HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/04/2025 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
WORK SESSION
February 4, 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: 12:01:21
Note: Dates not identified in the project timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. Item start
times and durations are approximate and are subject to change.
Work Session Items
1.Informational: Updates from the Administration ~ 2:00 p.m.
15 min.
The Council will receive information from the Administration on major items or projects
in progress. Topics may relate to major events or emergencies (if needed), services and
resources related to people experiencing homelessness, active public engagement efforts,
and projects or staffing updates from City Departments, or other items as appropriate.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Recurring Briefing
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
2.Ordinance: Mixed-Use (MU) Zoning Consolidation Zoning Text
and Map Amendment ~ 2:15 p.m.
60 min.
The Council will receive a briefing on a proposal that would amend the City's zoning
ordinance and zoning map by consolidating up to 27 existing commercial, form-based,
and mixed-use zoning districts into six new mixed-use (MU) districts. The proposal aims
to simplify zoning regulations, improve clarity of language, and incorporate missing
design standards. The new mixed-use districts will be similar to the current districts but
will have changes to setbacks, building height, lot coverage, and permitted land uses.
Other sections of Title 21A may also be amended as part of this petition.
For more information visit https://tinyurl.com/SLCMixedUse.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, February 4, 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, March 18, 2025
3.Ordinance: Alley Vacation Near 300 West and Paxton
Avenue ~ 3:15 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would vacate an L-shaped City-
owned alley that begins at approximately 268 West Paxton Avenue. The proposal would
create an easement beginning at 300 West to provide access for abutting property
owners. Located within Council District 5. Petitioner: RCB Rental Properties and Little
Garage, Inc.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, February 4, 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, March 18, 2025
4.Ordinance: Economic Development Loan Fund - Himalayan
Kitchen ~ 3:35 p.m.
5 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would approve a $350,000
loan for Gorkha Enterprises, doing business as Himalayan Kitchen at 1388 South 300
West, Suite 350 from the Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF). Himalayan
Kitchen is a downtown restaurant specializing in Indian and Nepali food. This loan will
assist in the creation of 15 new jobs in the next year and the retention of five current jobs.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, February 4, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, February 4, 2025
5.Informational: The Central Business Improvement Area and
Board of Equalization Update ~ 3:40 p.m.
10 min.
The Council will receive an update on the January Board of Equalization meetings for the
re-establishment of the Salt Lake City Central Business Improvement Assessment Area
(CBIA). The briefing will address a noticing error affecting the holiday lighting
assessment for April 2025-2028, including corrective steps to ensure legal compliance
and transparency.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, July 2, 2024; Tuesday, November 12, 2024; and Tuesday, February 4,
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
6.Tentative Break ~ 3:50 p.m.
20 min.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -
Set Public Hearing Date -
Hold hearing to accept public comment -
TENTATIVE Council Action -
7.Ordinance: Amending Title 2 Overarching Policy Guidance for
All Departments ~ 4:10 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about providing policy direction applicable to all City
departments. The Attorney's Office would draft an ordinance amending Title 2 of the Salt
Lake City Code to codify the Council's policies. The ordinance is intended to be a very
high-level policy guidance from the legislative to the administrative branches over the
long term. Potential policies include standardizing financial and legal best practices and
prioritizing use of limited resources, among others.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, February 4, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
8.Board Appointment: Business Advisory Board – Alyn Toalepai ~ 4:30 p.m.
5 min
The Council will interview Alyn Toalepai prior to considering appointment to the
Business Advisory Board for a term ending December 31, 2029.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, February 4, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, February 4, 2025
9.Informational: State Legislative Briefing Follow-up ~ 5:00 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about issues affecting the City that may arise
during the 2025 Utah State Legislative Session.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, January 7, 2025 and Tuesday, February 4, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
10.Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.3 for Fiscal Year 2024-
25 Follow-up TENTATIVE
5 min.
The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about Budget Amendment No. 3 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 infrastructure development on the
Fleet Block, several vehicles for various City operations, including a Justice Bus (mobile
courtroom), and protecting the Great Salt Lake watershed, among other items.
For more information visit tinyurl.com/SLCFY25.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, January 21, 2025 and Tuesday, February 4, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, January 21, 2025
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, February 4, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, February 18, 2025
Standing Items
11.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair -
-
Report of Chair and Vice Chair.
12.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:
•Code of Conduct Form; and
•Scheduling Items.
13.Tentative Closed Session -
-
The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session. A closed meeting described
under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including, but not limited to:
a. discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental
health of an individual;
b. strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining;
c. strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation;
d. strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property,
including any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the
transaction would:
(i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration; or
(ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best
possible terms;
e. strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water
right or water shares, if:
(i) public discussion of the transaction would:
(A) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration; or
(B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best
possible terms;
(ii) the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be
offered for sale; and
(iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body
approves the sale;
f. discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and
g. investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct.
A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to
Utah Code § 78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent
requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act.
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
On or before 5:00 p.m. on Friday, January 31, 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.
COUNCIL STAFF
REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Nick Tarbet, Policy Analyst
DATE:February 4, 2025
RE:Mixed-Use Zoning Consolidation
PLNPCM2024-00707
PROJECT TIMELINE:
Briefing: February 4, 2025
Set Date: February 18, 2025
Public Hearing: March 4, 2025
Potential Action: TBD
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will receive a briefing on a proposal to update the City's zoning ordinance and zoning map by
consolidating up to 27 existing commercial, form-based, and mixed-use zoning districts into six new
mixed-use (MU) districts. The goal of these amendments is to simplify zoning regulations, improve clarity
of language, and incorporate missing design standards. The new mixed-use districts will be similar to the
current districts but will have changes to setbacks, building height, lot coverage, and permitted land uses.
Goal of the briefing: Review the proposal, including Policy Questions (p. 4), and information provided
following the planning commission discussion. Evaluate whether additional feedback needs to be
provided prior to the Council’s public hearing on March 4.
OVERVIEW OF CHANGES
The Planning transmittal includes many attachments that succinctly summarize and visualize the draft
ordinance. Council staff included them as an attachment to this memo for quick access.
Attachment A – Zoning Standards / Illustrations for the MU Zones
Attachment B – Overlay Summary for CG M1
Attachment C – Parking Regulations for MU zones
Attachment D – Neighborhood Level Maps of MU Zones
Planning staff also developed a project page that provides extensive information on the project. It is a
helpful tool for anyone looking to get a deeper understanding of the proposed zoning amendments.
Additionally, they developed an interactive map showing the new MU zones' locations throughout the city.
Page | 2
The Planning Commission held ten briefings on the MU consolidation project. Two public hearings were
held, and a positive recommendation was ultimately forwarded to the City Council.
Since this item was forwarded to the Council, some unrelated zoning petitions that impact a few of the
properties identified in this zoning petition were approved. The planning staff is updating the ordinance
and zoning maps to reflect those changes. Policy question #3 below provides additional background.
MORE DETAILED VIEW OF KEY CHANGES
According to the transmittal letter (page 3), “consolidating these zoning districts will change the
regulations that apply to thousands of properties within the city (approximately 6,300 directly affected
properties).”
Pages 6-11 of the Transmittal Letter include a summary of each zone, Their purpose, and general zoning
regulations. Below is a general outline of the key changes. See the Transmittal Letter and attachments for
more in-depth information on the various zones.
1. Land Use Tables
Several amendments will be made to the Land Use tables. Many of the minor amendments
to the existing tables include consolidated definitions, the removal of zoning districts being
consolidated into the new land use table, and the removal of some land uses.
2. Creates 6 new zoning districts and rezones properties to the new zoning districts.
Attachment A is a fact sheet outlining the zoning standards for each new district, such as height,
setbacks, building size, and design standards. The interactive map also shows the new MU zones'
locations throughout the city.
MU-2 MU-3 MU-5
Consolidated Zones
o Residential Business (RB),
o Small Neighborhood
Business (SNB)
o Neighborhood Commercial
(CN)
Consolidated Zones
o Community Business (CB)
o R-MU-35 (Residential
Mixed Use - 35)
Consolidated Zones
o Form-Based Urban
Neighborhood 2 (FB-UN2),
o Corridor Commercial (CC),
o Community Shopping (CS),
o Form-Based Special
Purpose Corridor Edge (FB-
SE),
o Residential Mixed Use 45
(R-MU-45)
o Transit Station Area
Transitional (TSA-UN-T)
o Mixed Use (MU)
o South State Street Corridor
Overlay (SSSC)
Page | 3
MU-6 MU-8 MU-11
Consolidated Zones
o Form-Based Urban
Neighborhood 2 (FB-UN2)
o Form Based Special
Purpose Corridor (FB-SE)
o Sugar House Business
District 2 (CSHBD-2)
o Residential Office (RO)
o Transit Station Area -
Urban Core Transition
(TSA-UC-T)
o Special Purpose Transition
(TSA-SP-T)
o Mixed Use Employment
Center Transition (TSA-
MUEC-T)
Consolidated Zones
o Residential Mixed Use
(RMU)
o Transit Station Area -
Mixed Use Employment
Center Core (TSA-MUEC-C)
o Special Purpose Core (TSA-
SP-C)
o Urban Neighborhood Core
(TSA-UN-C)
Consolidated Zones
o CG (General Commercial),
o FBMU-11 (Form-Based
Mixed-Use 11)
o TSAUC- C (Transit Station
Area Urban Center Core)
o CSHBD-1 (Sugar House
Business District)
1.Establishes the general provisions that apply to all MU zones
See Attachment A
MU Building Types
Cottage, Urban House, Two-Family
Row House
Storefront, Vertical Mixed-Use, Multi Family Residential
Heights
The number in the title of each district generally identifies the number of building
stories allowed by that zone. (some flexibility is granted for enhanced ground
floor uses)
Setbacks
Make consistent across the various zoning designations,
Require larger buffers and setbacks when next to a low-scale single-family/two-
family
Landscape buffers
A 10-foot landscape buffer is required when any of the MU zones abut single-
family, two-family zones, and multifamily zones
step-back requirements between higher-scale MU zones and zones under 35 feet
in height, including MU-2 and MU-3 zones,
Lots/Buildings Without Public Street Frontage
Allow lots without public street frontage. Helps with deep lot configuration
Open Space
In addition to the basic yard setback requirement, a general standard of 10% of
the lot area will be required for open space
Minimum dimension of 15’ x 15’ to ensure useability
Mid-block Walkways
All zones are proposed to require the implementation of a mid-block walkway on
a property if one has been identified in an adopted City plan.
2.Create a Transitional Overlay for M-1 and CG properties
Page | 5
See Attachment B for details
The zoning amendments would create a significant number of nonconforming uses.
A proposed “Transitional Overlay” would generally allow a selection of more intensive
commercial and light industrial uses in these areas, allowing for reduced design standards
while including buffer and landscaping requirements. (Click on the interactive map link to
see the transitional overlay boundaries)
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. Effective Date—In the past, when the Council adopted significant zoning amendments that
impacted many different zones and properties, a delayed effective date was included so that
projects that may be caught up in the amendments, could either finish under the current
zoning standards or use the new ordinance. Council staff received one request for the Council
to consider delayed implementation for this petition.
Does the Council support including a delayed effective date for the MU zoning
consolidation?
2. Drive-through concerns – a constituent reached out to the City about the impacts the proposed
amendment would have on a project they are working on that includes an existing drive-
through.
Planning staff provided the following options to address the request for consideration:
a. Modify the land use table language to allow for financial institutions to have drive-
throughs in the MU11 zone.
b. Allow the drive-through use at that location as approved through a development
agreement
o It would have to go to the Planning Commission and the City Council for
approval.
The Council may wish to discuss these options with Planning staff and, if
either option is supported, request that staff make the change in the final
ordinance.
3. Post Planning Commission updates.
After the planning commission forwarded a positive recommendation, staff noted some
technical and substantive changes that needed to be made to the draft ordinance. The planning
staff is seeking Council direction on the following items, outlined on pages 15- 16 of the
Transmittal Letter. The Council will be asked to conduct straw polls to determine if these
changes are included in the final ordinance.
a. Add “Contractor’s Yard/Office (Indoor)” use to the Transitional Overlay as a
Conditional Use.
i. Staff recommends including this use.
b. Richard Street was unintentionally included as an area requiring a high activity use due
to a code provision in the recently adopted MU-8 code.
i. Staff recommends removing “Richard Street, from Harvard Avenue to Kelsey
Avenue” as an area requiring an “Enhanced Active Ground Floor Use.”
c. Delete the requirement for a 6' walkway between multiple buildings that are over 75' in
façade length.
Page | 6
i. Staff recommends deleting this requirement
d. Add a prohibition on mature coverage counting toward the required park strip
vegetation coverage of 33% in MU-8 and MU-11.
i. Staff recommends applying the requirement to other high-intensity MU zones,
the MU-8 and MU-11
e. Add a transition period to the MU zone adoption (see policy question #2 above)
i. Staff recommends that the City Council include a transition period of 9 to 12
months where developers could still utilize the prior regulations.
f. Modify the height limit for "private directional signs" from 4' to 8'.
i. Staff recommends increasing the height so that private parking related signs
can be at eye level.
g. Include the proposed mapping changes on pages 16-20
Staff recommends including the following changes in the final draft.
i. FB-UN2 Corners to MU-6 in Central 9th
ii. Residential/Office (RO) Zone to MU-8 East Downtown and West Temple
iii. Green Street/2100 South
iv. Federal Property at 2100 S/Redwood Road
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
1. Pages 20-23 of the Transmittal Letter outlines the public process. Starting in April 2024, the public
outreach included eight walking tours in various neighborhoods around the city, open houses,
various community events such as town halls, presentations to recognized community
organizations, and 10 briefings before the planning commission, along with 2 public hearings.
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:February 4, 2025
RE: Alley Vacation at Approximately 268 West Paxton Avenue
PLNPCM2022-01128
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will be briefed about a proposal to vacate an L-shaped alley that begins at approximately 268
West Paxton Avenue (~ 1170 South). If the Council approves the alley vacation, the alley property would be
sold to abutting property owners at market value as the area zoning is General Commercial.
Following a Planning Commission meeting in June 2023, the applicant drafted an easement agreement to
address access concerns from adjacent property owners along the alley (outlined in yellow in the below
images).
An updated proposal with the access easement was presented to the Planning Commission at its September
25, 2024 meeting. Planning staff recommended and the Planning Commission voted
unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council.
Goal of the briefing: To review the proposed alley closure, address questions Council Members may
have and prepare for a public hearing.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. Does the Council support the Planning Commission’s recommendation to close this alley?
2. Is the Council supportive of the proposed access easement?
3. The Council may wish to ask about how information about the easement is preserved and shared as
properties change ownership. Also, the Council may wish to ask about how the easement will be
Item Schedule:
Briefing: February 4, 2025
Set Date: February 18, 2025
Public Hearing: March 4, 2025
Potential Action: March 18, 2025
Page | 2
maintained to ensure access is preserved. Some Council Members have encountered constituent
requests when roads or access points are privatized, and maintenance or access issues arise years
later.
Aerial image showing the subject alley outlined in yellow and abutting parcels numbered.
The segment with red dashes was the only segment initially requested to be vacated.
Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division
UPDATED Aerial image with the proposed access easement from 300 West shown in blue hash marks.
(Staff note: the proposed access easement would include the east-west alley segment
outlined in yellow to ensure access to those properties.)
Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division
ADDITONAL INFORMATION
The L-shaped alley begins at approximately 268 West Paxton Avenue (~ 1170 South) and terminates at the
Utah Transit Authority TRAX line. The alley’s north-south segment is approximately 12 feet wide and 140
feet long. The east-west segment is approximately 25 feet wide and 490 feet long.
The original proposal was to vacate just the north-south alley segment (outlined with red dashes in the
images above). Due to issues with encampments and theft in the area, gates were installed at both ends of
this alley segment in 2020 by owners of parcels 1 and 2 in the first image above due to these issues in the
alley. A consequence of closing only that alley segment is several properties adjacent to the east-west
portion of the alley would have been landlocked. These property owners access the alley from 300 West
Page | 3
through parcel #10 in the first image above, though there is not an easement in place guaranteeing that
access will remain. Some property owners were not supportive of the first proposal.
The Planning Commission reviewed the original proposal in June 2023, and tabled the item after three
people spoke expressing concerns about closing the alley. At the Commission’s request, the applicant
drafted an agreement guaranteeing all abutting property owners have access to their property if the alley is
vacated.
The easement agreement provides access from 300 West to the vacated alley property (as shown in the
second image above) and ensures all abutting property owners have access to their properties. All affected
property owners have indicated their support of the alley vacation with the access easement.
The subject alley was created in 1890 as part of the Harrington, Donnelly and Newell’s Subdivision. An
eastern portion of the alley across the railroad tracks and connecting to 200 West was vacated in 1960.
Alley vacation requests receive three phases of review, as outlined in section 14.52.030 Salt Lake City Code
(see pages 6-7 below). Those phases include an administrative determination of completeness; a public
hearing, including a recommendation from the Planning Commission; and a public hearing before the City
Council.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
Planning staff identified four key considerations connected to this alley vacation. A short description of
each issue is provided below for reference. Please see pages 46-47 of the June 25, 2024 Planning
Commission staff report for full analysis of these issues.
Issue 1: Loss of Access
Off-street access to the property at 240 West Paxton Avenue (number 7 in the first image above) is through
the alley. This narrow lot has no access to the rear of their lot from Paxton Avenue. The property owner was
opposed to the initial proposal but is supportive of the current proposal that includes an access easement.
Issue 2: Property Owner Support
As noted above, the 240 West Paxton Avenue property owner was opposed to the initial alley vacation
proposal but is supportive of the updated proposal that includes an access easement.
Issue 3: Master Plan Considerations
Planning staff reviewed how the proposed alley vacation aligns with the Central Community Master Plan
and Plan Salt Lake. They found the Central Community Master Plan does not address alley vacations.
Plan Salt Lake promotes increased connectivity through mid-block connections, but the alley dead ends at
the railroad tracks, so can’t be used as a connection.
Issue 4: Future Public Use of the Alley
Planning staff identified three options for the City Council to consider regarding the alley.
1. Leave the alley as is. The applicant would need to ensure the north-south portion of the alley is
clear for vehicular use. This would not address the reported encampments and criminal activity in
the alley.
2. Vacate only the north-south alley segment. This would still require an access easement across a
portion of property number 10 in the first image above. Whether all property owners would be
supportive of this option is unknown. This option does not align with the City’s preference to vacate
full alleys rather than a segment.
Page | 4
1. Vacate the entire alley (Planning staff and Planning Commission recommendation.) The full alley
would be vacated and sold to abutting property owners at market value. In addition, an access
easement would be included guaranteeing access to all abutting property owners.
CITY DEPARTMENT REVIEW
During City review of the petition, the Engineering and Transportation Divisions were opposed to the
initial proposal vacating only a segment of the alley. Engineering is supportive of the current proposal to
vacate the full alley with an access easement from 300 West. Transportation is opposed to the current
proposal citing a desire for a full alley right-of-way dedication connecting to 300 West rather than the
proposed access easement from 300 West that includes the full east-west alley segment.
ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS
Attachment D (pages 72-74) of the September 25, 2024 Planning Commission staff report is an analysis of
factors City Code requires the Planning Commission to consider for alley vacations (Sections
14.52.020/.030.B Salt Lake City Code).
14.52.020 - The City will not consider disposing of its interest in an alley, in whole or in part, unless it
receives a petition in writing which demonstrates that the disposition satisfies at least one of the following
policy considerations:
A - Lack of Use- The City’s legal interest in the property appears of record or is reflected on an applicable
plat; however, it is evident from an on-site inspection that the alley does not physically exist or has been
materially blocked in a way that renders it unusable as a public right-of-way.
B - Public Safety- The existence of the alley is substantially contributing to crime, unlawful activity or
unsafe conditions, public health problems, or blight in the surrounding area.
C - Urban Design- The continuation of the alley does not serve as a positive urban design element.
D - Community Purpose- The petitioners are proposing to restrict the general public from use of the alley
in favor of a community use, such as a neighborhood play area or garden.
Planning staff found the requested alley vacation complies with policy considerations B, C, and D.
Section 14.52.030.B Salt Lake City Code directs the Planning Division to analyze factors in the following
table. Planning staff found the proposed alley vacation meets seven of the eight factors.
Factor Planning Staff Finding
The City Police Department, Fire
Department, Transportation Division,
and all other relevant City Departments
and Divisions have no objection to the
proposed disposition of the property.
Does not comply. Transportation
is opposed to the alley vacation
and prefers an alley right-of-way
dedication to 300 West rather
than the access easement.
The petition meets at least one of the
policy considerations stated above.
Complies with Policy
Considerations B – Public Safety,
C – Urban Design, and
D – Community Purpose.
The petition must not deny sole access or
required off-street parking to any
adjacent property.
Complies with current proposal to
vacate the entire alley and place
an easement guaranteeing
abutting property owners have
access to their properties.
The petition will not result in any
property being landlocked.
Complies with current proposal to
vacate the entire alley and place
an easement guaranteeing
Page | 5
abutting property owners have
access to their properties.
Granting the petition will not result in
the use of the alley property which is
otherwise contrary to the policies of the
City, including applicable master plans
and other adopted statements of policy
which address, but which are not limited
to, mid-block walkways, pedestrian
paths, trails, and alternative
transportation uses.
Complies (The alley is not needed
for a mid-block connection.)
No opposing abutting property owner
intends to build a garage requiring access
from the property, or has made
application for a building permit, or if
such a permit has been issued,
construction has been completed within
12 months of issuance of the building
permit.
Complies
The petition furthers the City preference
for disposing of an entire alley, rather
than a small segment of it; and
Complies
The alley is not necessary for actual or
potential rear access to residences or for
accessory uses.
Complies with current proposal to
vacate the entire alley and place
an easement guaranteeing
abutting property owners have
access to their properties.
PUBLIC PROCESS
November 29, 2022 – Application submitted and deemed complete.
December 14, 2022 – Petition assigned to staff.
December 21, 2022 –
o Required notice sent to Ballpark Community Council. The Council did not provide
comments.
o Neighbors with 300 feet of the site were provided early notification of the proposal.
May 31, 2023 –
o Public hearing notice mailed, posted on City and State websites, and posted on Planning
Division listserv.
o Public hearing notice sign posted on the property.
June 14, 2023 – Planning Commission review and public hearing. The Commission voted to table
the item.
September 25, 2024 – The Planning Commission reviewed the amended proposal and voted
unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council.
December 12, 2024 – Draft ordinance requested from the City Attorney’s Office.
January 3, 2025 – Ordinance received from City Attorney’s Office.
January 14 – Transmittal received in City Council Office
The process for closing or vacating a City-owned alley is outlined in Section 14.52 Salt Lake City Code.
14.52.010: DISPOSITION OF CITY'S PROPERTY INTEREST IN ALLEYS:
The city supports the legal disposition of Salt Lake City's real property interests, in whole or in part,
with regard to city owned alleys, subject to the substantive and procedural requirements set forth
herein.
Page | 6
14.52.020: POLICY CONSIDERATIONS FOR CLOSURE, VACATION OR
ABANDONMENT OF CITY OWNED ALLEYS:
The city will not consider disposing of its interest in an alley, in whole or in part, unless it receives a
petition in writing which demonstrates that the disposition satisfies at least one of the following
policy considerations:
A. Lack Of Use: The city's legal interest in the property appears of record or is reflected on an
applicable plat; however, it is evident from an onsite inspection that the alley does not
physically exist or has been materially blocked in a way that renders it unusable as a public
right of way;
B. Public Safety: The existence of the alley is substantially contributing to crime, unlawful
activity, unsafe conditions, public health problems, or blight in the surrounding area;
C. Urban Design: The continuation of the alley does not serve as a positive urban design element;
or
D. Community Purpose: The petitioners are proposing to restrict the general public from use of
the alley in favor of a community use, such as a neighborhood play area or garden. (Ord. 24-02
§ 1, 2002)
14.52.030: PROCESSING PETITIONS:
There will be three (3) phases for processing petitions to dispose of city owned alleys under this
section. Those phases include an administrative determination of completeness; a public hearing,
including a recommendation from the Planning Commission; and a public hearing before the City
Council.
A. Administrative Determination Of Completeness: The city administration will determine whether
or not the petition is complete according to the following requirements:
1. The petition must bear the signatures of no less than seventy-five percent (75%) of the
neighbors owning property which abuts the subject alley property;
2. The petition must identify which policy considerations discussed above support the petition;
3. The petition must affirm that written notice has been given to all owners of property located in
the block or blocks within which the subject alley property is located;
4. A signed statement that the applicant has met with and explained the proposal to the
appropriate community organization entitled to receive notice pursuant to title 2, chapter 2.60
of this code; and
5. The appropriate city processing fee shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule has
been paid.
B. Public Hearing and Recommendation From The Planning Commission: Upon receipt of a
complete petition, a public hearing shall be scheduled before the Planning Commission to
consider the proposed disposition of the City owned alley property. Following the conclusion of
the public hearing, the Planning Commission shall make a report and recommendation to the
City Council on the proposed disposition of the subject alley property. A positive
recommendation should include an analysis of the following factors:
1. The City Police Department, Fire Department, Transportation Division, and all other relevant
City departments and divisions have no reasonable objection to the proposed disposition of
the property;
Page | 7
2. The petition meets at least one of the policy considerations stated above;
3. Granting the petition will not deny sole access or required off street parking to any property
adjacent to the alley;
4. Granting the petition will not result in any property being landlocked;
5. Granting the petition will not result in a use of the alley property which is otherwise contrary
to the policies of the City, including applicable master plans and other adopted statements of
policy which address, but which are not limited to, mid-block walkways, pedestrian paths,
trails, and alternative transportation uses;
6. No opposing abutting property owner intends to build a garage requiring access from the
property, or has made application for a building permit, or if such a permit has been issued,
construction has been completed within twelve (12) months of issuance of the building permit;
7. The petition furthers the City preference for disposing of an entire alley, rather than a small
segment of it; and
8. The alley property is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to residences or for
accessory uses.
C. Public Hearing Before The City Council: Upon receipt of the report and recommendation from
the Planning Commission, the City Council will consider the proposed petition for disposition
of the subject alley property. After a public hearing to consider the matter, the City Council will
make a decision on the proposed petition based upon the factors identified above. (Ord. 58-13,
2013: Ord. 24-11, 2011)
14.52.040: METHOD OF DISPOSITION:
If the City Council grants the petition, the City owned alley property will be disposed of as follows:
A. Low Density Residential Areas: If the alley property abuts properties which are zoned for low
density residential use, the alley will merely be vacated. For the purposes of this section, "low
density residential use" shall mean properties which are zoned for single-family, duplex or twin
home residential uses.
B. High Density Residential Properties And Other Nonresidential Properties: If the alley abuts
properties which are zoned for high density residential use or other nonresidential uses, the
alley will be closed and abandoned, subject to payment to the city of the fair market value of
that alley property, based upon the value added to the abutting properties.
C. Mixed Zoning: If an alley abuts both low density residential properties and either high density
residential properties or nonresidential properties, those portions which abut the low density
residential properties shall be vacated, and the remainder shall be closed, abandoned and sold
for fair market value. (Ord. 24-02 § 1, 2002)
14.52.050: PETITION FOR REVIEW:
Any party aggrieved by the decision of the City Council as to the disposition of City owned alley
property may file a petition for review of that decision within thirty (30) days after the City
Council's decision becomes final, in the 3rd District Court.
Item E1
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Austin Kimmel
Public Policy Analyst
DATE:February 4, 2025
RE: ORDINANCE: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND LOAN TO GORKHA
ENTERPRISES, DBA HIMALAYAN KITCHEN, AT 1388 SOUTH 300 WEST, SUITE 350
MOTION 1 – ADOPT ORDINANCE
I move that the Council adopt the ordinance approving a $350,000 loan for Gorkha
Enterprises, DBA Himalayan Kitchen from the Economic Development Loan Fund.
MOTION 2 – NOT ADOPT
I move that the Council not adopt the ordinance, and proceed to the next agenda item.
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Austin Kimmel
Public Policy Analyst
DATE:February 4, 2025
RE: ORDINANCE: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND LOAN TO GORKHA
ENTERPRISES, DBA HIMALAYAN KITCHEN, AT 1388 SOUTH 300 WEST, SUITE 350
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will consider approving a loan from the City’s Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF) to a
business called Himalayan Kitchen at 1388 South 300 West. Himalayan Kitchen is a restaurant specializing in
Indian and Nepali food. The City’s Economic Development Loan Committee recommends the Council approve a
$350,000 loan at a 10.50% interest rate over seven years. This loan will assist in the creation of 15 new
jobs in the next year and the retention of 5 existing jobs. Funds will also pay for tenant improvement, machinery
& equipment, and working capital.
The interest rate reflects the 8.50% prime rate at the time of the application (August 13, 2024) plus the standard
EDLF four percentage points. The project did qualify for a two-percentage-point reduction based on location
within a priority area (State Street RDA Project Area) and ownership by a socially and economically
disadvantaged individual (see section B below).
Goal of the briefing: Review a proposed $350,000 loan from the Economic Development Loan Fund to
Gorkha Enterprises, DBA Himalayan Kitchen, before taking action during the Feb. 4 formal meeting.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. The Council may wish to have a policy discussion with the Administration about interest rates charged by
the City from this and other loan funds and whether it makes sense to reevaluate how interest rates are
determined for lenders, especially since the City typically offers loans as a lender-of-last-resort.
2. The Council may wish to ask the Administration whether the EDLF Committee considered any other unique
information about this business that would help Council Members evaluate how this application compares
Item Schedule:
Briefing: February 4, 2025
Public Hearing: N/A
Potential Action: February 4, 2025
Page | 2
to others. For example, are risk factors evaluated for each company, like outstanding loans, years in
business, etc.?
3.What outreach does the Department do to ensure a diverse pool of businesses successfully applies to the
EDLF? Are applications from diverse owners, particularly those whose businesses are located on the
Westside, offered additional support through the application process? Does EDLF staff have ideas for
improving access that would benefit from program changes or additional funding?
4. The Council may wish to request a more general update on EDLF use and processes. This could include the
number of applications, review criteria used, loan program goals, etc.
ADDITIONAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Council Members may recall approving two other EDLF loans at this address in 2024: Shades of Pale, Inc. and
Frontier Fruit, LLC. The businesses are separate entities sharing a retail space at a new commercial site called
The Engine Block.
A.Interest Rates. For context, the nationwide median rates for urban small business commercial and
industrial loans in the second quarter of 2024 (the most recent data available) were 7.77% for fixed-rate
loans and 8.88% for variable rate loans, according to the most recent U.S. Federal Reserve Small Business
Lending Survey*. In the second quarter of 2022, these rates were 4.50% and 5.55% respectively. Interest
rates for EDLF loans consider an assessment of the risk level of different applicants, among other factors,
and include potential interest rate reductions. Interest rates have ranged from 7.25% for nearly all 2022
EDLF loans to an average of 9.55% in 2023 and 2024.
*Source: Small Business Lending Survey, New Small Business Lending Declines as Credit Standards
Continue to Tighten. Consulted on January 27, 2025, at
https://www.kansascityfed.org/surveys/small-business-lending-survey/new-small-business-lending-
declines-as-credit-standards-continue-to-tighten/.
B.Interest Rate Reductions. The bases for potential reductions are as follows:
1.Location within a priority area: RDA Project Area; Opportunity Zone; West of I-15; or
Neighborhood Business Improvement Program (NBIP, previously known as Façade Improvement)
target area.
2.Socially and Economically Disadvantaged Individuals (SEDI)-Owned Businesses: 51%
of the business is owned by at least one SEDI individual.
3.Low Income Business Owner: Income does not exceed 80% of Salt Lake County average
median income (AMI) as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD).
4.Sustainability: Either,
a. Membership in SLC Green’s E2 Business Program; or
b. Loan proceeds will be used for the purchase of electric vehicles, electric vehicle charging
stations and infrastructure, renewable energy including but not limited to wind and solar, heat
pumps, high efficiency equipment, and/or energy efficiency.
The interest rate reductions applied to this application are detailed below:
Himalayan Kitchen
8.50% prime rate
+ 4% ELDF charge
– 1% for location within a priority area
Page | 4
– 1% for owned by a socially and economically disadvantaged individual
___________________________
10.50% final interest rate
C.Program. The EDLF is administered by the Department of Economic Development, which is charged with
maintaining the corpus of the EDLF in a manner sufficient to perpetuate the program's goals. Each loan
application is pre-screened, and an underwriting analysis and economic impact statement are completed
before an application may be recommended for Loan Committee (see below) review. Information on
successful applications is transmitted to the Council to consider for final approval.
D.Available balance and amount of outstanding loans. The Department reported that the Fund’s
available balance was approximately $8,100,000 on December 20, 2024, and outstanding loans totaled
$4,742172.22 on November 31.
E.EDLF Committee Membership. The Department of Economic Development lists nine members of the
EDLF Committee as follows:
City Employees Community Volunteers
1. Finance Director, Community and
Neighborhoods Department
2. Salt Lake City Business Advisory Board (BAB)
member
3. Representative of the Mayor’s Office 4. Banker
5. Salt Lake City employee at large 6. Community lender
7. Representative of the Division of Housing
Stability
8. Business mentor
9. Director, Department of Economic
Development
10.
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 MEMO
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Austin Kimmel
Public Policy Analyst
DATE:February 4, 2025
RE: INFORMATIONAL: THE CENTRAL BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA AND BOARD OF
EQUALIZATION UPDATE
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The purpose of this staff memo is to update the Council on a software error that occurred with the special
assessment area (SAA) noticing that is required by State Code, and corrective steps to ensure transparency and
compliance with state law.
During the Board of Equalization meetings on Jan. 7, 8, and 9, mapping errors were discovered in the holiday
lighting assessment. This resulted in the delivery of incorrect notices to some properties for holiday lighting
where holiday lighting does not exist and the failure to notify other properties that do have holiday lighting.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
On Nov. 12, 2024, the Council appointed a Board of Equalization for the Salt Lake City Central Business
Improvement Assessment Area (CBIA) to receive property owner protests regarding two separate assessments in
downtown Salt Lake City. The assessments include one for economic promotion activities and another for
holiday lighting (not all properties pay a holiday lighting assessment).
The mailing for the base assessment, related to economic promotion activities, has been verified for accuracy
and does not require corrective steps. Unfortunately, there were issues with the holiday lighting notice mapping.
The Department of Economic Development provided that 55 of the 107 parcels that should receive the holiday
lighting assessment did not, and 134 parcels received a holiday lighting assessment notice incorrectly and should
not have.
The annual holiday lighting budget, funded by the assessment, is estimated at approximately $136,000. The
Department has recommended corrective steps (below) to maintain the funding and holiday lighting service.
Absent corrective steps, the assessment would not be in place to generate the funding for the lighting, and the
City would need to consider adjustments either to the budget or lighting plan.
Corrective Steps:
In response to the error, the Economic Development Department, in consultation with the Attorney’s Office and
Board of Equalization, concluded it will:
1. Reissue assessment notices to the correct properties, and
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: March TBD,
2025
Page | 2
2. Schedule a new series of Board of Equalization meetings for the holiday lighting assessment on
Tuesday, Feb. 18 at 9 a.m., Wednesday, Feb. 19 at 10 a.m., and Thursday, Feb. 20 at 1 p.m.
The above changes ensure property owners receive accurate assessments for holiday lighting and have an
opportunity to protest at a public board meeting. The Economic Development Department is also working with
the City’s Information Management Services (IMS) Department to explore alternative software and service
options to prevent future mapping and notice errors.
Typically, at the conclusion of the Board’s meetings, an advisory report is sent to the Council with
recommendations regarding the reestablishment of the two assessments and funding activities between April
2025 and April 2028. Due to this discrepancy with the holiday lighting notices, the timeline of the
reauthorization will be adjusted from what the Council was previously told. The Department anticipates
transmitting the Board’s final report for the two assessments and adoption ordinance for the Council’s
consideration in March. This timeline still ensures continuity of services provided with assessment funds to the
area.
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEMBER CHANGE
The same entities (City Council Office, Treasurer’s Office, and Engineering Division) will be represented on the
Board of Equalization, but Austin Kimmel will replace Ben Luedtke as the City Council staff representative for
the February Board of Equalization meetings.
ATTACHMENTS
1.CBIA Holiday Lighting Parcels Map
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:Cindy Gust Jenson and Ben Luedtke
DATE:February 4, 2025
RE: Title 2 Ordinance Amendment
Overarching Policy Direction for All Departments
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council requested more discussion on policy direction that broadly applies to all city departments. These are
items that provide long term policy guidance with the intent of providing clarity, establishing any expectations
on how to implement legislative policies, and defining shared terms especially as they relate to core functions
and department authority. Once the Council confirms the policy directions, then the City Attorney’s Office will
draft an ordinance amendment to codify them in Title 2 of the Salt Lake City Code. It should be noted that
several of these items are already in practice by Administrative departments, and the goal is to codify for
longevity.
The Council first received a briefing and discussed these policies on May 30, 2024, as part of another Title 2
ordinance amendment specific to the Sustainability Department. Analysis of the core functions, focus areas, and
policy direction to that Department resulted in several policies that the Council identified as applicable to all
departments. There is no current section of Title 2 that identifies overarching policy direction to all departments,
and the Council determined that creating a new section would be simpler than duplicating the text in each of the
17 department sections.
See the Background Information section for legal sources of the Council’s role in establishing administrative and
departmental authority.
Goal of the briefing: Confirm which high-level policies the Council wants to prioritize for policy direction to
all departments, and identify any follow up questions, and potential modifications to City Code.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. The Council may wish to conduct straw polls on each of the nine high-level policy areas outlined in the
Key Points section below.
2. The Council may wish to identify other policy direction or clarification points that staff missed, and
consider including that in this request.
3. The Council may wish to coordinate with the Administration if there is any other helpful city-wide policy
guidance to include in this section of code.
Project Timeline:
1st Briefing: February 4, 2025
2nd Briefing: TBD if needed
Potential Adoption Vote: TBD
Page | 2
4. The Council may wish to identify the remaining city departments for review and updating.
KEY POINTS
Overarching Policies to consider applying to all Departments
An outline of eight potential high-level policies is listed below for the Council’s consideration. These were
identified based on Council deliberations, analysis of policy direction to the Sustainability Department, and
financial and legal best practices. The Council may wish to discuss any of the policies and straw poll
for inclusion in City Code.
1. Council Functioning within this Form of Government: The Council could add some descriptions and
information to clarify legal guidance on the separate and co-equal authority of the branches of
government, define the Council’s various roles, the Administration’s various roles, and how the two
interact and intersect. These descriptions could include the Council’s role of ordinance adoption, broad
policy making, oversight areas including when consultants are retained to conduct departmental
reviews/audits, and budgetary authority, and the Administration’s role to prepare plans and budgets for
consideration and adoption, implementation of those plans and budgets, to operate the City, and
execute policy direction. This understanding is based on state law and case law.
Over the past year, a few conversations have addressed updates that may fit within this section, such as:
a. Staffing classifications - The Council adopted a legislative intent as part of the FY2025 annual
budget requesting that the City Compensation Plan include a policy change to make division
directors appointed employees, like department deputy directors and department directors.
This policy direction fits within the budget oversight category, and could be specified in City
Code and/or the Compensation Plan.
b. Shared reporting - The Council discussed identifying in departmental sections of Chapter 2.08
Administrative Organization of the Salt Lake City Code which specific positions report to both
branches. In 2023, the Council adopted an ordinance amendment identifying the City Attorney
and City Recorder as reporting to both branches within separation of powers roles. Additional
positions reporting to both branches could be identified in the proper departmental sections.
Some Council Members mentioned the HR Director and Finance Director in this capacity.
2. Centralized Financial System: Would the Council want to codify the Department of Finance’s
involvement and role to advise all City departments on financial best practices for accounting, financial
reporting, banking, budgets, and procurement policies and procedures? This could include a required
step for all departments, including enterprise funds, to work closely with the Department of Finance on
financial best practices, obtain review of financial impact of proposals, and to ensure consistency
throughout the City.
3. Grant Applications Process: As the City’s efforts to obtain grant funding has increased over the years,
there has been an effort to centralize the grant application process and ensure the involvement of the
Department of Finance. The Council could formalize this practice and codify a consistent grant
application process for all departments in the City to ensure the Department of Finance has reviewed
each grant application for consistency with the City’s priorities, policies and processes.
4. Uphold Open & Public Meetings, Records Management and Transparency practices: Given the
importance of City departments, boards, and commissions fulfilling State requirements and City values
for transparency and public notice, the Council could include codifying:
a. City Recorder Office’s role to create a clear public record and advise all City departments on
public noticing requirements and best practices.
b. All departments’, including enterprise funds, management of official city records, work closely
with the Recorder’s Office on official transmittals from the Mayor’s Office to the Council Office,
and create a transparent public record of official papers and proceedings.
c. All Boards, Commissions, or similar type committees convened by departments to advise the
City on public policy recommendations to the Mayor and Council adhere to the Open and Public
Meetings Act, and be appointed in accordance with City ordinances, or otherwise authorized by
both branches.
Page | 3
5. Utilize Attorney’s Office for Legal Matters: Codify a requirement that all departments seek legal services
provided by the Attorney’s Office and may not independently seek outside legal counsel. Separate
executive or legislative counsel may be sought from appropriated funds in certain circumstances and
coordinated through the City Attorney’s Office per section 2.08.040 (B) of Salt Lake City Code.
6. Coordinate Use of Services & Limited City Resources: Periodically, there has been overlap or duplication
on programs and services either internally among city departments or between the City and outside
entities. In order to streamline this issue and improve coordination, the Council could elect to codify a
requirement that all departments protect limited City resources by tracking and coordinating with other
departments and ensuring that City programs are not overlapping with outside entities’ programs unless
the City has decided to fill a gap or intentionally lead out in that area. The Council may establish
evaluation criteria to help prioritize creation and/or support of City programs and services. The criteria
could include, among other items:
Impact -Evaluate the city-specific concern or need that a program would address and the reason
why the City and its taxpayers should become more involved.
Partnerships - Consider whether partnerships or supplementing resources to existing community
programs would fill in necessary gaps.
Financial - Calculate the financial benefit to the city and its taxpayers, and an outside organization
to collaborate. Consider whether it would be more fiscally prudent to make a financial contribution
instead of involving larger city resources.
Effectiveness - Identify how a program emphasizes or achieves a department focus area, and
whether the City taxpayers involvement increases effectiveness.
Role clarity - Avoid new programs or services that are within the charter or primary responsibility of
another entity.
7. Uniform Metrics, Tracking, and Communication: The City has taken great strides to implement shared
programs to improve coordination and consistency across citywide. To emphasize the importance of
using those systems, that Council could consider codifying a policy that City departments participate in
uniform systems and practices for metrics, tracking, communications where possible. Examples include:
a. Constituent relations management or CRM system.
b. Communication tools and staff in all city departments, including a style guide for use of the
City’s logo, Department name and public contacts, social media account creation and
management, website development, and other related tools.
c. Performance measurements for services provided by a department.
8. Council Adopted Plans are Official City Policy: Codify that all departments coordinate with the
Attorney’s Office to transmit master plans, policy documents, and multi-year funding plans for Council
review, modification, and official adoption. Plans become the City’s official policy upon adoption by the
Council, and guide future budget and/or staffing requests. The Administration can work with the
City Attorney’s office to determine which plans (or sections within plans) are
Administrative in nature and not subject to Council approval. Utah Code 10-9a-401 and
Council Resolution 14 of 2020 provide directions on applicable plans and documents and may be further
refined per guidance from the Attorney’s Office.
9. Governance Structures guidance for City projects: The Council may wish to discuss whether it is
appropriate to codify in this section that any project and/or public/private partnership should keep the
Council and Mayor in their appropriate roles, to ensure changing needs and constituents are
represented into the future of any project.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. Background on City Council’s Role in Establishing Department Authority
Utah Code 10-3b-203(1)(b) says that the Council “may adopt an ordinance creating, consolidating, or
abolishing departments, divisions and bureaus; and defining or altering the functions and duties of each
department, division, and bureau.” This is the section of Utah Code establishing the Council’s policymaking
Page | 4
authority to create and alter Administrative departments and give policy direction on these departments’
roles and authority. Under Utah Code 10-3b-202(c) and (d), upon establishment of the department’s
authority, the Mayor may “exercise control of and supervise executive or administrative department,
division, or office of the municipality” and “execute the policies adopted by the council.” The Mayor has
broad discretion to establish administrative policy and priorities within the policy bounds set by the Council
in ordinance and within the budget established by the Council. Of course, the Mayor is also free to make any
type of proposal for funding or ordinance establishment.
Title 2 of Salt Lake City Code is the codification of the Council’s policy direction to the administrative
departments on each department’s role and authority. In considering revisions to Title 2, the Council can
provide policy guidance on the role, duties, and functions of the department; relying on such policymaking,
the Administration can then implement programs, initiatives, and administrative policies to execute on
those duties and functions.
Based on the duties and functions provided under Title 2, the departments may then prepare draft plans,
programs, ordinances, resolutions, and propose budgets, all of which would go back to the Council for
review, adjustments, and potential legislative action. The Attorney’s office has advised that this back and
forth is intended to be a constantly evolving conversation between the branches, enabling the Council to
articulate legislative priorities and the administrative departments to propose the mechanisms by which
those priorities are executed.
B. FY2024 Legislative Intent for Department Role Clarity in City Code
As part of the FY2024 annual budget, the Council adopted a legislative intent for department role clarity,
stating: “It is the intent of the Council to ask the Attorney’s Office to propose updates to the City’s code that
define and discuss the respective roles of City departments. This review should include, but not be limited
to, the Sustainability, Economic Development, and Public Lands Departments. Per Council discussion,
Sustainability is the priority.” These three departments were selected because they are the newest in the
City’s departmental structure. Some sections of Title 2 in City Code addressing their core functions include
circular references that lack specificity and meaning. The Attorney’s Office provided a draft ordinance that
would amend Section 2.08.120 of the Salt Lake City Code. A Council staff report provided additional
analysis and potential language and legislative policy direction. The Council received a briefing on May 30,
2024, about the proposed amendments for the Sustainability Department.
ACRONYMS
CRM - Constituent Relations Management
FY – Fiscal Year
TBD – To Be Determined
Item B11
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY25
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke and Sylvia Richards
DATE:February 4, 2025
RE: Budget Amendment Number Three of FY2025
MOTION 1 – CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING
I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future date.
MOTION 2 – CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT ONE NEW FTE FROM ITEM A-2
I move that the Council continue the public hearing and adopt the new Cybersecurity Engineer I FTE from Item
A-2.
MOTION 3 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
I move that the Council close the public hearing and refer the item to a future date for action.
MOTION 4 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT ALL ITEMS
I move that the Council close the public hearing and adopt an ordinance amending the Fiscal Year 2025 final
budget of Salt Lake City including the employment staffing document only for items as shown on the motion
sheet.
Staff note: Council Members do not need to read the individual items being approved below; they are
listed for reference.
A-1: Rescope Vacancy Savings in Public Lands for Vehicles, Equipment and Events ($285,800 one-time rescope of
which $188,700 goes to the Fleet Fund)
A-2: Request for Two New IMS Positions; 1 Full-time Cybersecurity Engineer I Position and transitioning one Part-
time Graphic Design Position to a Full-Time position ($85,242 from IMS Fund Balance then ongoing)
A-3: Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal
A-4: Fleet Block Infrastructure Development and Anticipated 1-Acre Property Sale ($3.9 million one-time from the
Surplus Land Fund to CIP)
D-1: Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal
D-2: Salt Lake City Athletic Complex ($220,412 one-time rescope from CIP)
D-3: Rescope Road Marking Maintenance Funds to Purchase a Utility Task Vehicle for Bike Lane Snow Plowing
($35,000 rescope one-time to the Fleet Fund)
D-4: TTIF 200 South Transit Corridor Project ($1,800,000 one-time to CIP Fund)D-5: TTIF 400 South Multi Use
Trail ($6,356,000 one-time to CIP Fund)
D-5: TTIF 400 South Multi Use Trail ($6,356,000 one-time to CIP Fund)
D-6: TTIF West Temple Bike Transit Connections ($1,326,000 one-time to CIP Fund)
D-7: TTIF Westpointe/Jordan Meadows Neighborhood Byway ($900,000 one-time to CIP Fund
D-8: Compliance Vehicle Replacement from Compliance Division’s Operational budget ($35,000 one-time to the
Fleet Fund)
D-9: TTIF Bicycle Lanes Capitol Hill ($406,102 one-time in the CIP Fund)
D-10: Streets Impact Fee Excess Capacity Reimbursement to the General Fund ($3,904,861 one-time from the
CIP Fund to the General Fund)
D-11: Budget Amendment No. 1 Item I-6 Reversal: Consultant Services to Assist with City Prosecutor's Office
Transition ($95,000 one-time back to General Fund Balance)
E-1: Great Salt Lake Watershed Property Acquisition ($2,226,195 one-time grant award)
E-2: TTIF Bicycle Lanes Capitol Hill ($406,102 one-time Misc. Grant Fund)
Staff note: this item is associated with item D-9: TTIF Bicycle Lanes Capitol Hill. Please refer to D-9 for additional
information.
F-1: Donation to Create a Justice Bus as a Mobile Courtroom ($63,675 one-time in Donation Fund)
G-1: Know Your Neighbor Grant Extension ($100,00 – Misc. Grant Fund)
G-2: Community Wildfire Protection Plan Update from Defense Grant Funding ($239,050 – Misc. Grant Fund)
I-1: Accelerating Treatments for Diseased Sycamore Trees ($150,000 one-time from General Fund Balance)
I-2: FTE Transfer from the Mayor’s Office to Community and Neighborhoods (one-time $277,434)
MOTION 4 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND NOT ADOPT
I move that the Council close the public hearing and proceed to the next agenda item.
Page | 1
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY25
TO:Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke, Kira Luke, Austin Kimmel, Sylvia
Richards, and Allison Rowland
Budget and Policy Analysts
DATE: February 4, 2025
RE: Budget Amendment Number 3 of Fiscal Year (FY) 2025
NEW INFORMATION
A-2: Request for Two New IMS Positions; 1 Full-time Cybersecurity Engineer I Position and transitioning one
Part-time Graphic Design Position to a Full-Time position ($85,242 from IMS Fund Balance then ongoing)
Staff received clarification from IMS that the funding source for the PT to FTE graphic design conversion is from the
apprenticeship program, which is currently on hold after the most recent cohort graduated. IMS currently has two FT graphic
designers and one PT and is beginning to see a backlog as they receive more requests from other Departments.
Policy Question
The Council may wish to consider the conversion in the context of the annual budget rather than a budget amendment.
I-1: Accelerating Treatments for Diseased Sycamore Trees ($150,000 one-time from General Fund Balance)
Since the first briefing of this budget amendment, the Administration has indicated the likelihood that the Sycamore
treatments will require $150,000 annually for the next three to five years.
Policy Question
The Council may wish to clarify that the Administration will include this funding request in the Mayor’s Recommended
Budget.
NEW I-2: FTE Transfer from the Mayor’s Office to Community and Neighborhoods (one-time $277,434.62).
The Administration is requesting and several Council Members expressed interest in considering moving several positions
from the Mayor’s Office to the Community and Neighborhoods (CAN) Department. The positions are 5 Community Liaisons
and 1 Policy Advisor. The requested amount of $277,434.62 will cover the remaining pay periods in FY25 for all 6 positions.
Policy Question:
The Council may wish to request a review of program metrics for these positions in the FY26 budget discussion.
The Council may wish to discuss whether a federal funding pause could impact ongoing funding for these
positions. If so, the Council may wish to discuss if and how the positions would be funded in future budgets.
Information below this line was provided at earlier briefings
Budget Amendment Number Three includes 20 proposed amendments with $21,891,545 in revenues and $21,881,787 in
expenditures of which $3,809,861 would come from General Fund Balance. The amendments are across six funds with two
new full-time employee positions proposed for IMS. Most expenses in this budget amendment are housekeeping items found
in section D. The amendments also include three new initiatives in section A and additional housekeeping and grant related
items, and one donation-related item. There is one Council-added item at the end of this staff report in section I.
Project Timeline:
1st Briefing: January 21, 2025
2nd Briefing (if needed) & Public Hearing: Feb. 4, 2025
Potential Adoption Vote: February 18, 2025
Page | 2
Fund Balance
As confirmed by the auditors as part of the
annual comprehensive financial report,
updated fund balance numbers are
summarized in the table on page three of this
staff report. Assuming all items are adopted
as proposed in this budget amendment, the
General Fund Balance is estimated to be
21.37%, which is $40,257,199 above the 13%
minimum target. Fund Balance typically
increases after the annual comprehensive
financial report. This can be caused by
unspent appropriations for operations
lapsing to Fund Balance and revenues
coming in higher than budget. While the
increased General Fund Balance is positive
for the City’s fiscal position, it’s important to
note that the annual budget has used an
escalating amount of one-time General Fund
Balance revenues to fill the annual budget
structural deficit. The chart below was
provided by the Finance Department to show
how much General Fund Balance was used in
the past seven fiscal years. Note the City’s
current fiscal year is FY2025 so the FY2026
column is only for discussion purposes to
show the impact of the trend continuing. The
Council may wish to discuss with the
Administration policy goals for the use of
General Fund Balance in the next annual
budget such as whether reducing the reliance
on one-time funding to fill the structural deficit.
Tracking New Ongoing General Fund Costs for the Next Annual Budget
The table of potential new ongoing General Fund costs for the FY2026 annual budget is available as Attachment 1 at the end
of this document. If all the items in Budget Amendment #3 are adopted as proposed by the Administration, then the FY2026
annual budget would need an additional $173,484 to cover new ongoing costs. The total new ongoing costs from Budget
Amendments 1 through 3 would be $6,381,054. Note that of the total cost, $4.1 million would be needed if the Homeless
Shelter Cities State Mitigation grant is not available for FY2026.
Straw Poll Requests
A-2: Request for 1 Full-time Cybersecurity Engineer I
The Administration is requesting a straw poll from the Council on the Cybersecurity Engineer I FTE.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The chart below presents General Fund Projected Revenues for FY 2025. Based on revenue data
across the first part of the fiscal year, it is projected that revenues will be realized at approximately $4.5 million
beyond the FY 2025 Adopted Budget.
Page | 3
UPDATED Fund Balance Chart
The chart below shows fund balance numbers updated after the Administration’s transmittal. The City’s annual
comprehensive financial audit is progressing. The auditors have completed the Fund Balance portion which is summarized in
the chart below.
Page | 4
Page | 5
The proposal includes nineteen initiatives for Council review.
A summary spreadsheet outlining proposed budget changes is attached. The Administration
requests this document be modified based on the decisions of the Council.
The opening budget is separated in eight different categories:
A.New Budget Items
B.Grants for Existing Staff Resources
C.Grants for New Staff Resources
D.Housekeeping Items
E.Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
F.Donations
G.Council Consent Agenda Grant Awards
I.Council Added Items
PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing
Impact Fee Unallocated “Available to Spend” Balances and Refund Tracking
The table below is current as of November 8, 2024. Impact fees must be encumbered or spent within six years of the
City receiving them. Expired impact fees must be returned to the entity who paid them with interest over the
intervening six years.
Type Unallocated Cash
“Available to Spend”Next Refund Trigger Date $ Expiring in
FY2027
Fire $437,203 More than two years away -
Parks $3,931,722 August 2026 $6,893,768
Police $1,515,483 More than two years away -
Transportation $2,857,175 August 2026 $2,691,888
Note: Encumbrances are an administrative function when impact fees are held under a contract
Note: to expedite the processing of this staff report, staff has included the Administration’s descriptions from the
transmittal for some of these items.
Section A: New Items
A-1: Rescope Vacancy Savings in Public Lands for Vehicles, Equipment and Events ($285,800 one-
time rescope of which $188,700 goes to the Fleet Fund)
The Administration is requesting the reallocation of $285,800 from Public Lands personal services budget from
attrition and vacancy savings generated from full-time positions through the first six months of the fiscal year. It
is proposed that the funds be used for capital equipment purchases and an increase in contracted operations costs
as follows:
1.16-foot-Wide Area Mower $138,500 – The transmittal indicates 36% of the department’s large area
mowers are between 10-17 years old and need to be replaced; however, Fleet does not plan to replace
them at this time because of lack of funding. They bought two mowers last year and would like to stagger
future purchases to build a more dependable equipment pool.
2.Utility Task Vehicle (UTV) $23,000 – During a routine patrol along the northern section of the
Jordan River Parkway, a newer member of the Park Ranger team drove a UTV to a portion of the trail that
was too narrow for a u-turn. In attempting to make a “k’”turn, the UTV ended up in the river. Although
standard recovery procedures were followed, the UTV was damaged beyond repair and needs to be
replaced.
Policy Question: The Council may wish to ask whether the park rangers will be provided
additional training on UTV’s.
3.Two Wide Area Mower Trailers $27,200 – This is a request for two large trailers needed to
transport the mowers from Public Lands to various locations throughout the City.
Page | 6
The Administration is requesting an additional amount of $97,100 from personnel to operations for the
following items:
4.July Drone Shows $50,000 – This is a request to increase the number of drones from 150 to 300 to
be more in line with what other cities are providing. This increase would allow the city to enhance its
productions and keep Salt Lake City’s shows at Liberty Park and Jordan Park competitive.
5.Restroom Septic Tank Pumping – This is a $30,000 request for septic tank pumping at Washington
Park in Parley’s Canyon. Invoices from the contractor were delayed such that the city is paying 2024
invoices in 2025. The increase in park reservations resulted in additional use and additional gallons
needing to be pumped.
6.Flatbed Electric Cart – This is a request to use $17,100 from personal services to operations to
purchase a flatbed electric cart used for landscaping and tree watering. An existing electric cart was stolen
from the Jordan Park greenhouse and damaged beyond repair.
A-2: Request for Two New IMS Positions; 1 Full-time Cybersecurity Engineer I Position and
transitioning one Part-time Graphic Design Position to a Full-Time position ($85,242 from IMS Fund
Balance then ongoing)
The Information Management Services (IMS) Department is requesting funding and support for two positions: a
cybersecurity engineer, and the conversion of an existing part time graphic design position to full time. The funding
request is for a partial year of the cybersecurity position, with an ongoing annual cost estimate of $173,483.60, which
would be funded from the citywide allocations to IMS in FY26. The department has requested a straw poll for
the cybersecurity position.
Funding for the graphic design position is expected to be absorbed by eliminating other part time positions, requiring
no additional allocation in the FY25 budget. Staff has requested further information on what positions will be
eliminated, as well as any negative impacts if the position was not added until the FY26 budget. That information will
be provided to the Council as it becomes available. In recent budgets, the City has moved towards consolidating
citywide media and engagement positions in the IMS Media and Engagement team, which continues to see an
increasing workload demand.
Based on the Budget Amendment #2 vacancy report, IMS currently has only one vacant FTE position, with $7,906 of
vacancy savings available.
A-3: Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal
A-4: Fleet Block Infrastructure Development and Anticipated 1-Acre Property Sale ($3.9 million
one-time from the Surplus Land Fund to CIP)
This request would transfer $3,900,000 from the Surplus Property Account to a CIP account for constructing
public infrastructure in the Fleet Block. The transfer is linked to the anticipated sale of about a 1-acre parcel,
which is expected to be ~$3,900,000. $1,370,916 will remain in the Surplus Property Account, and the property
sale proceeds will backfill once the sale closes. The sale of the subject property includes requirements for new
housing, including family-sized units and affordable at 80% AMI, as well as commercial space for non-profits and
local businesses.
Once the funding is available in the CIP account, the administration expects the funds to cover the design and
construction of midblock streets that will bisect the block. The administration anticipates the funds will cover the
midblock streets and will be designed within the allocated funding. Additional infrastructure beyond what these
funds provide will be requirements for the developer partners selected in the upcoming RFQ.
Policy Question:
- The Council may wish to ask the administration to expand on how it anticipates the sale of the subject
property and the stated requirements align with its overall vision of the Fleet Block.
Section D: Housekeeping Items
D-1: Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal
Page | 7
D-2: Salt Lake City Athletic Complex ($220,412 one-time rescope from CIP)
$220,412 is being requested for upgrades to the Salt Lake City Sports Complex at 645 S. Guardsman Way. The
funding is left over from the recent roof replacement, which was completed under budget. Amounts requested are
the City's 50% share of the need, per the cost-sharing agreement with Salt Lake County.
- $79,128 is requested for upgrading the ice control system, which maintains the ice temperature and
consistency, and gives remote monitoring alerts.
- $47,565 is requested for an ammonia viper drive, which is a component of the refrigeration system that
minimizes power spikes and improves efficiency. The existing component is 14 years old, exceeding the
typical life expectancy of 10-12 years, and is failing.
- $72,977 is requested to upgrade the controls that include an ammonia detection system that failed
inspection. In 2024, after the failed inspection, the County decided to replace the controls.
- The remaining funding (approximately $20,743) is proposed for studying and designing a remedy for a
groundwater filtration issue in the facility, which is causing a persistent leak, water damage, and
corrosion in utility spaces.
D-3: Rescope Road Marking Maintenance Funds to Purchase a Utility Task Vehicle for Bike Lane
Snow Plowing ($35,000 rescope one-time to the Fleet Fund)
The Public Services Department is requesting to reallocate $35,000 from their road marking budget to the Fleet
Fund for a new Utility Task Vehicle (UTV) for snow removal in protected bike lanes (PBLs). The department
anticipates no reduction in the road marking service levels. PBLs are priority level one in the City's snow removal
plan, and considered a previously underfunded asset. The UTV would also be used in the off seasons by the Traffic
Markings and Signs maintenance crew.
Staff Note: Items D-4 through D-7 are follow up housekeeping items. The Council received a presentation from
the Transportation Division and approved the grant funding in Budget Amendment #2. The four items below
would transfer the funding to the CIP fund for construction and ensure the funding does not lapse to Fund
Balance at the end of fiscal year.
D-4: TTIF 200 South Transit Corridor Project ($1,800,000 one-time to CIP Fund)
This amendment will transfer budget from the Misc. Grants fund to the appropriate CIP fund in the amount of
$1,800,000 for the purpose of completing the 200 South Transit Corridor project. The 200 South Transit
Corridor Technology Upgrades will evaluate bus transit operations on 200 South between roughly 600 west and
University Street and identify strategies for improvement. The focus of the project will be on improving bus
operations through upgrades to intersection controls, which will likely include a combination of transit signal
priority (TSP), detection systems, cabinet/controller hardware, fiber optic communication, and connected vehicle
(V2X) systems.
Salt Lake City has already made significant investments to rebuild the street to establish a Business Access and
transit (BAT) lane and boarding islands; this project follows the initial roadway construction with focus on transit
operations and technology upgrades to further enhance the transit capacity and safety of the 200 South Transit
Corridor.
D-5: TTIF 400 South Multi Use Trail ($6,356,000 one-time to CIP Fund)
This budget amendment is to move grant funding approved in BA #2 in the amount of $6,356,000 to the
appropriate CIP fund for the purpose of completing the 400 South multi use trail. UDOT and Salt Lake City are
partnering to create a multi-use trail on the south side of 400 South from 900 West to 200 West, including the
viaduct bridge over the railroad tracks. The corridor is an important east/west connector, and the project aims to
maintain current vehicular capacity while establishing a safe dedicated corridor for people walking, biking and
rolling. The trail will feature art to enhance the character of the surrounding area and make traveling along the
trail an enjoyable experience.
D-6: TTIF West Temple Bike Transit Connections ($1,326,000 one-time to CIP Fund)
This budget amendment will transfer grants funds approved in budget amendment #2 in the amount of
$1,326,000 to the appropriate CIP fund for the purpose of completing the West Temple Bike Transit Connections.
West Temple Bike Transit Connections will add physically separated bike lanes, improve pedestrian crossings and
narrow pedestrian crossing distances with a mix of curb extensions and refuge islands.
D-7: TTIF Westpointe/Jordan Meadows Neighborhood Byway ($900,000 one-time to CIP Fund
This budget amendment is to move the grant award approved in budget amendment #2 in the amount of $900,00
to the appropriate CIP fund for the purpose of completing the Westpointe/Jordan Neighborhood Byway.
Page | 8
D-8: Compliance Vehicle Replacement from Compliance Division’s Operational budget ($35,000
one-time to the Fleet Fund)
In September of 2024, a City employee was involved in an accident while driving one of the Compliance vehicles
which led to the total loss of the vehicle. Police officers were unable to determine who was at fault. Since the
accident, the division has been using one of the City’s loaner cars from Fleet. The Administration is requesting
funding to replace the vehicle using funding from the Compliance Division’s budget to help maintain enforcement
efficiency and capabilities.
D-9: TTIF Bicycle Lanes Capitol Hill ($406,102 one-time in the CIP Fund)
This request would transfer $406,102 from the UDOT grant award associated with E-2: TTIF Bicycle Lanes
Capitol Hill to the appropriate CIP fund to repave Main Street from North Temple to 300 North with buffered or
protected bike lanes in both directions. Note: the administrative transmittal states the project would repave Main
Street from South Temple to 300 North, but staff has since clarified that it should instead list North Temple. The
administration is also exploring a future project to work with UDOT to add protected bike lanes on Columbus Street
from 300 North to the existing bike lanes on Victory Road.
It is not yet fully designed, but the project will likely remove travel lane(s) in either direction to provide enough space
for cyclists. This portion of Main Street currently has four travel lanes (two lanes in both directions), and all roadways
north of 300 North have one lane in each direction. The bicycle lanes are expected to provide a preferrable alternative
to biking on State Street.
Policy Question:
- The Council may wish to ask the administration to elaborate on its preferred street typology on this portion of
Main Street and ask whether it could lead to increased traffic on State Street or any of the other surrounding
neighborhood streets leading towards and from Capitol Hill.
- The Council may wish to ask how this project fits into the Capital Hill Livable Streets traffic calming project
and potential impacts to State Street and other surrounding neighborhood streets.
D-10: Streets Impact Fee Excess Capacity Reimbursement to the General Fund ($3,904,861 one-
time from the CIP Fund to the General Fund)
This is a request for Excess Capacity Reimbursement to be paid out of Streets Impact Fees to the General Fund in
the amount of $3,904,861. It would also transfer these funds to streets impact fees to change the funding source
of existing CIP project appropriations from streets impact funded to General Fund funded CIP Projects. These
changes will allow the City to comply with the Impact Fee Act, the Impact Fee Facilities Plan, and to more
efficiently utilize restrictive funding sources. The result of the eligibility of these funds has also resulted in the
need to pay Streets Impact Fees interest of ~ $50,218 from Streets Impact Fee Funds. This item helps the City
avoid refunding impact fees.
D-11: Budget Amendment No. 1 Item I-6 Reversal: Consultant Services to Assist with City
Prosecutor's Office Transition ($95,000 one-time back to General Fund Balance)
This amendment is to reverse a Council added amendment item from budget amendment number one that
funded $95,000 for consulting services to help with the Salt Lake City Prosecutor’s Office’s transition from
working with the County Prosecutor’s Office to an independent office arrangement. Since the City’s Prosecutor’s
Office is no longer moving from the County offices, the funding is no longer needed.
Section E: Grants Requiring No Staff Resources
E-1: Great Salt Lake Watershed Property Acquisition ($2,226,195 one-time grant award)
This budget amendment recognizes the City's funding availability from the Great Salt Lake Watershed Enhancement
Trust in the amount of $2,226,195 for a land purchase. If successfully acquired, the property will be preserved and
restored for wetland conservation purposes as part of a broader Great Salt Lake Shoreline Preservation initiative. The
City is negotiating the purchase and, per the agreement with the Great Salt Lake Watershed Enhancement Trust, has
two years to contract. The City will not receive the grant award until it is under contract with the landowner.
Staff notes:
- The transmittal document incorrectly lists the National Audubon Society as the grantor. The grant is an award
pursuant to the state-appropriated Great Salt Lake Watershed Enhancement Trust.
- The transmittal also states Salt Lake City will be the ultimate land manager of the property, but the
administration has shared this has not yet been determined.
E-2: TTIF Bicycle Lanes Capitol Hill ($406,102 one-time Misc. Grant Fund)
Page | 9
Staff note: this item is associated with item D-9: TTIF Bicycle Lanes Capitol Hill. Please refer to D-9
for additional information.
This budget amendment is to recognize the City's funding availability UDOT grant award in the amount of $406,102
to repave Main Street from North Temple to 300 North with buffered or protected bike lanes in both directions. Note:
the administrative transmittal states the project would repave Main Street from South Temple to 300 North, but staff
has since clarified that it should instead name North Temple. The administration is also exploring a future project to
work UDOT to add bike lanes on Columbus Street from 300 North to the existing bike lanes on Victory Road.
Section F: Donations
F-1: Donation to Create a Justice Bus as a Mobile Courtroom ($63,675 one-time in Donation Fund)
The Utah Bar Foundation has awarded the Justice Court a donation in the amount of $63,674 to specifically purchase
and outfit a transit cargo bus as a Justice bus. This donation will enhance and expand the Justice Court’s previous
request for a van, which purchase was on hold, pending the Council’s approval of using the donation towards the Justice
bus concept. (The Council previously approved $62,000 for the Justice Court van.)
The Utah Bar Foundation introduced Ohio’s Justice bus concept to the Justice Court. The City’s Justice Court reached
out to those running the program, visited their bus earlier this year and obtained the van specifications. According to the
transmittal, the Justice bus would serve as a mobile justice court and resource center, providing the space, layout and
equipment needed to better serve individuals residing at the resource centers, as well as provide support for outreach
events coordinated by the Mayor’s Office. The total cost for the purchase and the outfitting of the Justice bus is $125,675.
Policy Question: The Council may wish to ask for additional details.
Section G: Grant Consent Agenda No. 4
G-1: Know Your Neighbor Grant Extension ($100,000 – Misc. Grant Fund)
This is an extension of an existing grant that will provide an additional award of $100,000 for a Volunteer
Coordinator in the Salt Lake City Mayor’s Office. The Know Your Neighbor grant was awarded to Salt Lake City in
October of 2022 by the Department of Workforce Services. The original award was $100,000 to pay for the salaries
and benefits of a volunteer coordinator for one year. Each year since the original award date, the grant has been
extended and Salt Lake City has been given an additional $100,000 for the same purpose. This consent agenda item is
to accept the extension for FY25 for $100,000 to continue to pay for the salary and benefits of the Volunteer
Coordinator housed in the Equity Office in the Mayor's office. The original Public Hearing was held October 18, 2022.
G-2: Community Wildfire Protection Plan Update from Defense Grant Funding ($239,050 – Misc.
Grant Fund)
This is a subaward, awarded and administered by the Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands. The Salt Lake
City Fire Department (SLCFD) will update its 2017 Community Wildfire Protection Plan(CWPP) using lessons learned
from recent events, national and local, to develop a comprehensive mitigation strategy that expands the scope of the
plan to include hazards and areas within the city that should be defined as a part of the Wildland Urban Interface
(WUI.)The current plan was developed with the accepted priorities and strategies in 2017. Since that time multiple
wildfires around the country have challenged the traditional definition and understanding of the WUI. SLCFD will
update its CWPP to identify and prioritize hazards WUI threats and hazards across the entire city. The updated CWPP
is the first step in creating a more comprehensive and inclusive wildland fire mitigation plan that will help determine
both short and long-term mitigation priorities and protective strategies to establish mitigation goals for existing and
anticipated hazards and long-term goals to address hazards resulting from population growth and climate change.
Section I: Council-Added Items
I-1: Accelerating Treatments for Diseased Sycamore Trees ($150,000 one-time from General Fund
Balance)
Council Member Dugan has requested this item to accelerate the pace of implementing treatments for diseased
sycamore trees. The Urban Forestry Division is using $100,000 from the tree maintenance budget to explore multiple
types of treatments with different chemicals and application methods (e.g., spraying, injections, others). This funding
would be used for the treatments found to be most effective. Some sycamore trees are fighting a fungal disease called
anthracnose, bug infestations, and/or mildew. Sycamore trees can live for a few hundred years. Some of the sick trees
are over a century old and large enough to provide multiple public benefits. There are an estimated 4,600 sycamore
trees in the city. Precisely how many of those trees are sick is unknown. Further testing and assessments would be
needed to determine the extent of the problem, treatment options, and costs. Residents have reported diseased trees
in Liberty Park, the Avenues, Sugar House, and Yalecrest. This item is being proposed in Budget Amendment #3
because some treatments are most effective when applied before the spring growing season.
Policy questions:
Page | 10
One-time vs Ongoing Costs – The Council may wish to ask the Administration whether diseased sycamore
trees could need ongoing funding for treatments?
ATTACHMENTS
1. (None)
ACRONYMS
AMI – Area median income
BAT – Business Access Transit
CAFR – Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
CIP – Capital Improvement Program
CWPD – Community Wildfire Protection Plan
FOF – Funding Our Future
FTE – Full time Employee / Equivalent
FY – Fiscal Year
GF – General Fund
IMS – Information Management Services
RFQ – Request for Qualifications
TTIF – Transit Transportation Investment Fund
UDOT – Utah Department of Transportation
UTV – Utah Task Vehicle
WUI – Wildland Urban Interface
Page | 11
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Request: Tracking New Ongoing Costs to the General Fund
Council staff has provided the following list of potential new ongoing costs to the General Fund. Many of these are new
FTE’s approved during this fiscal year’s budget amendments, noting that each new FTE increases the City’s annual budget
costs if positions are added to the staffing document. Note that some items in the table below are partially or fully funded
by grants. If a grant continues to be awarded to the City in future years, then there may not be a cost to the General Fund
but grant funding is not guaranteed year-over-year.
Budget
Amendment Item
Potential Cost
to FY2026
Annual Budget
Full Time Employee
(FTEs)Notes
#1
Item A-1 Attorney’s Office
Organizational Structure
Change
$722,888
3 FTEs:
1 City Prosecutor
1 Senior City Attorney
1 Deputy Director of
Administration
City Prosecutor $178,278 for 9 months/$237,704
annually
Senior City Attorney Class 39 - $157,635.74 for 8
months/$236,454 annually
Deputy Director of Administration Class 40 -
$186,547 for 9 months or $248,730 annually.
At the time of publishing this staff report, the cost to
lease office space is unknown. The cost could be more or
less than the current budget under the soon to be
terminated interlocal agreement with the District
Attorney’s Office.
#1
Item D-8
$171,910
1 FTE:
Capital Asset Planning
Financial Analyst IV
position
Inadvertently left out of the Mayor’s Recommended
FY2025 Budget. Position would be dedicated to impact
fees compliance tracking and reporting for new state
requirements. Impact fees fully reimburse the General
Fund for the position’s cost.
$2,945,957 grant
funding*
4 FTEs:
3 Officer positions
1 Sergeant position
*Amount of grant funding needed in order to fully cover
the ongoing costs including the new FTEs.
#1
Item E-1 Homeless
Shelter Cities Mitigation
Grant FY25
Costs currently paid for
by the Homeless Shelter
Cities Mitigation Grant in
FY2024 that might be
shifting to the General
Fund in FY2025 $662,760
For ongoing costs related
to 15 existing FTEs; the
grant funds a total of 23
FTEs
$662,760 is needed for ongoing equipment for all 15
officers. The Administration is checking whether existing
budgets could absorb some of these costs.
#2
Item A-2 Enhanced
Security at Justice Court
$200,000
A security report identified an issue needing to be
addressed immediately.
Page | 12
Budget
Amendment Item
Potential Cost
to FY2026
Annual Budget
Full Time Employee
(FTEs)Notes
#2
Item A-3 Community
Oriented Policing Svcs or
COPS Hiring Grant from
U.S. Dept. of Justice for 2
new Sergeants & 10 new
Officers FY 24-25
$1,285,642
in FY2026
For ongoing costs related
to hiring 2 new Sergeant
FTEs and 10 new Officers
in the Police Dept.
Ongoing costs include grant salary match plus vehicles,
supplies & equipment. After the 48 month grant period
ends, the estimated annual cost to retain the 12 police
officers is $2,071,325.
#2
Item A-4 Vehicles, Equip-
ment & Related Police
Officer costs not covered
by the Homeless Shelter
Cities State Mitigation
Grant FY24-25
$498,692 is
ongoing
For ongoing costs related
to the hiring of new
officers
Ongoing costs include ongoing salary increases, supplies,
body cameras, vehicles, and computers.
#1 & #2
D-7 Prosecutor’s Office
Changes since Budget
Amendment #1
(-$280,279)
back to General
Fund Balance
1 FTE Removed
City Prosecutor FTE
removed
Reverses a portion of budgetary impacts & actions
outlined in BAM#1, Item A-1.
#3
A-2 IMS – Add 1 full-time
Cybersecurity Engineer
and convert 1 part-time
Graphic Designer into
full-time using funds
from the elimination of
additional part-time
positions.
$173,484
ongoing for
Cybersecurity
Engineer
position
Adds 1 Cybersecurity
Engineer Position
Adds .50 Graphic Design
position
TOTAL $6,381,054 39 total FTEs of which
16 are New FTEs
Note that of the total cost, $4.1 million would be needed
if the Homeless Shelter Cities State Mitigation grant is
not available for FY2026
City Council Announcements
February 4, 2025
Information Needed by Council Staff
A. Code of Conduct Form (attached)
At the start of each year, Council Members are given a reminder to complete the Code of
Conduct form.
Please complete the attached form and give to staff.
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 February 4, 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 (Mar 7, 2025 19:00 MST)Mar 7, 2025
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 February 4, 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 (Mar 7, 2025 19:00 MST)Mar 7, 2025
February 4, 2025 Closed Meeting Sworn
Statements A & B
Final Audit Report 2025-03-08
Created:2025-03-03
By:DeeDee Robinson (deedee.robinson@slc.gov)
Status:Signed
Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAAdcYrZNsthYlsgTeP0zB0PIi198FWgIIf
"February 4, 2025 Closed Meeting Sworn Statements A & B" His
tory
Document created by DeeDee Robinson (deedee.robinson@slc.gov)
2025-03-03 - 3:35:30 PM GMT
Document emailed to Chris Wharton (chris.wharton@slc.gov) for signature
2025-03-03 - 3:36:43 PM GMT
Email viewed by Chris Wharton (chris.wharton@slc.gov)
2025-03-05 - 2:28:40 AM GMT
Email viewed by Chris Wharton (chris.wharton@slc.gov)
2025-03-07 - 10:18:58 PM GMT
Document e-signed by Chris Wharton (chris.wharton@slc.gov)
Signature Date: 2025-03-08 - 2:00:22 AM GMT - Time Source: server
Agreement completed.
2025-03-08 - 2:00:22 AM GMT