confidentiality
necessary to fulfill the original purpose of closing the meeting.
Pursuant to §52-4-206(6), a sworn statement is required to close a meeting under §52-4-205(1)(a) or (f), but a record by
electronic recording or detailed minutes is not required; and Pursuant to §52-4-206(1), a record by electronic recording
and/or detailed written minutes is required for a meeting closed under §52-4-205(1)(b),(c),(d),(e),and (g): A record was not made. A record was made by: : Electronic recording Detailed written minutes
I hereby swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the above information is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge.
Presiding Member Date of Signature
Chris Wharton (Apr 21, 2025 12:25 CDT)Apr 21, 2025
April 1, 2025 Closed Meeting Sworn Statement
Final Audit Report 2025-04-21
Created:2025-04-03
By:DeeDee Robinson (deedee.robinson@slc.gov)
Status:Signed
Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAARQeLQdTjAPvqm1XcLQauRf3AU7gxrhF_
"April 1, 2025 Closed Meeting Sworn Statement" History
Document created by DeeDee Robinson (deedee.robinson@slc.gov)
2025-04-03 - 9:17:04 PM GMT
Document emailed to Chris Wharton (chris.wharton@slc.gov) for signature
2025-04-03 - 9:17:45 PM GMT
Email viewed by Chris Wharton (chris.wharton@slc.gov)
2025-04-04 - 0:22:17 AM GMT
Email viewed by Chris Wharton (chris.wharton@slc.gov)
2025-04-12 - 4:26:53 AM GMT
Email viewed by Chris Wharton (chris.wharton@slc.gov)
2025-04-17 - 6:06:55 AM GMT
Email viewed by Chris Wharton (chris.wharton@slc.gov)
2025-04-21 - 5:25:29 PM GMT
Document e-signed by Chris Wharton (chris.wharton@slc.gov)
Signature Date: 2025-04-21 - 5:25:47 PM GMT - Time Source: server
Agreement completed.
2025-04-21 - 5:25:47 PM GMT