HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/15/2025 - Formal Meeting - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
and
LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY of SALT LAKE CITY
FORMAL MEETING AGENDA
April 15, 2025 Tuesday 7:00 PM
Council meetings are held in a hybrid meeting format. Hybrid meetings allow people to join online or in person at
the City & County Building. Learn more at tinyurl.com/SLCCouncilMeetings.
Council Chambers
451 South State Street, Room 315
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
SLCCouncil.com
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Chris Wharton, Chair
District 3
Alejandro Puy, Vice Chair
District 2
Victoria Petro
District 1
Eva Lopez Chavez
District 4
Darin Mano
District 5
Dan Dugan
District 6
Sarah Young
District 7
Generated: 09:29:53
LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY of
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH MEETING
Please note: Dates not identified in the FYI - Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet
determined.
WELCOME AND PUBLIC MEETING RULES
A.LBA OPENING CEREMONY:
1.Board/Council Member Sarah Young will conduct the formal meeting.
2.Pledge of Allegiance.
B.LBA CONSENT:
1.Resolution: Budget for the Capital Projects Fund of the Local Building
Authority for Fiscal Year 2025-26
The Board will set the dates of Tuesday, May 20, 2025 and Tuesday, June 3, 2025 at 7
p.m. to accept public comment and consider approving a resolution that would adopt the
final budget for the Capital Projects Fund of the Local Building Authority of Salt Lake
City, Utah for Fiscal Year 2025-26.
The LBA’s Capital Projects Fund for Fiscal Year 2025-26 only includes the bond debt
services for the Glendale and Marmalade Libraries. (Other Capital projects throughout
the City are included in the Mayor’s Recommended Budget.) The LBA is a financing tool
for cities and government entities, like libraries, to bond for capital projects at better
interest rates. Capital projects are big projects like parks, public buildings, and street
projects.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - TBD
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 15, 2025
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 20, 2025 and Tuesday,
June 3, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
Staff Recommendation - Set date.
C.LBA ADJOURNMENT:
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Please note: Dates not identified in the FYI - Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet
determined.
D.OPENING CEREMONY:
1.Welcome and Public Meeting Rules.
2.YouthCity Government will present the Youth State of the City Address.
E.PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1.Ordinance: Yalecrest-Upper Yale Local Historic District
The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would
amend the zoning map to apply the H-Historic Overlay District, establishing the
Yalecrest - Upper Yale Local Historic District. The district would include 24 homes at
approximately 1802 to 1885 East Yale Avenue, along both sides of Yale Avenue. The
proposal would also update the 2005 Yalecrest Reconnaissance Level Survey. Local
Historic Districts are designed to maintain the historic character of a neighborhood by
protecting historic features and preventing out-of-character alterations. The properties
are located in Council District 6. Petitioner: Patricia Goede. Petition No.: PLNHLC2023-
00571.
For more information visit tinyurl.com/HistoricDistrictsSLC.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, March 4, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 25, 2025
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 15, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 6, 2025
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
2.Ordinance: Permitting Outdoor Theaters in Commercial Districts
The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending
various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code relating to Outdoor Theaters in
Commercial Districts. The proposal would permit live performance theaters, either
indoor or outdoor, within the CG (General Commercial) District and other districts that
may be appropriate based on intensity, scale, and location. Currently, only indoor live
performance theaters are permitted. Other sections of Title 21A may also be amended as
part of this petition. Petition No.: PLNPCM2024-00595.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, March 4, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 25, 2025
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 15, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 6, 2025
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
3.Ordinance: Zoning Map Amendment at Approximately 273 East 800 South
The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would
amend the zoning of the property at approximately 273 East 800 South from I
(Institutional District) to RMF-45 (Moderate/High-Density Multi-Family Residential
District). The proposal would enable a deeply affordable housing project development
with 34 one-bedroom apartments available to those with 30% Area Median Income
(AMI) or lower. The property currently contains a vacant office building. Consideration
may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar
characteristics. The project is within Council District 4. Petitioner: Harold Woodruff, on
behalf of First Step House. Petition No.: PLNPCM2024-01153.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, March 18, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 25, 2025
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 15, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 6, 2025
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
4.Ordinance: Alley Vacation Near 1409 South Edison Street
The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that
would vacate a portion of City-owned alley adjacent to properties at approximately 1409
South Edison Street and 1404 South 200 East. If approved, the alley segment property
would be divided and transferred to the abutting property owners. The Planning
Commission forwarded a negative recommendation. Located within Council District 5.
Petitioner: Davis Oatway, an adjacent property owner. Petition No.: PLNPCM2024-
00439.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, March 18, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 25, 2025
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 15, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 6, 2025
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
5.Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.5 for Fiscal Year 2024-25
The Council will accept public comment and consider an ordinance amending the final
budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document for Fiscal Year
2024-25 Budget. Budget amendments happen several times each year to reflect
adjustments to the City’s budgets, including proposed project additions and
modifications. The proposed amendment includes funding to cover remaining costs for
the 400 South Bridge Reconstruction project, funds to repair homes in the Community
Land Trust, additional funding for the Hive Pass program because of increased usage, and
funding to expand the scope of a public restroom study.
For more information visit tinyurl.com/SLCFY25.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, April 1, 2025; Tuesday, April 8, 2025; and Tuesday, April 15,
2025
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 1, 2025
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 15, 2025 and Tuesday,
May 6, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 6, 2025
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
6.Grant Application: Victim of Crime Act Grant – City Attorney Prosecutor’s
Office
The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the City
Attorney Prosecutor’s Office to the Utah Office for Crime Victims. If awarded, the
Administration has requested two additional full-time grant-funded Victim Advocates,
and the continuation of one exiting full-time grant-funded Victim Advocate. The grant
would also fund a software license for Victim Services Tracking (VSTracking), training,
travel, information packet for victims, workshop materials, and emergency services
funds.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - n/a
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 15, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent
agenda.
F.POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS:
1.2025-29 Housing and Urban Development Consolidated Plan Update and
Timeline
The Council will consider adopting an ordinance approving the City’s next five-year
Consolidated Plan for 2025-29 as required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD). The Consolidated Plan details the City’s goals and objectives that
determine funding eligibility and prioritize how to spend four federal grants: Community
Development Block Grants (CDBG), Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG), Home
Investment Partnerships, and Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA).
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, October 1, 2024 and Tuesday, February 11, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, February 18, 2025
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 4, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 15, 2025
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
2.Fiscal Year 2025-26 Funding Allocations One-year Action Plan for
Community Development Block Grant & Other Federal Grants
The Council will consider adopting an appropriations resolution that would allocate grant
funding provided through four federal Housing and Urban Development Department
(HUD) programs. For fiscal year 2025-26, approximately $7.7 million dollars is expected
to flow through the Division of Housing Stability to community service providers selected
by the Council. The HUD programs that provide this funding and oversee activities of
grant recipients are: Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), the HOME
Investment Partnership Program, Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG), and Housing
Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA). The resolution under consideration
would also approve an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City and the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), as well as the new fiscal
year 2025-29 Consolidated Plan.
For more information visit www.tinyurl.com/annualhudgrants.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, March 18, 2025; Tuesday, March 25, 2025; and Tuesday, April
1, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, February 18, 2025
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 4, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 15, 2025
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
G.COMMENTS:
1.Questions to the Mayor from the City Council.
2.Comments to the City Council. (This is a one-hour time slot for the public to
comment on any City business not scheduled for a public hearing. Each person
will have two minutes to talk. General comment registration closes at 7:30 p.m.)
H.NEW BUSINESS:
1.Ordinance: Approving an MOU between Salt Lake City and the Salt Lake City
Police Association
The Council will consider adopting an ordinance approving a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between Salt Lake City and the Salt Lake City Police Association.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - n/a
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 15, 2025
Staff Recommendation - Suspend the rules and consider motions.
2.Legislative Action: Review City Code Pertaining to the Number of Unrelated
People in a Dwelling Unit
The Council will consider adopting a Legislative Action that would request the
Administration review City code sections regarding the number of unrelated people living
together in a dwelling unit, and provide recommendations for potential updates for the
definition of "family”
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, April 8, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 15, 2025
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
3.Ordinance: Enacting Temporary Zoning Regulations - Volunteers of America
Youth Resource Center
The Council will consider adopting an ordinance enacting a temporary zoning regulation
authorizing the Volunteers of America Youth Resource Center at approximately 888
South 400 West to increase the maximum capacity up to fifty individuals, as long as the
maximum occupancy meets building and fire code safety standard. The ordinance will
take effect on June 4, 2025, for up to 180 days.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, April 15, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 15, 2025
Staff Recommendation - Suspend the rules and consider
motions.
4.Ordinance: Enacting Temporary Zoning Regulations - Geraldine E. King
Women’s Resource Center
The Council will consider adopting an ordinance extending a temporary zoning regulation
authorizing the Geraldine E. King Women’s Resource Center at approximately 131 East
700 South to increase the maximum capacity up to 250 individuals, as long as the
maximum occupancy meets building and fire code safety standards. The ordinance will
take effect on May 1, 2025, for up to 180 days.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, April 15, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 15, 2025
Staff Recommendation - Suspend the rules and consider
motions.
5.Ordinance: Enacting Temporary Zoning Regulations - Gail Miller Resource
Center
The Council will consider adopting an ordinance extending a temporary zoning regulation
authorizing the Gail Miller Resource Center at 242 West Paramount Avenue to increase
the maximum capacity up to 250 individuals, as long as the maximum occupancy meets
building and fire code safety standards. The ordinance will take effect on May 1, 2025, for
up to 180 days.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, April 15, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 15, 2025
Staff Recommendation - Suspend the rules and consider
motions.
6.Ordinance: Enacting Temporary Zoning Regulations - St. Vincent de Paul
Center
The Council will consider adopting an ordinance extending a temporary zoning regulation
authorizing the St. Vincent de Paul Center located at 437 West 200 South, to provide
overnight homeless shelter accommodations beyond April 15th, and at the current level of
occupancy, as long as the maximum occupancy meets building and fire code safety
standards. The ordinance will take effect on April 16, 2025, for up to 180 days.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, April 15, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 15, 2025
Staff Recommendation - Suspend the rules and consider
motions.
I.UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
NONE.
J.CONSENT:
1.Ordinances relating to Fiscal Year 2025-26 City Budget, including the budget
for the Library Fund
The Council will set the dates of Tuesday, May 20, 2025 and Tuesday, June 3, 2025 at 7
p.m. to accept public comment regarding an ordinance adopting the final budget and the
employment staffing document for Salt Lake City, Utah and related ordinances for Fiscal
Year 2025-26.
For more information visit https://tinyurl.com/SLCFY26.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - TBD
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 15, 2025
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 20, 2025 and Tuesday,
June 3, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
Staff Recommendation - Set date.
2.Ordinance: Alley Vacation Near 2680 South Chadwick
The Council will set the date of Tuesday, May 6, 2025 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment
and consider adopting an ordinance that would vacate a City-owned alley between
approximately 2615 South and 2700 South, and between Beverly Street and Chadwick
Streets. If approved, the alley would be divided and given to the property owners that
abut the alley. The applicant has requested the vacation due to various structures and
vegetation in the alley, as well as an overall lack of use. The request is supported by the
Sugar House Master Plan. Located within Council District 7. Petitioner: Taylor Thomas,
owner of 2680 South Chadwick. Petition No.: PLNPCM2024-00973.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, April 8, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 15, 2025
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 6, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 20, 2025
Staff Recommendation - Set date.
3.Grant Holding Account Items (Batch No.4) for Fiscal Year 2024-25
The Council will consider approving Grant Holding Account Items (Batch No.4) for Fiscal
Year 2024-25.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - n/a
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 15, 2025
Staff Recommendation - Approve.
4.Board Appointment: Art Design Board – Michelle Buhler
The Council will consider approving the appointment of Michelle Buhler to the Art
Design Board for a term ending April 15, 2028.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, April 15, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 15, 2025
Staff Recommendation - Approve.
5.Board Appointment: Art Design Board – Wisam Khudhair
The Council will consider approving the appointment of Wisam Khudair to the Art Design
Board for a term ending April 15, 2028.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, April 15, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 15, 2025
Staff Recommendation - Approve.
6.Board Appointment: Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry, and Trails
(PNUT) Advisory Board – Sarah Foran
The Council will consider approving the appointment of Sarah Foran to the PNUT Board
for a term ending April 15, 2028.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, April 15, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 15, 2025
Staff Recommendation - Approve.
7.Board Appointment: Transportation Advisory Board – Kelbe Goupil
The Council will consider approving the appointment of Kelbe Goupil to the
Transportation Advisory Board for a term ending September 25, 2028.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, April 15, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 15, 2025
Staff Recommendation - Approve.
8.Board Appointment: Transportation Advisory Board – Turner Bitton
The Council will consider approving the appointment of Turner Bitton to the
Transportation Advisory Board for a term ending September 25, 2028.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, April 15, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 15, 2025
Staff Recommendation - Approve.
9.Board Appointment: Transportation Advisory Board – Ari Tepper
The Council will consider approving the appointment of Ari Tepper to the Transportation
Advisory Board for a term ending September 25, 2028.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, April 15, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 15, 2025
Staff Recommendation - Approve.
K.ADJOURNMENT:
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
On or before 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, April 10, 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.
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: Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:April 15, 2025
RE: Yalecrest – Upper Yale Local Historic District
PLNHLC2023-00571
MOTION 1 (close and defer)
I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting.
MOTION 2 (close and adopt (if the Council would like to adopt tonight))
I move that the Council close the public hearing and adopt the ordinance.
MOTION 3 (continue hearing)
I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting.
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:April 15, 2025
RE: Yalecrest – Upper Yale Local Historic District
PLNHLC2023-00571
BRIEFING UPDATE
During the March 4, 2025 briefing Council Members discussed with Planning staff the benefits and
differences between local historic districts (LHDs), and properties on the National Register of Historic
Places. Buildings within LHDs have some protections against demolition that are not available to those on
the National Register. This is one of the few tools the City has to prevent demolition of historic structures.
Some tax incentives are available to owners of properties on the National Register. Planning also noted
LHDs help preserve neighborhood character while also allowing internal interior dwelling units, or exterior
units provided they meet regulations of the LHD overlay. They further stated there is potential to construct
infill projects utilizing affordable housing incentives within LHDs.
Council Members discussed the competing goals of preservation and increasing affordable housing. Tools
to preserve historic structures could also be used to prevent change that would allow families who
otherwise could not afford it to move into some neighborhoods.
It was noted that creating LHDs is a difficult, expensive, and time-consuming process. Council Members
expressed interest in a policy discussion on how to support eligible neighborhoods that would like to create
an LHD but do not have the resources to go through the process. Planning staff stated the Mayor or City
Council can initiate the LHD process, which differs somewhat from those initiated by residents. It is
important to note that a City initiated LHD would still need resident support to be finalized.
Following the meeting, staff checked with Planning and learned if the Council wanted to initiate an LHD
the process could begin with a legislative intent. The process would then largely be the same as resident
Item Schedule:
Briefing: March 4, 2025
Set Date: March 25, 2025
Public Hearing: April 15, 2025
Potential Action: May 6, 2025
Page | 2
initiated LHDs, though City staff would complete the several steps outlined below in the bulleted list and
flow chart.
The following information was provided for the March 4, 2025 Council briefing. It is
included again for background purposes.
ISSUE AT A GLANCE
The Council will be briefed about the proposed Upper Yale Local Historic District (LHD) in the Yalecrest
neighborhood, including progress since the December 5, 2023 work session report from planning.. The
Council will then have a public hearing and consider action on the LHD request.
Boundaries of the proposed Upper Yale LHD are 1800 to 1900 East on both sides of Yale Avenue as shown
in the map below. The proposed LHD boundaries include 24 properties with homes.
Creating an LHD amends the zoning map by applying the H-Historic Overlay District to the proposed area,
which is a step that requires City Council approval. Council review, public hearing, and vote are the final
steps in the process.
The Historic Landmark and Planning Commissions reviewed the proposal at their June 5
and June 26, 2024 meetings respectively, and held public hearings. Both Commissions
followed Planning staff’s recommendation and voted unanimously to forward positive
recommendations to the City Council to create the LHD.
On January 8, 2025 the Planning Commission reviewed a recommendation from Planning
staff to update the reconnaissance level survey for the subject area in which three homes
were incorrectly identified as non-contributing. The Commission voted unanimously to
forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to change the status of those
properties to contributing. (The Historic Landmark Commission voted on the survey update
matter at their previous meeting on June 5, 2024.)
Goal of the briefing: To review the proposed local historic district, address questions Council Members
may have and prepare for a public hearing and decision.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. The Council may wish to ask for more information about whether establishing a Historic District
will conflict with other Citywide policies, such as the upcoming R-1 residential district
consolidation.
2. In the past, the creation of Historic Districts created some discussion among constituents with
opposing perspectives. The Council may wish to ask the Administration whether they have received
any concerns or anticipate any substantive objections.
Page | 3
Proposal Upper Yale local historic district outlined in red.
Other local historic districts in the vicinity are shaded in blue.
Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
There are several steps to LHD creation as outlined below and in a graphic at the end of this report.
LHD Creation Process
Pre-application meeting.
Initial letter mailed to all property owners within proposed district.
Application submittal.
Notice of application letter mailed.
Planning Director’s report to the City Council (December 5, 2023)
Property owner meeting seeking input from and informing owners about the process and
requirements.
Open house seeking input from and informing immediate neighborhood and general public about
the proposal.
Historic Landmark Commission public hearing, review, and recommendation.
Planning Commission public hearing, review, and recommendation.
Property owner ballot to determine support of LHD creation.
City Council review, public hearing, and decision. (Current step)
A 2005 Reconnaissance Level Survey (RLS) of the Yalecrest National Historic District area found that 19 of
the 24 homes (~79%) within the proposed Upper Yale LHD were rated as contributing structures. In June
2023 staff from the City Planning Division and State Historic Preservation Office met to review the 2005
RLS. They confirmed the 19 homes listed as “contributing” on the RLS retain that status. They also
identified 3 homes were incorrectly identified as “non-contributing” and found the 3 homes’ rating should
be changed to “contributing.” If the City Council adopts the draft ordinance that includes these properties
22 of the 24 structures in the proposed LHD (~92%) would be listed as “contributing.”
Page | 4
Reconnaissance Level Surveys are the most basic approach for systematically documenting and evaluating
historic buildings and are based on a visual evaluation of the properties.
Following the Historic Landmark Commission and Planning Commission meetings, ballots required for
LHD creation were mailed August 5, 2024 ,to all property owners within the proposed Upper Yale LHD.
Owners were given 30 days to return their ballots indicating support of, or opposition to the proposal. The
City Recorder issued the Official Canvas of the Property Owner Opinion Ballot September 12, 2024, which
contained the following results:
Ballots in Support ...............................13
Ballots Opposed...............................3
Did Not Vote ..........................................8
Undeliverable/Did Not Receive ......0
Returned but Did Not Vote .............0
Returned After Due Date.................0
Total Ballots Returned..........16 of 24
Since the number of returned property owner opinion ballots (66%) equals the required two-thirds
threshold of ballots mailed, and ballots in support (54%) represents more than 50% of the number of
parcels in the proposed LHD, the City Council may designate the LHD by a simple majority vote. It should
be noted that the Council is not bound by the property owners’ opinion ballot results.
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
Below is a chronology for the proposed LHD with steps in the flowchart below indicated.
May 25, 2023 – Pre-application meeting. (Step 1)
June 12, 2023 – Property owners sent a notice and a “Local Historic District Pros and Cons”
informational letter indicating that the Planning Division had been notified by a property owner of
interest in creating a new local historic district. (Step 2)
July 18, 2023 – LHD application submitted to Planning Division. (Step 3)
August 11, 2023 – Property owners were sent a notice of application and “Local Historic District
Pros and Cons” information letter indicating that the Planning Division had received an
application, including the required number of signatures to initiate the designation of a new local
historic district. (Step 4)
December 5, 2023 – Planning Director’s report to the City Council. The Council directed Planning
staff to move forward processing the proposed new LHD. (Step 5)
January 30/March 18, 2024 – Property owners sent notice for the required neighborhood
information meeting to be held February 21 and April 1, 2024. (Step 6)
February 21/April 1, 2024 – Property owner meetings held at Anderson Foothill Library.
Approximately 13 property owners attended. (Step 6)
Page | 5
April 4, 2024 – Property owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposed LHD mailed online
open house notification. Open house ran from April 40May 20, 2024. (Step 6)
April 9, 2024 – Email sent to Yalecrest Neighborhood Council, Foothill-Sunnyside Community
Organization, and KEEPYalecrest with online open house notification. (Step 6)
May 23, 2024 – Historic Landmark Commission public hearing notice sent to property owners and
residents within 300 feet of the proposed LHD. Listserv notification of the Historic Landmark
Commission’s agenda emailed. Agenda posted on the Planning Division and State websites. (Step 7)
June 5, 2024 – Historic Landmark Commission briefing and public hearing. The Commission
voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. (Step 7)
June 12, 2024 – Planning Commission public hearing notice mailed to all property owners and
residents within 300 feet of the proposed LHD. Listserv notification of the Planning Commission
agenda emailed. Agenda posted on the Planning Division and State websites. (Step 7)
June 26, 2024 – Planning Commission briefing and public hearing. The Commission voted
unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council on the proposed LHD.
(Step 7)
August 5, 2024 – Property Owner Opinion Ballot (Support Survey) mailed to all property owners
within the proposed LHD asking if they support or are opposed to the proposed LHD. Ballots were
required to be returned to the City Recorder’s Office or postmarked by September 3, 2024. (Step 8)
September 12, 2024 – City Recorder’s Office released results of the survey. 13 property owners were
in support, 3 were opposed, and 8 did not vote. (Step 8)
October 8, 2024 – Planning staff requested ordinance from the City Attorney’s Office.
November 5, 2024 – Planning received ordinance from the City Attorney’s Office.
December 23, 2024 – Planning Commission public hearing notice for updated RLS ratings mailed
to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposed LHD. Listserv notification of
the Planning Commission agenda emailed. Agenda posted on the Planning Division and State
websites. (Step 7)
January 8, 2024 – Item returned to Planning Commission for a recommendation on the 2005
Yalecrest RLS historic status rating updates. The Commission voted unanimously to forward a
positive recommendation to the City Council to update the survey.
January 21, 2025 – Planning staff requested ordinance that includes the RLS updates from the City
Attorney’s Office.
February 14, 2025 – Planning received updated ordinance from the City Attorney’s Office.
February 21, 2025 – Transmittal received in City Council Office.
Page | 6
March 4, 2025 – City Council briefing. (Public hearing anticipated to be held April 15, 2025, and a
potential Council vote May 6, 2025.) (Step 9)
LHD Designation Process Flowchart
Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division
Item E2
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:April 15, 2025
RE: Permitting Outdoor Theaters in Commercial Districts Text Amendment
PLNPCM2024-00595
MOTION 1 (close and defer)
I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting.
MOTION 2 (close and adopt (if the Council would like to adopt tonight))
I move that the Council close the public hearing and adopt the ordinance.
MOTION 3 (continue hearing)
I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting.
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:April 15, 2025
RE: Permitting Outdoor Theaters in Commercial Districts Text Amendment
PLNPCM2024-00595
BRIEFING UPDATE
During a March 4, 2025 briefing the Council was generally supportive of the proposed text amendment.
They clarified with Planning staff that buffers between commercial and residential lots includes entire
residential lots.
When asked about neighborhood backyard concerts, Planning noted those are allowed provided they are
not commercial in nature. If these events create noise or parking issues, those can be enforced. There
would also not be changes to the noise ordinance as a result of this proposal.
The following information was provided for the March 4, 2025 Council briefing. It is
included again for background purposes.
Planning staff briefed the Council on changes to the City code the Administrating is proposing for work
done without a certificate of appropriateness (COA). It would address unlawful construction and
demolition activities in the Historic Preservation Zoning District Overlay to protect historic resources in
local historic districts and local landmark sites citywide. Work on the proposed text amendment began
several months ago and was not initiated by any single event.
Council Members discussed the importance of preserving historic structures and the increased risk of
losing them given pressures associated with growth in the city. A Council Member noted owners of historic
buildings are stewards of the structures and responsible for their maintenance during the time they own
them giving future generations an opportunity to enjoy these buildings and have a chance at stewardship.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: March 4, 2025
Set Date: March 25, 2025
Public Hearing: April 15, 2025
Potential Action: May 6, 2025
Page | 2
The Council expressed a desire for the financial penalty of illegally demolishing a historic structure to be
significant enough to dissuade someone from doing so and not have fees and fines low enough to be
considered a “cost of doing business.” There was also a discussion of a potentially higher level of scrutiny
for landmark sites, which are seen as buildings that have an even greater value. Planning is working on
additional information and will provide it to the Council when it is ready.
Under the proposal, a contributing building that is demolished without a COA would require
reconstruction. The property owner would be required to enter a restrictive covenant with the City
prohibiting demolition and major alterations to the reconstructed building for 25 years and the restrictive
covenant would transfer to any future property owner during that period. Planning found that
development potential of property is sometimes viewed as more valuable than buildings on the property.
Restricting development on a site is seen as a more effective deterrent than fines.
Planning staff is working on a separate text amendment with fees that relate to the current enforcement
without a certificate of appropriateness proposal. This proposed text amendment will come to the Council
in the coming weeks. Some of the proposed fees include:
work without a certificate of appropriateness for full or partial demolition of contributing structure
or landmark site: $250/day (new)
Increased boarded building fee outside H overlay: $14,000 (currently $1,560)
Enhanced fee for boarded contributing structures: $14,850 (new)
o It is worth noting that only one of the boarded building fees would be charged.
Stop work order: $230/day (new)
Increase general fines for violations to $50-$200/day.
Following the briefing, a Council Member asked about requiring demolition permits to be posted on sites
where demolition is happening. The Administration said International Commercial, and Residential
Building Codes, which are included in State code, require permits to be kept at the work site. The
International Code Council oversees these building codes and provided commentary saying permits must
be displayed at work sites, but these comments are not included in the adopted International Building
Codes. The City’s building code follows State code which requires permits onsite but does not require them
to be posted.
If the City building code is changed to be more restrictive than State code, the State Building Code
Commission generally needs to grant permission. There is a process for this which takes several months
and may or may not be approved.
In addition, Council Members asked the following questions during the briefing. As of the publishing of
this staff report the Administration’s responses are not yet available, but we will forward them to the
Council as soon as they are.
Can the City prohibit a developer who demolishes a historic building without a certificate of
appropriateness from doing business in the city for one year (or another timeframe)?
Can the City assess a vacant property fine for buildings demolished without a certificate of
appropriateness?
What is the feasibility of assessing some number of historic buildings in the city each year (number
TBD) and creating a report describing building condition. This would help identify buildings that
are allowed to deteriorate to the point of being economically unfeasible to preserve.
Can the fee for full or partial demolition of a contributing building be either the proposed $250/day
or tied to a percentage of the property’s assessed value, whichever is greater?
POLICY QUESTION
Page | 4
1. The Council may wish to discuss changing City code by adding a requirement to display demolition
permits on work sites. This would follow the State Building Code Commission process discussed
above.
Item E3
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:April 15, 2025
RE: First Step House Zoning Map Amendment at Approximately 273 East 800 South
PLNPCM2024-01153
MOTION 1 (close and defer)
I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting.
MOTION 2 (close and adopt (if the Council would like to adopt tonight))
I move that the Council close the public hearing and adopt the ordinance, which includes the condition of a
development agreement.
MOTION 3 (continue hearing)
I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting.
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:April 15, 2025
RE: First Step House Zoning Map Amendment at Approximately 273 East 800 South
PLNPCM2024-01153
BRIEFING UPDATE
During a March 18, 2025 briefing the Council expressed appreciation for work First Step House does
meeting the needs of its clients, many of whom would be homeless without services the organization
provides. It was noted that the vast majority of residents in another building First Step House operates are
original tenants from when the facility opened in 2020. The need for affordable housing, particularly for
those with very low income, was also discussed. Salt Lake County estimates that there are at least 1,000
people who need the very low-income housing and services First Step House provides.
The Council also discussed concerns the community council and neighborhood have with the concentration
of affordable housing in this part of the city. A desire to provide housing in all parts of the city for those
with very low incomes was expressed.
The Council took a straw poll and supported requirements for a development agreement requiring fencing
around the property, exterior lighting and security cameras, and signage to discourage loitering on the
property as suggested by the Police Department. A condition included in the draft ordinance requires the
developer to enter into a development agreement with the City that includes these.
The following information was provided for the March 18, 2025 briefing. It is included
again for background purposes.
ISSUE AT A GLANCE
Item Schedule:
Briefing: March 18, 2025
Set Date: March 25, 2025
Public Hearing: April 15, 2025
Potential Action: May 6, 2025
Page | 2
The Council will be briefed about a proposal to amend the zoning map for the parcel at 273 East 800 South
from its current I (Institutional) zoning to RMF-45 (Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential).
First Step House, an organization that assists those with very low income and behavioral health conditions,
owns the property and intends to construct a deeply affordable housing development with approximately
34 one-bedroom apartments available to those with incomes at 30% area median income (AMI) or lower.
Multi-family housing is not permitted in the I zoning district unless adaptive reuse incentives are used. A
vacant single story office building on the site was not large enough to be utilized for the intended housing
and has been demolished.
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at its December 11, 2024 meeting and held a public
hearing at which six people spoke or had their comments read expressing opposition to the proposal.
Concerns cited include: an oversaturation of homeless services in the area, the proposed building is out of
character for the neighborhood, and a preference for family-sized for sale housing to help stabilize the
neighborhood. Planning staff recommended and the Commission voted 6-0 to forward a
positive recommendation to the Council with a condition that the applicant enter into a
development agreement with the City requiring the housing to be available to those with
incomes at 30% AMI or lower.
Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning map amendments, determine if the Council supports
moving forward with the proposal.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration how the proposed RMF-35/45 zoning
consolidation project might affect the applicant’s request. This petition was on the Wednesday,
March 12 Planning Commission agenda. (See Consideration 4 below for more information.)
2. The Council may wish to discuss the Planning Commission recommendation to include a
development agreement restricting housing to those with incomes at 30% AMI or lower if a
residential development is constructed on the property.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The approximately 0.64-acre parcel is located on the northwest corner of 800 South and 300 East.
Surrounding zoning is a mix of low and medium-density RMF-30, 35, and 45 multi-family, RB (Residential
Business), and SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential) as shown in the area zoning map below.
Single-family homes are located to the west of the subject property and fronting 800 South east of 300
East. Multi-family residential developments are located to the north, east, and south.
First Step House also owns a facility at 440 South 500 East that provides treatment services for those
recovering from addiction. The proposed building that is the subject of this request is not intended to
provide treatment but would have onsite supportive services including move-in orientation, case
management, and tenant rights education.
Page | 3
Area zoning map with the subject property shaded in blue.
Transit options in the area include bus lines on 900 South, and on State Street. Additionally, the red line
Library Trax station is approximately a half mile to the north on 400 South. There is also a network of bike
lanes in the area including a protected lane on 300 East.
The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property. Because zoning of a property can outlast
the life of a building, any rezoning application should be considered on the merits of changing the zoning of
that property, not simply based on a potential project.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
Planning staff identified five key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 3-5 of the
Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the staff
report.
Consideration 1 – How the Proposal Helps Implement City Goals & Policies Identified in
Adopted Plans
Planning staff reviewed the proposed zoning map amendment and how it aligns with Plan Salt Lake,
Housing SLC, and Thriving in Place. They found the proposal would provide deeply affordable housing
units in an area with needed infrastructure, services and nearby transit options.
Although the Central Community Master Plan future land use map calls for this property to remain within
the Institutional zoning district, Planning noted there is not demand for office space in the existing
building.
Page | 4
Consideration 2 – General Plan Amendment
As discussed above, the Central Community Master Plan future land use map lists the property as
Institutional. In most instances a general plan amendment would be required so the proposed zoning
would align with the area’s community plan. However, City code does not require a general plan
amendment when proposed zoning includes affordable housing that is consistent with an identified need in
a housing plan adopted by the City.
Consideration 3 – Comparison of Zoning Districts
The following table found on pages 4-5 of the Planning Commission staff report compares current and
proposed zoning designations. It is replicated here for convenience.
Notable differences include reduced setbacks and buffers between the proposed building and adjacent
single-family homes in the RB, and RMF-35 zones.
Additionally, as discussed above, the Institutional zone allows residential uses only when adaptive reuse
incentives are used for existing buildings.
Zoning Standard Institutional (Current)RMF-45 (Proposed)
Maximum Height 35 feet and up to 75 feet with
design review and additional
setbacks.
45 feet
Front Yard 20 feet 25 feet
Rear Yard 25 feet 30 feet
Interior Side Yard 20 feet 8-10 feet
Maximum Building
Coverage
60%60%
Landscape Buffers Required when abutting a
residential district.
Required when abutting a lot in
a single-family or two-family
residential district.
Allowed Uses No residential uses allowed,
unless utilizing incentives to
reuse existing building(s).
All forms of residential are
allowed, except two-family and
twin homes.
Design Standards
Required
Exterior lighting None required
Consideration 4 – Potential Future Zoning Changes
Planning staff has been working on a proposal to combine the RMF-35 and RMF-45 zoning districts into a
new RMF-40 zoning district with a maximum height of 40 feet. However, on March 12, 2025 the Planning
Commission received a follow-up briefing on the proposed RMF-35/45 zoning consolidation and held a
public hearing. The Commission voted to continue the public hearing and table the item. Planning staff was
Page | 5
asked to continue working on the proposal. This will be reviewed again by the Commission before making a
recommendation to the City Council. The proposed consolidation, as currently proposed, does not include
an option to add additional height through the Affordable Housing Incentives.
In terms of how these proposed changes affect this project, it is worth noting that a future development on
the subject site would be vested under zoning regulations in place when a complete building permit
application is submitted. The desired height of this applicant would currently work within the existing
RMF45 zone.
Consideration 5 –Public Input
Planning staff received several emails and phone calls supporting and opposing the proposed development
at the subject site. Those who are opposed cited concerns with the concentration of affordable housing,
social services, and homeless resources in the neighborhood, parking, and crime. Those expressing support
of the proposal noted the opportunity to help people who need services, the good work First Step House
does, and the benefits of providing housing for unsheltered people in the community.
The Central City Neighborhood Council submitted a letter to Planning expressing opposition to the
proposed development if the property is rezoned. They cited concerns with an existing concentration of
supportive services and low-income housing, the site’s proximity to Taufer Park and apartments that have
a history of drug problems, and a desire to have for sale and/or family-sized housing, or retail uses on the
site.
Analysis of Standards
Attachment D (pages 32-34) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning map amendment
standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. The standards and findings are
summarized below. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for additional information.
Factor Finding
Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent
with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of
the city as stated through its various adopted
planning documents.
Complies
Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the
specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance.
Complies
The extent to which a proposed map amendment will
affect adjacent properties
May affect abutting
properties due to
potential height.
Some surrounding
properties could be
developed to similar
heights and uses.
Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent
with the purposes and provisions of any applicable
overlay zoning districts which may impose additional
standards.
Not applicable
Page | 6
The potential impacts on the city to provide safe
drinking water, storm water, and sewer to the
property and other properties based on the
additional development potential of future
development including any impact that may result in
exceeding existing or planned capacities that may be
located further away from the subject property.
Utilities already exist
but the developer may
need to upgrade.
The status of existing transportation facilities, any
planned changes to the transportation facilities, and
the impact that the proposed amendment may have
on the city’ s ability, need, and timing of future
transportation improvements.
Nearby bus, Trax,
and bike lanes
provide
transportation
options.
The proximity of necessary amenities such as parks,
open space, schools, fresh food, entertainment,
cultural facilities, and the ability of current and
future residents to access these amenities without
having to rely on a personal vehicle.
Parks, shops,
restaurants, and the
future Intermountain
Health hospital are
within walking or
biking distance.
The potential impacts to public safety resources
created by the increase in development potential that
may result from the proposed amendment.
No concerns from
police but
recommended
installing fencing,
cameras and lighting.
The potential for displacement of people who reside
in any housing that is within the boundary of the
proposed amendment and the plan offered by the
petitioner to mitigate displacement.
Not applicable
The potential for displacement of any business that is
located within the boundary of the proposed
amendment and the plan offered by the petitioner to
mitigate displacement.
Not applicable
The community benefits that would result from the
proposed map amendment.
Provides deeply
affordable housing.
City Department Review
During City review of the petitions, no responding departments or divisions expressed concerns with the
proposal but stated additional review, permits, and utility upgrades would be required if the property is
developed.
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
• October 8, 2024 – Petition for zoning map amendment received by Planning Division and
assigned to Cassie Younger, Senior Planner.
• October 15, 2024 –
Page | 7
o Central City Community Council and additional recognized organizations sent notice
informing them of the petition.
o Early notification letters mailed to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the
proposal.
• October 20, 2024 – Proposal posted to the City’s online open house webpage.
• November 6, 2024 – Applicant presented their proposal at the Central City Community Council
meeting.
• November 23, 2024 – Planning Commission public hearing notice posted on property.
• November 27, 2024 – Public hearing notice posted to City and State websites and hearing notice
mailed.
• December 11, 2024 – Planning Commission public hearing. The Commission voted 6:0 to forward
a positive recommendation to the City Council.
• January 6, 2025 – Ordinance requested from City Attorney’s Office.
• February 19,2025 – Planning received signed ordinance from the Attorney’s Office.
• February 21, 2025 – Transmittal received in City Council Office.
Item E4
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:April 15, 2025
RE: Alley Vacation – Alley Section Adjacent to 1409 South Edison Street
(PLNPCM2024-00439)
MOTION 1 (close and defer)
I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting.
MOTION 2 (continue hearing)
I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting.
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Brian Fullmer, Policy Analyst
DATE:April 15, 2025
RE: Alley Vacation – Alley Section Adjacent to 1409 South Edison Street
(PLNPCM2024-00439)
BRIEFING UPDATE
During a March 18, 2025 briefing the Council discussed potentially connecting the subject alley through to
a separate alley (not included in this proposal) if property owned by the State of Utah between the two
alleys is redeveloped at some point. Planning staff reminded the Council no alley exists on that property,
and one would need to be dedicated connecting to the northern alley if the property is redeveloped in the
future. Planning staff also noted the Utah Power & Light facility immediately north of the State of Utah
property blocks that alley so a future connection to 1300 South would not be feasible.
The following information was provided for the March 18, 2025 Council briefing. It is
included again for background purposes.
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will be briefed about a proposal to vacate an approximately 11-foot by 52-foot alley segment
between the applicant’s property at 1409 South Edison Street, and property at 1404 South 200 East in City
Council District Five. The alley begins at Cleveland Avenue and dead ends at the applicant’s north property
line where it meets a concrete wall around property owned by the State of Utah.
If approved by the City Council, the alley property would be divided and given to the two abutting property
owners. Both owners are supportive of the alley vacation.
Planning staff recommended the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City
Council. The Commission reviewed this petition at its November 13, 2024 meeting and held a public
hearing at which no one spoke. Commissioners discussed the potential for the adjacent State of Utah
Item Schedule:
Briefing: March 18, 2025
Set Date: March 25, 2025
Public Hearing: April 15, 2025
Potential Action: May 6, 2025
Page | 2
property being redeveloped at some point and benefits of an alley serving the property. The Commission
voted unanimously to forward a negative recommendation to the City Council for the
proposed alley vacation.
Goal of the briefing: Review the alley closure and determine if the Council supports moving forward
with the proposal.
Aerial image showing separate alleys (in purple) north and south of State of Utah property (outlined in red).
(An alley was never platted on the State property.) The subject alley vacation segment is indicated by a green
check mark. A red “X” indicates where the north alley is blocked adjacent to Utah Power & Light property
outlined in blue. A second red “X” indicates where Edison Street south of 1300 South terminates at the State
property. Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
A gate blocking the alley at the south end of the applicant’s property was illegally constructed by a previous
owner many years ago. The applicant did not realize the alley property was not his until he received a
zoning enforcement notice for blocking the alley. Property owners to the south use the alley to access their
properties and garages. This use will not be affected if the subject alley segment is vacated.
During the Planning Commission briefing Commissioners expressed a desire for the applicant to be able to
use the alley property while preserving options for future connectivity to the north. They asked about an
easement that would accomplish this. The Attorney’s Office said that is a possibility but would be a process
separate from the subject alley vacation.
Page | 3
A different alley runs between the north side of the State of Utah property mentioned above and 1300
South. It is worth noting that an alley was not platted on the State property, so the two alley sections never
connected to form a complete alley through the block between Cleveland Avenue and 1300 South. Utah
Power & Light has a power facility adjacent to the State of Utah property that blocks the alley north of the
State property.
Rocky Mountain Power has an easement on the full length of the alley from Cleveland Avenue to the
applicant’s property. This allows the company to service its overhead power lines. Access to these lines will
need to be maintained if the Council adopts the alley vacation request.
City Department Review
Attachment G of the Planning Commission staff report includes comments from City department review of
the proposal. These are summarized below. Please see the staff report for additional information.
During City review of the petition, the Engineering Division said it is generally opposed to vacating public
rights-of-way. The existing Rocky Mountain Power easement was also discussed and the requirement to
maintain access for the company to service its lines. No other responding departments or divisions
expressed concerns with the proposal.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
Planning staff identified three key considerations during analysis of these proposals which are found on
pages 5-6 of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis
please see the staff report.
Consideration 1 – Property Owner Consent
City code requires a minimum of 75% of property owners abutting alleys being considered for vacation sign
a petition expressing support. As noted above, there are two properties abutting the subject alley segment
and both property owners signed the petition.
Consideration 2 – Policy Considerations
Planning staff found the proposed alley vacation satisfies the Lack of Use policy consideration included in
the table below.
Consideration 3 – Master Plan Considerations
Planning staff reviewed how the proposed alley vacation aligns with the Central Community Master Plan
and Plan Salt Lake. Both plans support connectivity and circulation within neighborhoods. Alleys can help
provide these connections, but because the subject alley does not connect through the block between
Cleveland Avenue and 1300 South, it only serves abutting property owners. And as noted above, the
proposed vacation would impact the two property owners next to the alley segment.
ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS
Attachment E (pages 13-15 of the Planning Commission staff report) includes factors to consider when
reviewing alley vacation requests. The following is a summary of what is in the staff report. Please see the
report for additional information.
Factor Finding
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:
Complies
Planning staff found the alley vacation
request is consistent with policy
consideration A – Lack of Use.
Page | 4
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.
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 meets six 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.
The Engineering Division noted it
generally opposes any vacation of public
rights-of-way.
The petition meets at least one of the policy
considerations stated above.
Complies with Policy Consideration A –
Lack of Use.
The petition must not deny sole access or required off-
street parking to any adjacent property.
Complies
The petition will not result in any property being
landlocked.
Complies
The disposition of the alley property will not result in a
use 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
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
Does not comply.
The request is to vacate only a segment
of the alley.
The alley is optional for actual or potential rear access
to residences or for accessory uses.
Complies
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
July 12, 2024 – Petition submitted to Salt Lake City Planning Division.
July 18, 2024 – Petition assigned to Diana Martinez, Senior Planner.
Page | 5
August 21, 2024 –
o Early notification sent to the Liberty Wells Community Council Chair.
o 45-day input period begins.
August 22, 2024 – Early notification letter sent to abutting property owners and tenants within
300 feet of the alley segment requested to be vacated.
October 7, 2024 – 45-day comment period for recognized organizations ends.
November 1, 2024 – Public hearing notice signs with project information posted at the applicant’s
address and at the beginning of the alley on Cleveland Avenue.
December 13, 2023 – Planning Commission held a public hearing and forwarded a unanimous
negative recommendation to the City Council for the proposed amendments.
November 14, 2024 – Ordinance requested from Attorney’s Office
February 21, 2025 – Ordinance received from Attorney’s Office.
March 4, 2025 – Transmittal received in City Council Office.
ALLEY CLOSURE PROCESS
The alley closure process is dictated by Chapter 14.52 Salt Lake City Code which is included below for reference.
14.52.010: DISPOSITION OF CITY'S PROPERTY INTEREST IN ALLEYS:
The City supports the legal disposition of Salt Lake City's real property interests, in whole or in part, with
regard to City owned alleys, subject to the substantive and procedural requirements set forth herein. (Ord.
24-02 § 1, 2002)
14.52.020: POLICY CONSIDERATIONS FOR CLOSURE, VACATION OR ABANDONMENT OF
CITY OWNED ALLEYS:
The City will not consider disposing of its interest in an alley, in whole or in part, unless it receives a
petition in writing which demonstrates that the disposition satisfies at least one of the following policy
considerations:
A. Lack Of Use: The City's legal interest in the property appears of record or is reflected on an applicable
plat; however, it is evident from an on site inspection that the alley does not physically exist or has been
materially blocked in a way that renders it unusable as a public right-of-way;
B. Public Safety: The existence of the alley is substantially contributing to crime, unlawful activity,
unsafe conditions, public health problems, or blight in the surrounding area;
C. Urban Design: The continuation of the alley does not serve as a positive urban design element; or
D. Community Purpose: The petitioners are proposing to restrict the general public from use of the alley
in favor of a community use, such as a neighborhood play area or garden. (Ord. 24-02 § 1, 2002)
14.52.030: PROCESSING PETITIONS:
There will be three (3) phases for processing petitions to dispose of City owned alleys under this section.
Those phases include an administrative determination of completeness; a public hearing, including a
recommendation from the Planning Commission; and a public hearing before the City Council.
A. Administrative Determination Of Completeness: The City administration will determine whether or
not the petition is complete according to the following requirements:
1. The petition must bear the signatures of no less than seventy five percent (75%) of the neighbors
owning property which abuts the subject alley property;
2. The petition must identify which policy considerations discussed above support the petition;
3. The petition must affirm that written notice has been given to all owners of property located in the
block or blocks within which the subject alley property is located;
4. A signed statement that the applicant has met with and explained the proposal to the appropriate
community organization entitled to receive notice pursuant to title 2, chapter 2.60 of this Code; and
5. The appropriate City processing fee shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule has been
paid.
B. Public Hearing And Recommendation From The Planning Commission: Upon receipt of a complete
petition, a public hearing shall be scheduled before the Planning Commission to consider the proposed
disposition of the City owned alley property. Following the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning
Page | 6
Commission shall make a report and recommendation to the City Council on the proposed disposition of
the subject alley property. A positive recommendation should include an analysis of the following factors:
1. The City Police Department, Fire Department, Transportation Division, and all other relevant City
departments and divisions have no reasonable objection to the proposed disposition of the property;
2. The petition meets at least one of the policy considerations stated above;
3. Granting the petition will not deny sole access or required off street parking to any property adjacent
to the alley;
4. Granting the petition will not result in any property being landlocked;
5. Granting the petition will not result in a use of the alley property which is otherwise contrary to the
policies of the City, including applicable master plans and other adopted statements of policy which
address, but which are not limited to, mid block walkways, pedestrian paths, trails, and alternative
transportation uses;
6. No opposing abutting property owner intends to build a garage requiring access from the property,
or has made application for a building permit, or if such a permit has been issued, construction has been
completed within twelve (12) months of issuance of the building permit;
7. The petition furthers the City preference for disposing of an entire alley, rather than a small segment
of it; and
8. The alley property is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to residences or for accessory
uses.
C. Public Hearing Before The City Council: Upon receipt of the report and recommendation from the
Planning Commission, the City Council will consider the proposed petition for disposition of the subject
alley property. After a public hearing to consider the matter, the City Council will make a decision on the
proposed petition based upon the factors identified above. (Ord. 22-19, 2019: Ord. 58-13, 2013: Ord. 24-11,
2011)
14.52.040: METHOD OF DISPOSITION:
If the City Council grants the petition, the City owned alley property will be disposed of as follows:
A. Low Density Residential Areas: If the alley property abuts properties which are zoned for low density
residential use, the alley will merely be vacated. For the purposes of this section, "low density residential
use" shall mean properties which are zoned for single-family, duplex or twin home residential uses.
B. High Density Residential Properties And Other Nonresidential Properties: If the alley abuts
properties which are zoned for high density residential use or other nonresidential uses, the alley will be
closed and abandoned, subject to payment to the City of the fair market value of that alley property, based
upon the value added to the abutting properties.
C. Mixed Zoning: If an alley abuts both low density residential properties and either high density
residential properties or nonresidential properties, those portions which abut the low density residential
properties shall be vacated, and the remainder shall be closed, abandoned and sold for fair market value.
(Ord. 24-02 § 1, 2002)
14.52.050: PETITION FOR REVIEW:
Any party aggrieved by the decision of the City Council as to the disposition of City owned alley property
may file a petition for review of that decision within thirty (30) days after the City Council's decision
becomes final, in the 3rd District Court. (Ord. 24-02 § 1, 2002)
Item E5
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: Jennifer Bruno
DATE:April 15, 2025
RE: MOTION SHEET: Budget Amendment #5
MOTION 1 – Continue the public hearing
I move that the Council continue the Budget Amendment #5 public hearing.
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY25
TO:Council Members
FROM: Austin Kimmel, Sylvia Richards, Jennifer
Bruno and Allison Rowland
Budget and Policy Analysts
DATE: April 15, 2025
RE: Budget Amendment Number 5 of Fiscal Year (FY) 2025
New information
Due to a noticing issue, the City Recorder’s office is requesting that the Council continue the public hearing to May 6,
2025. Also, in an effort to avoid additional workload involving a sixth budget amendment during the annual budget
process, the Administration is proposing to add four New Items, (A-16 through A-19) to Budget Amendment No. 5.
A-16: National League of Cities 2025 City Summit Conference for the NLC – (Rescoping $250,000 from
the Mayor’s Office of existing personnel budget)
The City was chosen to host the 2025 City Summit NLC conference November 19th through November 22nd. Generally,
host cities are responsible for the program structure, content, logistics, and marketing. Specific expectations of host cities
are detailed below.
The Administration anticipates the costs related to this event to be more than $250,000, with $250,000 coming from the
Mayor’s Office existing personnel budget rescope, and an additional $250,000 coming from a request included in the
FY25-26 Mayor’s Recommended Budget. The transmittal indicates that expenses above the $500,000 will be covered by
fundraising. There will also be opportunities for sponsorships.
Events Approximate Number of Attendees
a. Conference closing events, including venue,
dinner and entertainment.
1,500 adults
b. An NLC Board of Directors dinner (typically
hosted by local elected officials, including transit,
a meal and a host city gift)
300 adults
c. A youth program for high-school aged students,
partnering with the City’s YouthCity program,
including a venue, food and entertainment.
250 children
d. General food and entertainment expenses
typically cover the opening session and
registration bags, general and educational
sessions, a delegates’ luncheon and snacks.
TBD
e. General transportation shuttle services for
attendees to and from official events held offsite
(separate from mobile workshops) including the
board dinner, closing event and potentially TRAX
passes.
TBD
Project Timeline:
Consent: April 1, 2025
1st Briefing: April 1, 2025
2nd Briefing: April 8, 2025
3rd Briefing & Public Hearing: April 15, 2025
Potential Adoption Vote: May 6, 2025
f. Approximately 10-15 mobile workshops with
expenses for venue fees, tour fees, and round-trip
transportation
TBD
g. Welcome room and a booth at the conference
center; welcome room for spouses and guests, and
the booth to provide information about the city.
(Things to do, local tours and other resources.)
An airport arrival welcome and information
booths at hotels may also be included.
TBD
(The following write-ups are from the Administration.)
A-17: Public Safety and Streets Maintenance Vehicles – Funding from Funding Our Future (FOF)
($5.2 million one-time from FOF)
The Administration is requesting a straw poll for this item.
The Administration is proposing to accelerate the Funding Our Future budget for vehicle replacements by adding the item
to Budget Amendment #5 instead of the FY26 annual budget. The uncertainty surrounding Federal tariff policies is a
significant risk. At the time of publishing, the 90-day pause on global reciprocal tariffs excluded the 25% tariffs on
imported vehicles and imported parts (even if the vehicle is assembled in the US). If reciprocal tariffs go into effect again,
then it’s unclear to what extent those costs could be in addition to the 25% tariffs currently in effect. The City previously
funded vehicle replacements from Funding Our Future at a similar ~$5 million level in FY2022, FY2023, and FY2024.
The Fleet Division provided the below breakout of how the $5.2 million would be used based on a worst-first replacement
schedule. If this funding is approved, then the Fleet Division would meet with the Fire Department, Police Department,
and Streets Division to review these vehicles to ensure they align with the department’s priority needs, and if needed
adjust individual vehicles.
The Administration is requesting a straw poll on this item so the Fleet Division may initiate paperwork to place the orders
while the manufacturer is still accepting new orders. The purchase order could not be finalized until the Council formally
votes to adopt this budget item. Vehicle manufacturer ordering windows have become less predictable in recent years and
the impact and timing of tariffs on vehicle pricing is uncertain at the time of publishing.
$4 million for public safety vehicles:
-$2.6 million for 40 police hybrid SUVs
-$1.416 million for three fire vehicles of which $1.3 million is a fire engine pumper and $116,000 for two F150
hybrid trucks
-The Fleet Division monitors electric fire engines for potential future purchases as these are still relatively new on
the market and are more expensive upfront
•$1.2 million for street maintenance vehicles:
-$484,000 for a street sweeper
-$335,000 for a dump trucko$216,000 for a tractor truck
-$90,000 for an F350 truck (currently no hybrid option)
-$75,000 for a trailer-mounted melter for applying sealant materials.
A-18: Request for Additional Police Overtime ($1 million from the General Fund)
The Police Department is requesting additional funding for targeted overtime to help ensure appropriate staffing coverage
and maintain core public safety functions across the City. This request is driven by an increase in calls for service, strategic
crime prevention efforts, and special event demands, all of which require a flexible, responsive workforce beyond standard
current staffing levels. The requested overtime will support the Police Department’s ability to:
-Respond to rising 9-1-1 and non-emergency calls for service, which have increased by 5% in 2025 when compared to
2024 (January 1 -April 10). Deploy officers proactively in crime hot spots using the Police Department’s stratified policing
approach, which prioritizes resources based on crime patterns and community risk. The Police Department’s proactive
policing has increased 15% when compared to2024 (January 1 -April 10).
-Provide staffing for high-visibility public safety initiatives, including: The Jordan River Trail, where enhanced operations
target violent crime, drug activity, and environmental hazards. As of April 7, 2025, officers working the specific JRT focus
area have made nearly 400 jail bookings and responded to more than 3,300 calls for service. Downtown safety, including
foot patrols and evening coverage for entertainment zones and business corridors. Parks and other open spaces, where
visible police presence can reduce disorder and increase public confidence. Additionally, the Police Department in 2025
has experienced a notable uptick in free speech, protest, and large-scale public events, which require significant officer
time for traffic control and crowd management. SLCPD have staffed approximately 24 protest or demonstration-related
events since the first of the year and it is anticipated we will exceed the previous year’s 62 such events.
As of April 7, 2025, the SLCPD has booked more than 1,500 individuals into the Salt Lake County Metro Jail and have
issued more than 1,200 citations in lieu of booking. Securing this overtime funding also helps ensure the Police
Department’s operational readiness and ability to respond to critical incidents, warrant execution, investigations and
obtaining of evidence, and collaborative operations with local, state, and federal partners as part of SLCPD’s public safety
mission. Divisions within the Police Department impacted by this request include Patrol, Investigations, and Special
Operations, including the SLCPD’s Gang Unit and Violent Criminal Apprehension Team. This overtime investment will
allow the SLCPD to remain proactive, adaptable, and responsive to the evolving needs of Salt Lake City. The (in the
Administration’s transmittal) provides a snapshot in time vacancy report for the Police Department’s current FTE
positions that are unfilled and the associated YTD savings. The Department has utilized the$1.3 million of vacancy savings
shown in the table to cover overtime up to this point in FY25.
A-19: Funding for Citizenship Classes, Application Fees, and English Language Classes – ($50,000
one-time from the General Fund)
This item would provide $50,000 one-time to the Good Samaritan Foundation and No Mas A Stranger’s path to
citizenship program which is a free legal clinic that assists legal permanent residents to pursue citizenship. A secondary
part of the process is to teach English skills and learn about the local community to help them become more active and
productive community members. $38,000 would allow 50 participants to have the filing fee covered on the N-400 forms:
$760 paper/$710 online for each. Some of the participants may qualify for a fee waiver through USCIS guidelines because
of their income. The remaining $12,000 would provide citizenship classes by the Guadalupe Center and English Skills
Language Center (ESLC).
Individuals who enroll will be chosen through an application process. Participants will take citizenship preparation classes
offered by a partner nonprofit with established programs. The program will include city-focused, and city-led sessions in
collaboration with other community partners. Additional details of the program are summarized below. Citizenship
Preparation Class: Partner with Guadalupe Center and ESLC to teach the classes and host the program.
Additional details of the program are summarized below:
Citizen Preparation Class:
-Partner with Guadalupe Center and ESLC to teach the classes and host the program.
-Classes will be marketed with the assistance of the community partners who already work with legal permanent
residents.
o Market the program through printed flyers at strategic locations such as community centers and public
libraries, as well as social media accounts.
o Educate participants on civic duties and create opportunities to prepare and exercise them.
o Create a civic education and engagement component involving specific city departments and elected officials:
Elected Leaders Nights
o Invite elected leaders to share with the class the importance of civic duties and community participation.
(council members, judges, etc to be invited) voting laws and process –County Clerk’s Office representative to
discuss laws, how to register to vote, and the voting process
o Jury Duty –Judge to present on what it means to serve on a jury Public Safety Night –Police and fire
departments can speak to the services they offer to the community’s Know Your City –an evening to share
other info about city departments/city work as well as volunteering.
Preparation and testing: Provide support between the time the classes end and the USCIS interview date for each student
by either creating a support group or contacting participants individually. Encourage them to take practice tests and
review class materials to prepare for their test.
o Celebrate with class participants when they take their Oath of Allegiance and become U.S. Citizens.
o Recognize program participants in Council Meetings for their efforts and as new Americans.
Community participation: Each participant will commit to completing a minimum of 40 to 60 service hours in the 6
months following cocompletion of the program. It can be completed in any of the following ways:
o Volunteer for the Know Your Neighbor Program Join a nonprofit or community board
o Volunteer as an observer or poll worker for upcoming elections Volunteer in any city-sponsored event
Volunteer with any local nonprofit Volunteer at a school
Reporting: the agencies will provide clear reporting on the number of residents served & outcomes.
Council Added Items
Item I-1 – Advantage Services Increase - $320,000 – Source: vacancy savings (Discussed on 4/8)
The adopted FY 25 budget for Advantage Services is $1.4 million. At the current usage rate, this would be fully expended
by the end of April. The Administration indicates the primary reason is the higher-than-anticipated usage rate for the
team, as well as expanding the team’s availability from 5 days a week to 7 days a week, to keep up with demand. To make
up the difference for FY 25, the Administration is proposing to use vacancy savings within the Community and
Neighborhoods budget. Because this is shifting personnel funds to non-personnel usage, it would need to be approved by
the Council. The Administration indicates that it will plan to include the full cost of the increased service in the FY 26
budget, as this has become an essential element to the City’s public safety plan.
New - The following two items are tangentially related to the larger policy discussion the Chair has scheduled on the
Council’s Communication budgets. Because they have already been discussed between some Council and community
members, they are included as Council Added items while that policy discussion is pending. The Council could decide to
approve these items regardless of the conclusion of the policy discussion.
Item I-2 – Council Added Item – Mead Avenue Underpass - $3,000 - $6,000 – Source: Council Office
Communication Budget for District 4 and/or District 5
On March 25th at a special meeting of the Community Reinvestment Agency (CRA), the Board straw polled support of
dedicating $50,000 from State Street Strategic Intervention funds to the Mead Avenue Underpass project, which the
Central 9th Community council is organizing with community member Nick Rimando. The project would provide
activation and neighborhood connectivity for a currently-unused UDOT overpass. Community stakeholders and the CRA
are continuing to work with UDOT on logistics of implementing these projects. Council Members Mano and Lopez Chavez
have been discussing with community stakeholders ways to add to the project budget, including potentially using $3,000
from the communications budgets for D4 and D5.
Item I-3 – Council Added Item – Art in D4 - $15,000 – Source: Council Office Communication Budget –
District 4
Council Member Lopez Chavez has been working with stakeholders in the community to commission a piece of art for D4,
that would be located on private property but would be prominent and public facing. The advantage of this approach is
that it would be maintained by the private property owner and would not an ongoing drain on City resources. It would also
be implemented more quickly that the typical City process through the Arts Council.
The Administration has provided responses to several of the follow-up questions raised by the Council at the April 1
briefing. They are included as an attachment to this staff report.
The following information was provided for the April 1, 2025 work session. It is provided again for reference.
Budget Amendment Number Five includes 20 proposed amendments, including $2,855,699 in revenues and $9,109,320 in
expenditures. The amendment proposes changes in six funds and moving 2.0 general fund positions from the Mayor’s
Office; 1 position will be moved to Public Lands, and one will move to IMS. With the adoption of Budget Amendment #5,
the available fund balance will be 20.81 percent of the FY 2025 Adopted Budget. If the item is adopted as proposed, then
Fund Balance would be $37,533,578 above the 13% minimum target.
Fund Balance
While the increased General Fund Balance is
positive for the City’s fiscal position, it’s
important to note that the annual budget has
used an escalating amount of one-time
General Fund Balance revenues to fill the
annual budget structural deficit. The chart to
the right was provided by the Finance
Department to show how much General
Fund Balance was used in the past seven
fiscal years. Note the City’s current fiscal year
is FY2025 so the FY2026 column is only for
discussion purposes to show the impact of
the trend continuing. The Council may wish
to discuss with the Administration policy
goals for the use of General Fund Balance in
the next annual budget such as whether
reducing the reliance on one-time funding to
fill the structural deficit.
Tracking New Ongoing General Fund Costs
for the Next Annual Budget
The table of potential new ongoing General
Fund costs for the FY2026 annual budget is
available as Attachment 1 at the end of this
document. The total new ongoing costs from
Budget Amendments 1 through 5 would be
$6,381,054. Note that of the total cost, $4.1
million would be needed if the Homeless
Shelter Cities State Mitigation grant is not
available for FY2026.
UPDATED Fund Balance Chart
The Administration has provided an updated revenue chart. Based on revenue data across the first part of the fiscal
year, it is proposed that revenues will be approximately $8.59 million above the FY 2025 Adopted Budget.
UPDATED Fund Balance Chart
The table below presents updated Fund Balance numbers and percentages based on the proposed changes included in
Budget Amendment #5.
With the complete adoption of Budget Amendment #5, the available fund balance will decrease to 19.52 percent of the FY
2025 Adopted Budget. If all the items are adopted as proposed, then Fund Balance would be $31,333,578 above the 13%
minimum target.
A summary spreadsheet outlining proposed budget changes is attached, which can be modified as determined
by the Council.
Impact Fee Unallocated “Available to Spend” Balances and Refund Tracking
The table below is current as of February 28, 2025. Impact fees must be encumbered or spent within six years
of the City receiving them. Expired impact fees must be returned to the entity who paid them with interest
over the intervening six years.
Type
Unallocated
Cash
“Available to
Spend”
Next Refund Trigger
Date
$ Expiring
in FY2027
Fire $750,546 More than two years away -
Parks $8,807,661 More than two years away -
Police $1,625,193 More than two years away -
Transportation $3,682,347 More than two years away -
Note: Encumbrances are an administrative function when impact fees are held under a contract
PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing
Section A: Grants Requiring No Staff Resources
A-1: 400 South Bridge Reconstruction over Jordan River – ($3,5000,000 – one-time from the County
Quarter Cent Fund Balance)
The Administration is requesting $3.5 million from the County quarter cent sales tax fund balance to fully fund
the 400 South bridge over the Jordan river. $4 million was allocated in FY 25, bringing the total to $7.5
million. Based on structural analysis, the bridge is at risk of being further downgraded, meaning emergency
vehicles and UTA buses may not be allowed on it until it is fixed. Funding it now would enable sooner
construction. The remaining fund balance in that account would be approximately $2 million if this item is
approved.
For more background on the inspection of the bridge and other funding for the project please refer to the
Administration’s transmittal.
A-2: Withdrawn prior to transmittal
A-3: Community Land Trust Program Funds Allocation – ($310,000 – one-time from Community Land
Trust)
The Administration is requesting funding from dormant program income fund dollars to repair various homes
in the Community Land Trust program. In previous discussions the Council indicated a willingness to allocate
funding within the program, acknowledging that the Administration was working on a more comprehensive
policy for the CLT. The administration indicates they expect to transmit that in April.
Policy question – the Council may wish to schedule a more in depth discussion on the Community Land Trust
when that policy is received from the Administration, particularly if there are budget adjustments that
could/should be made for the FY 26 budget.
A-4: Hive Pass Funding for Passes and Continuing Greenbike Membership – ($135,000 – one-time from
the General Fund
Due to increased usage of the HIVE pass, the administration is requesting $114,000 to help keep up with
demand. The budget was reduced a few years ago to align with usage, but between FY 24 and FY 25, usage
increased. This will bring the total general fund amount to $464,000, which is based on projected usage. The
Administration indicates it will include this increased cost in the upcoming budget year.
The Administration is also requesting $8,500 to cover related GreenBike memberships for HIVE pass users.
For the last seven years UTA has been paying for these memberships. However, current UTA leadership is not
interested in continuing the investment. The Administration is planning to include this in the budget for the
next three years.
Policy question – The Council may wish to discuss whether it is interested in the City providing the GreenBike
memberships, and if the Council is interested in funding this service long-term. Council may wish to ask the
Administration if UTA was approached to identify additional funds.
A-5: Expanding Scope of FY25 Funded Restroom Study to Include Assessment of All Public Restrooms –
($75,000 one-time from the General Fund)
Note: Public Lands coordinated with CAN on Items A-5&6. The Administration is proposing to allocate
$75,000 of the $500,000 set aside by the Council for “Public Hygiene Pilot program” to expand the scope of
the Fairmont Park Restroom Study. $100,000 was allocated in FY 25, and the additional $75,000 will enable
the study to be City-wide.
Policy question – the Council may wish to ask the administration for more information about what is expected
to be included in the scope and if there are any specific policy goals they wish to achieve with this study?
A-6: Public Hygiene Pilot Program – ($425,000 – one-time from the General Fund)
Note: Public Lands coordinated with CAN on Items A-5&6. The Administration is requesting the Council
release funding for the Public Hygiene pilot program, originally allocated in FY 2025. The new amount would
be $425,000. The Administration is working on releasing an RFP for proposals. The Administration’s
transmittal indicates that the RFP would ask for providing “new and/or increased hygiene and outreach
services for unsheltered individuals experiencing homelessness in SLC. Proposals can include mobile services
or improving/expanding existing stationary facilities.”
Policy question – the Council may wish to evaluate whether reducing the funding from the original $500k
allocated would potentially reduce the scope of impact of this pilot project. The Council could elect to make up
the funding from fund balance.
A-7: Additional Funding for Construction Mitigation – ($270,000 – one-time from the General Fund)
Due to high demand, the Administration is requesting $270,000 from general fund balance to add to the
construction mitigation grants administered by Economic Development. When the Council increased this
funding in the FY 25 budget, several Council Members expressed an interest in fully funding requests, given the
increased construction activity in the City. In FY 25 the Council allocated $600,000. Economic Development
anticipates $270,000 in additional funding will fully address requests for the remainder of the fiscal year.
Additionally Economic Development indicates that they will make these funds available to businesses that have
been awarded funds in previous rounds. This funding would allow an additional 90 small businesses to receive
grants. Staff asked the Administration if the new amount of $870,000 should be included in the FY 26 budget.
The Administration indicates that they expect most major street construction projects to be wrapped up by the
next fiscal year.
Policy question – the Council may wish to have further discussion about other anticipated construction
projects that may have business impact, to inform the FY 26 budget.
A-8: Animal Services Contract Increase True-Up – ($398,281 – one-time from the General Fund)
The Administration is requesting additional funding for the contract with Salt Lake County for animal services.
The Contract was finalized after the FY 25 budget was adopted, which is why it wasn’t included. The new
contract pricing is $398,281 more than the current budget, and is due largely to inflationary increases, and
does not include any service level increases.
The Council may wish to ask the Administration if there is a way to adjust the timing of contract negotiations
so they can be included in the timing of the annual budget process.
A-9: FY25 Water Stabilization Monthly Fixed Fee (Water for $281,965); FY25 Water Stabilization
Monthly Fixed Fee (Sewer for $65,495); FY25 Water Stabilization Monthly Fixed Fee (Franchise Fee Tax
$72,752) for a total of $420,212 one-time funds from the General Fund
The Administration is requesting $420,212 of funding from general fund balance to cover the cost of the water
stabilization fee charged to the City as a water user (water, sewer, and stormwater) – calculated based on each
meter, and the size of each meter. The Public Lands department was not aware of this fee proposal at the time
of the FY 25 budget. Public Utilities will likely have a new rate structure in time for the FY 26 budget request, at
which time Public Lands will evaluate the budget need.
A-10: Storm Water Impact Fees ($36,091 one-time from the General Fund; $269,654 one-time from the
General Fund and $269,654 from the CIP Fund)
The Administration is requesting one-time funds to cover $305, 745 in stormwater impact fees relating to
Parks/CIP projects that were not included in those original project budgets – including Sugar House Park
Pavilion and several other CIP projects funded in FY 25. The Administration is evaluating how to
operationalize including these fees in project budgets in the future.
For background information on the City’s stormwater fee and fun, please refer to the Administration’s
transmittal.
A-11: Public Safety Plan – Westside Parks Security Guards – ($59,430 one-time from the General Fund)
The Public Lands department is requesting $59,430 to add additional security detail in westside parks, as
contemplated in the Public Safety plan proposed by the Mayor in January 2025. This funding would provide
funding for services from April-June.
Policy question – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration whether funding for security
services will be included in the FY 26 budget, and if so, the duration of those services.
A-12: Updating Four Sections of the Impact Fees Facilities Plan – ($80,000 one-time from the CIP Fund)
The Administration is requesting $80,000 from the various impact fee accounts to update all sections of the
Impact Fee Facility Plan – Fire, Police, Parks and Transportation. The Council previously approved an update
to the transportation in FY 24. This would enable all sections to be updated. The last comprehensive update
was in 2016. Updated plans ensure that impact fees are set based on realistic/current cost estimates for
improvements relating to growth, and that growth estimates are based on current data. State code governs the
impact fee facility plan process, including allowable uses for impact fees. The analysis must be completed by a
consultant approved in the impact fee analysis field.
A-13: Mayor’s Office Transfer of 2 FTE’s to Two Departments – (Budget Neutral)
The Administration is proposing to shift two FTEs out of the Mayor’s office into other City departments:
-One is a Constituent Services and Office Coordinator (N19), which is currently occupied, to support the
administrative functions of the Public Lands Department, in a project coordinator role.
-One is a vacant Community Liaison position (E26), currently focused on language access, that would move to
IMS and reclassified as a Communication Specialist I (E27). Due to the reclassification, the position would
cost more annually, but for FY 25 would be absorbed by IMS.
This is a budget amendment request because the dollar amounts would need to be moved from the Mayor’s
office to Public Lands and IMS.
Policy question – The Council may wish to ask the Administration for an update on City-wide communication
strategy, including any relevant metrics.
A-14: Ranked Choice Voting Education and Outreach – ($50,000 one-time from the General Fund)
As discussed during the Council’s December discussion on Ranked Choice Voting, the Administration is
proposing to add $50,000 in one time money from the general fund balance to support outreach efforts
relating to this voting process. This is in addition to funds that are anticipated to be included in the FY 26
budget. Adding funds in this budget amendment would enable efforts to get underway immediately rather than
waiting for July 1 to begin. The Council straw polled support of this approach for the 2025 election cycle.
A-15: Additional Funding for City Hall Security Guards – ($700,000 ongoing from the General Fund)
The Administration is proposing to add $700,000 in funding from general fund balance to account for
increased security needs at the City and County building and overall Civic Campus (Washington Square,
Library, Public Safety Building). This would be in addition to the $916,000 approved in FY 26, for a total of
$1.616 million. The Administration indicated this likely reflects the actual ongoing need, and will plan to
include it in the FY 26 budget.
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources
(None)
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources
(None)
Section D: Housekeeping (write-ups from Administration’s transmittal)
D-1: Engineering Reappropriation for Fencing – ($63,953 one-time from the General Fund to the CIP
Fund)
One-time funding was provided to Public Service's Engineering Division in FY 2024 in a late-fiscal year budget
amendment for fencing adjacent to the North Temple bridge over the Jordan River, Archuleta Bridge, and Folsom Trail.
This funding was to be used for temporary fencing associated with a CIP project but could not be transferred to CIP
because it didn’t meet certain CIP criteria requirements. Instead of going to CIP, the budget was loaded into
Engineering Operations. However, because Engineering was not fully aware of the circumstances associated with the
appropriation, the funds were not encumbered and subsequently were not rolled over to the FY 2025 budget. This
housekeeping initiative is to reappropriate the $63,953.04 in funds that lapsed to the Fund Balance so the invoice from
Mountain States Fence can be paid.
D-2: Streets Mini Planer Replacement – ($394,000 one-time from the General Fund)
Earlier this year a planer used for the Roadway Preservation Program was damaged in an at-fault accident. A repair
estimate was obtained by Fleet, however, it was predicted to exceed the value of the asset. After discussion with the
manufacturer, leadership at Fleet and Streets determined it made fiscal sense to send the damaged planer out to an
auction, with the hope of finding an interested buyer who may want it for spare parts.
Given the robust demands of the Roadway Preservation Program, it is essential for the Streets Division to replace the
planer, which is used in removing and replacing old asphalt. The Roadway Preservation Program is an umbrella title
that includes among other sub-programs Asphalt Mill & Overlay. This would enable each asphalt team to have access to
a dedicated planer, eliminating the need to rely on the availability of another team's equipment, which significantly
limits productivity and operational efficiency. Replacing the planer will ensure the Streets Division can operate at full
capacity.
Since the City is self-insured, Streets must cover the cost of the replacement equipment. Public Services proposes using
$394,000 in end-of-year savings be transferred from its division budget to the Fleet Division to cover the replacement
cost. This end-of-year savings exists largely due to the mild winter that occurred this season, which resulted in lower
weather-related expenses including the salt budget, equipment rentals, and fleet fuel.
D-3: Fire Wildland/Hurricane Deployment Reimbursements – ($1,013,067 one-time reimbursement to
the General Fund and $38,558 one-time reimbursement to the Fleet Fund)
The Fire Department has been deployed several times this fiscal year to three wildland fires and two hurricanes. The
department expects to receive a full reimbursement of costs to the General Fund and a portion to Fleet. The costs are
itemized below:
• California Wildland Park Fire (August 2024) - $195,075
• California Wildland Line Fire (September 2024) - $165,412
• Utah Task Force 1/USAR Hurricane Helene (September 2024) - $121,861
• Utah Task Force 1/USAR Hurricane Milton (October 2024) - $148,926
• California Wildland Palisades Fire (January 2024) - $420,351
Total Reimbursement - $1,051,625
Staff inquired about federal funding uncertainties and the Fire Department indicates their counterparts have promised
a 75% advance on reimbursements. They will continue to monitor the situation.
D-4: Cultural Core Funding – ($241,000 one-time from the General Fund)
This funding is being requested to replace funding that fell to fund balance at the end of fiscal year 2024. The amount
was housed in Non-Departmental and was meant to be expended in the amount of $50,000 annually to supplement the
existing $250,000 annual funding level for the Cultural Core contract. The new total amount the City has committed to
pay Cultural Core annually is $300,000. If the reappropriation is approved, then the funds would be encumbered
through a purchase order process.
In FY 2023, the City Council approved the Cultural Core Surplus Funds be added to the city’s $250,000 annual
contribution. The $291,000 surplus would be divided, adding $50,000 to the city’s contribution which would then total
$300,000 for five years. In the sixth year $41,000 would be added to the city’s contribution.
D-5: Cultural Core Funding Move – ($250,000 – ongoing from General Fund)
In Budget Amendment #3 of FY 2024, Cultural Core funding in the amount of $250,000 was moved from the
Department of Economic Development to Non-Departmental. When the budget for FY 2025 was being developed, this
budget was initially captured in the Economic Development Department. However, it should have been captured in the
Economic Development Non Departmental Cost Center. This amendment formally corrects that discrepancy.
Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
E-1: BEMS – Bureau of Emergency Medical Services – ($6,003 – Misc. Grant Fund)
This amendment is to recognize the City's funding availability for an increase in an existing grant award of
$6,003. In August of 2024, the Salt Lake City Fire Department was awarded $9,642 through the Bureau of Emergency
Medical Services. In February of 2025 that award was increased by $6,003 which gave SLC a total award of $15,645.
Original Public Hearing was held March 5, 2024.
Section F: Donations
(None)
Section G: Consent Agenda
G-1: Utah State University Wildlife Foundation – ($85,356 – Misc. Grant Fund)
Utah State University has been awarded a grant by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation as part of their pollinator
program. Part of this grant has been awarded to the Trails and Natural Lands division of the Public Lands Department
of Salt Lake City as a subaward. Salt Lake City will use the grant to accomplish three main objectives: 1) Species
Development. 2) Seedling Production and 3) Native Seed Farm. The goal of these objectives is to supply the Utah
Pollinator Habitat Program and the city’s Trails projects with seedlings which will be used to enhance and restore public
lands along trails with pollinator habitat to the benefit of the urban population. The Public Hearing was held Feb. 4, 2025.
G-2: Utah Department of Natural Resources/Forestry, Fire, and State Lands – ($63,255 – Misc. Grant
Fund)
The Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands (FFSL) has received funds from the Utah State Legislature to be
administered for vegetation improvement projects on sovereign lands of Utah. The proposed uses of the funds were
brought before a grant selection committee and approved. The FFSL has awarded Salt Lake City Corporation for the
implementation of a Jordan River invasive species control and restoration project. The Public Hearing was held Feb. 4,
2025.
G-3: State of Utah: Department of Environmental Quality Drinking Water Board – 4th Avenue Well –
($800,000 – Misc. Grant Fund)
Public Utilities applied for and was awarded a planning loan through the Drinking Water Board. The loan amount is up
to $800,000 for planning and design costs to address PFAS contamination in the 4th Avenue Well. In addition to
awarding the loan, the State will also forgive 100% of the principal cost of the loan to pay for an engineering study to
address the contamination issue. While this is a loan and not a grant, the mechanism for receiving the money is similar
to a grant. Typically, when receiving a loan, the loan recipient receives all the money at once and thus can spend funds
once the money is received. In this instance, the funder (lender) is requiring Salt Lake City to initially incur the expenses
and then submit reimbursement requests to receive the money. The agreement for this loan is that 100% of the
principal will be forgiven and there will be no expectation of repayment. Due to the unique requirements of this loan,
the management of funds will follow grant approval and reimbursement processes. The Public Hearing was held Feb. 4,
2025.
G-4: Salt Lake City Bike Share Expansion – ($121,236 – Misc. Grant Fund)
Transportation Division received a grant from the Utah Department of Transportation for $614,790 in August of 2022.
In October of 2024, UDOT increased that amount by $121,236 for a new total of $735,026. This item is to obtain
approval for the additional $121,236. This grant was awarded to Salt Lake City to expand the Bike Share program in
collaboration with Green Bike. The original public hearing for the grant was March 22, 2022.
ATTACHMENTS
Ongoing Costs to the General Fund (See chart below)
ACRONYMS
CAFR – Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
CIP – Capital Improvement Program
CDBG – Community Development Block Grant Program
CLTPF – Community Land Trust Program Funds
FFSL – Forestry, Fire and State Lands
FOF – Funding Our Future
FTE – Full time Employee / Equivalent
FY – Fiscal Year
GF – General Fund
HUD – Housing and Urban Development
IMS – Information Management Services
PFAS – Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
UDOT – Utah Department of Transportation
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Request: Tracking New Ongoing Costs to the General Fund
Council staff has provided the following list of potential new ongoing costs to the General Fund. Many of these are new
FTE’s approved during this fiscal year’s budget amendments, noting that each new FTE increases the City’s annual budget
costs if positions are added to the staffing document. Note that some items in the table below are partially or fully funded
by grants. If a grant continues to be awarded to the City in future years, then there may not be a cost to the General Fund
but grant funding is not guaranteed year-over-year.
Budget
Amendment Item
Potential Cost
to FY2026
Annual Budget
Full Time Employee
(FTEs)Notes
#1
Item A-1 Attorney’s Office
Organizational Structure
Change
$722,888
3 FTEs:
1 City Prosecutor
1 Senior City Attorney
1 Deputy Director of
Administration
City Prosecutor $178,278 for 9 months/$237,704
annually
Senior City Attorney Class 39 - $157,635.74 for 8
months/$236,454 annually
Deputy Director of Administration Class 40 -
$186,547 for 9 months or $248,730 annually.
At the time of publishing this staff report, the cost to
lease office space is unknown. The cost could be more or
less than the current budget under the soon-to-be
terminated interlocal agreement with the District
Attorney’s Office.
#1
Item D-8
$171,910
1 FTE:
Capital Asset Planning
Financial Analyst IV
position
Inadvertently left out of the Mayor’s Recommended
FY2025 Budget. Position would be dedicated to impact
fees compliance tracking and reporting for new state
requirements. Impact fees fully reimburse the General
Fund for the position’s cost.
$2,945,957 grant
funding*
4 FTEs:
3 Officer positions
1 Sergeant position
*Amount of grant funding needed in order to fully cover
the ongoing costs including the new FTEs.
#1
Item E-1 Homeless
Shelter Cities Mitigation
Grant FY25
Costs currently paid for
by the Homeless Shelter
Cities Mitigation Grant in
FY2024 that might be
shifting to the General
Fund in FY2025 $662,760
For ongoing costs related
to 15 existing FTEs; the
grant funds a total of 23
FTEs
$662,760 is needed for ongoing equipment for all 15
officers. The Administration is checking whether existing
budgets could absorb some of these costs.
#2
Item A-2 Enhanced
Security at Justice Court
$200,000
A security report identified an issue needing to be
addressed immediately.
Budget
Amendment Item
Potential Cost
to FY2026
Annual Budget
Full Time Employee
(FTEs)Notes
#2
Item A-3 Community
Oriented Policing Svcs or
COPS Hiring Grant from
U.S. Dept. of Justice for 2
new Sergeants & 10 new
Officers FY 24-25
$1,285,642
in FY2026
For ongoing costs related
to hiring 2 new Sergeant
FTEs and 10 new Officers
in the Police Dept.
Ongoing costs include grant salary match plus vehicles,
supplies & equipment. After the 48 month grant period
ends, the estimated annual cost to retain the 12 police
officers is $2,071,325.
#2
Item A-4 Vehicles, Equip-
ment & Related Police
Officer costs not covered
by the Homeless Shelter
Cities State Mitigation
Grant FY24-25
$498,692 is
ongoing
For ongoing costs related
to the hiring of new
officers
Ongoing costs include ongoing salary increases, supplies,
body cameras, vehicles, and computers.
#1 & #2
D-7 Prosecutor’s Office
Changes since Budget
Amendment #1
(-$280,279)
back to General
Fund Balance
1 FTE Removed
City Prosecutor FTE
removed
Reverses a portion of budgetary impacts & actions
outlined in BAM#1, Item A-1.
#3
A-2 IMS – Add 1 full-time
Cybersecurity Engineer
and convert 1 part-time
Graphic Designer into
full-time using funds
from the elimination of
additional part-time
positions.
$173,484
ongoing for
Cybersecurity
Engineer
position
Adds 1 Cybersecurity
Engineer Position
.50 Graphic Design
position was requested
but NOT approved by the
Council.
#5
A-4: Hive Pass Funding
Additional Passes and
Continuing Greenbike
Membership
$135,000 for
additional Hive
passes
($114,000) and
continuing
Greenbike
membership
($8,500)
None
#5
A-8: Animal Services
Contract Increase True-
Up
$398,281
ongoing
Price increase of old contract plus increase of new
contract.
Budget
Amendment Item
Potential Cost
to FY2026
Annual Budget
Full Time Employee
(FTEs)Notes
#5
A-15: Additional Funding
for City Hall Security
Guards
$700,000
ongoing for City
Hall Security
Guards
None
TOTAL $7,216,054 39 total FTEs of which
16 are New FTEs
Note that of the total cost, $4.1 million would be needed
if the Homeless Shelter Cities State Mitigation grant is
not available for FY2026
Budget Amendment #5 – Follow up Questions and Answers – April 1, 2025 briefing
Administrative responses in red
A-4: Hive Pass Funding and Greenbike Funding
- Can you provide usage data about Greenbike – what percentage of HIVE passholders
use this?
o 419 Hive Pass users have activated and used the annual GREENbike
membership. That is out of the 2000 GREENbike memberships that were
purchased with the original $75,000 of funding from UTA. That is 20.9% of HIVE
pass holders.
- Is there any additional information about why UTA has elected not to fund, and/or did the
Administration push for funding?
o We aren’t sure why UTA doesn’t want to fund this again. It was one-time funding
seven years ago, so it’s possible that personnel and priorities have just changed.
- Could the Council choose to fund the HIVA passes and not the Greenbike passes?
o Absolutely. This is simply a “value added” option to provide a helpful first/last mile
connection.
A-5:Expanded scope for Restroom Study
- What is included in the scope (or intended to be included in the scope) of the city-wide
restroom assessment?
o The FY24/25 CIP funded Citywide Park Restroom Planning Study scope of work
includes a planning study to update guidance for park restroom policy and
practice citywide, conceptual design for new restrooms typologies within parks,
and a recommended design for a restroom in Fairmont Park. If the budget
amendment is approved, the expanded scope will extend the study to all publicly
accessible restrooms citywide (not just parks, but all restroom facilities that allow
public access)
o The new scope proposed with this budget amendment request is intended to
include the following items completed internally by City staff. Public Lands, in
collaboration with other City staff, will collect base data that includes:
An inventory, including overall condition indices, of all current public
restrooms citywide. If the expanded scope is awarded, we can include a
map of all publicly accessible restrooms citywide. If not, we'll still provide
a map of the public lands public restrooms.
A needs assessment of current restroom “level of service.” This scope will
likely not include a full list of repairs at each location, but coupled with the
data that we received from the Strategic Capital, Acquisition and Asset
Management Plan, we'll be able to identify major repair and replacement
needs and provide a prioritized list of improvement requirements based
on condition.
A gap analysis to identify restroom deserts throughout the city
o The new scope will also include the following to be completed by a consultant:
Develop best practices and policies based on other successful public
restrooms nationwide
Create a typologies guide and recommendations for park and public lands
restrooms
Recommend priorities for future restroom-related projects as funding
becomes available
- Are City budget constraints/realities communicated via the scope?
o The recommendations of the plan will be scalable and will be used to inform
future design and programmatic requests for restroom replacements/repairs. The
recommendations will be intended to be used when funding for restroom
replacement is awarded. The Strategic Capital, Acquisition and Asset
Management Plan that will be completed by Public Lands by the end of this year,
will make recommendations on funding requests for programmatic replacements
required to maintain our asset replacement schedule and current level of
service. The Strategic Capital, Acquisition and Asset Management Plan being
developed will include funding recommendations for public restrooms based on
the results of the expanded restroom study while balancing competing needs for
other capital improvements within anticipated budget constraints.
- As a lower priority, could the scope include creative restroom solutions in other
communities?
o Regardless of additional funding award, the Citywide Park Restroom Planning
Study will include a review of successful restrooms in other cities and
communities and will make recommendations for Salt Lake City park restrooms
based on best practices.
A-7: Additional funding for construction mitigation
- Has the Administration evaluated whether the current $3k grant process is helpful to
businesses, or would a different amount be more helpful?
o In the past, the grant amount provided to businesses was $2000 and businesses
were not as inclined to apply. The Department of Economic Development (DED)
decided to increase the grant amount to $3000 which saw a higher application
rate from businesses.
o We conducted a survey of Construction Mitigation Grant (CMG) recipients last
year and asked businesses for feedback. Most businesses were grateful and yet
some expressed that $3,000 isn't enough when they experience a decline in
sales.
- Can the Administration work with businesses to know the various ways these funds can
be spent, and evaluate whether changing the program name makes sense to add
clarity?
o DED does work with the businesses to explain how funds can be used and they
are posted on our website and collateral. A common use of the grant is to expand
ways to reach and communicate with customers, for instance, purchasing a
software or subscribing to a service that may have previously been cost
prohibitive. However, this is not the only use of the grant funds.
o DED has expressed to business owners that the grants are not to be revenue
replacement for any losses.
o It has been DED’s experience that the name is clear to the businesses. DED
sees a high application rate, so the name does not seem to be an issue from our
perspective. Construction Mitigation also sets parameters for which businesses
the grant is intended for. If Council desires, DED is open to consult with the
Business Advisory Board (BAB) if they think the name is confusing. We can even
conduct an informal focus group in order to obtain the BAB’s perspective on the
issue.
- Can the Administration engage the Business Advisory Board to inform how the FY 26
funds can/could be structured?
o DED works closely with the Business Advisory Board (BAB). The BAB is an
asset to the city and to DED; hence, we are always engaging them in our work.
We can engage the BAB more strategically as we continue to manage the
program. In fact, an assigned BAB member can serve as an advisor to our CMG
program.
o DED has also surveyed CMG recipients and have looked into similar programs in
other cities. We are happy to share those additional insights.
o It is worth noting that DED is working on a 2025 Mayor’s goal to formalize CMG
as a program, and that similar attributes are being considered.
A-8: Animal Services Contract –
- Can the Administration work with County staff to adjust timing?
o The FY25 BA#5 Animal Services Contract one-time request of $398,271 is
attributed to a contract renewal timing issue. A new contract for Animal Services
was signed and recorded on 7/1/2024 for another 5 year period after the FY25
budget was adopted. Future contract budget increase requests will be included in
the annual budget process and should not require budget amendment
adjustments.
A-11: Public Safety Plan – Westside park security
- How many hours/days would this get in each of the parks – Glendale, Jordan,
International Peace Gardens, Cottonwood Park, Riverside Park?
o The security detail will operate seven days a week from 9:00 PM to 5:00 AM.
o Guards will patrol Glendale, Jordan, International Peace Gardens, Cottonwood
Park, and Riverside Park, making multiple stops at each location throughout the
night. The security guards will also patrol the hotspots along the Jordan River
Parkway Trail such as the smaller pedestrian bridges between the priority parks
listed above.
o Their primary focus will be to ensure that no unauthorized individuals are in the
parks after hours.
o Guards will lock and unlock gates (where applicable) at designated times.
o They will also monitor for any signs of property damage.
o The east side parks (focus on Liberty Park, Herman Franks, Fairmont, and Allen
Park) have already experienced positive results from this service. In March 2025,
the city transitioned from CBI Security to All Pro Security, and the change has
been well-received. All Pro provides daily reports with photos of all patrolled
areas, which are reviewed by Safety and Security Director Nate Kobs. He has
reported that the service is both effective and valuable.
o Weekly Stats report will include:
Paraphernalia found (Needles or pipes)
Police or Medical Assists (Security calling for police or fire to respond)
Persons removed from property or trespassed for committing crimes or
multiple violations of city code
Community engagement (Resources given with a subsection of if it was
accepted or not)
- Could security cameras extend the reach of this staff?
o Security cameras could significantly enhance the effectiveness of the guards, but
only with further expansion. Establishing a Security Operations Center
(SOC) with a dedicated guard monitoring live feeds and dispatching personnel as
needed would provide more comprehensive and efficient coverage. Depending
on location, the upfront capital cost to install new fiber optic cables or other
utilities to support the cameras would be needed in addition to the cost of the
cameras. Alternatives such as solar power and using cellular networks is being
explored.
o We understand that SLCPD is actively investigating having a Real Time Crime
Center that would essentially accomplish the same thing.
A-15: City Hall Security Guards
- Does the City have data/metrics about crime in the civic campus before and after
security was increased?
o The security increase occurred towards the end of fiscal year 2024. This was in
response to the Administration and Council asking for increased attention to
Washington Square and Library Square crime issues.
I asked PD for the calls of service for Washington Square and Library Square from July 2024-
March 2025. These calls of service were from individuals that have called in, either the security
guards or members of the public, and have asked for PD or medical to respond. The calls for
service by month are listed below. This more detailed level of tracking started when the
enhanced security service levels started, so there is not a readily available dataset to compare
the same metrics before July 2024.
July 2024 – 96
August 2024 – 91
September 2024 – 104
October 2024 – 100
November 2024 – 86
December 2024 – 79
January 2025 – 99
February 2025 – 82
March 2025 – 72
The increase is expected as the guards were increased as well as their time spent on patrols.
The decrease shows the positive effect as less calls are needed.
- Are there current metrics for citations/types of crime/etc?
Security guards track various statistics daily, and an active dashboard is nearing completion.
The dashboard will include the following metrics:
Police/Medical calls (security guards calling for PD to respond for crimes
witnessed, and medical called for persons injured or overdosing on drugs)
Narcan doses administered. This is the security guards discovering a
person overdosing on drugs and while waiting for medical to arrive, the
person stops breathing. Security will then administer a Narcan dose.
Paraphernalia found (drug needles or pipes)
People removed from property (People are removed from property and
given a verbal warning for committing multiple violations of city code.
People are trespassed from property for committing violence on others,
lewdness, and other misdemeanor crimes.
Community engagement (Resources offered, with a subsection of if the
resource was accepted or rejected. Resources include whether shelter
beds are available, meeting with a social worker either PD related or the
social worker and other social service providers that are frequently inside
the Main Library, and other service provider referrals)
The stats recorded for January, February, and March of 2025 are listed below:
January 2025
Police/Medical Calls – 23
Narcan Doses - 3
Paraphernalia – 32
Removals - 321
Trespasses – 5
Community Engagement – 52
February 2025
Police/Medical Calls – 29
Narcan Doses - 6
Paraphernalia – 15
Removals – 289
Trespasses – 0
Community Engagement – 12
March 2025
Police/Medical Calls – 18
Narcan Doses – 2
Paraphernalia – 28
Removals – 235
Trespasses – 15
Community Engagement - 1
- How is this security service interfacing with service providers and connecting people to
services?
o The security guards work with SLCPD daily. While the support from the police
department has greatly increased, they are on site sporadically. The security
guards are out and visible all day and night doing patrols 24/7/365.
o Working with SLCPD and their various divisions, the security guards know when
to call for social workers or PD camp mitigation teams within their operating
hours (which are less than 24/7/365).
o During cold months, the security guards have
https://endutahhomelessness.org/daily-bed-availability/ open to share how many
shelter beds are available.
Item E6
Page 1
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst
DATE: April 15, 2025
RE: MOTION SHEET FOR PUBLIC HEARING
________________________________________________________________________________
The Council will conduct a Public Hearing and may consider the following motion:
Motion 1 – Close and Refer
I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and refer Item B-5 to a future Consent
Agenda for action.
Project Timeline:
Public Hearing: April 15, 2025
NEW GRANT APPLICATION
April 15, 2025 PUBLIC HEARING
City Match
Required?
Number of
FTEs
Requested
Grant Title Grant Purpose Status Annual
Grant
Total Grant
and FTE
Amount
Funding
Agency
Requested By
1.No.2 new
grant-
funded
hourly
positions
and
continue 1
existing
grant-
funded
hourly
position
Victims of Crime Act
(VOCA)
If approved, funds would
be used to hire two
additional grant-funded
FTE Victim Advocate
positions and continue
one existing Victim
Advocate. Grant funds
would also provide a
license for victim
services tracking
software and emergency
funds for victims.
Needs a
Public
Hearing
Yes $596,025 HUD
(Housing &
Urban
Develop-
ment
Prosecutor’s
Office, Office of
the City
Attorney
Item F1
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/AnnualHUDGrants
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Allison Rowland, Senior Policy Analyst
DATE:April 15, 2025
RE: 2025-2029 FIVE-YEAR CONSOLIDATED PLAN FOR U.S. HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT
MOTION 1 – ADOPT FIVE-YEAR CONSOLDATED PLAN
I move that the Council approve a resolution adopting the 2025-2029 Five-Year Consolidated Plan, including
CDBG, ESG, HOME, and HOPWA funding, as well as approving the signing of an Interlocal Cooperation
agreement between Salt Lake City and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
MOTION 2 – NOT ADOPT
I move that the Council proceed to the next agenda item.
Item F2
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/AnnualHUDGrants
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Allison Rowland, Senior Policy Analyst
DATE:April 15, 2025
RE: Annual U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Grant Funding Allocations 2025-
2026: Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), Emergency Solutions Grants
(ESG), HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME), and Housing Opportunities
for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA)
Please read aloud and vote on Motion 1a.
MOTION 1a – ADOPT ANNUAL FUNDING ALLOCATIONS EXCEPT CDBG #5
I move that the Council approve a resolution adopting the 2025-2026 Annual Action Plan funding allocations
attached to the motion sheet as Exhibit A for the following grant programs: CDBG, ESG, HOME, and HOPWA—
except for CDBG #5, the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City’s project Revitalizing Riverside Apartments.
Now Council Member Mano must recuse himself as a member of the board of directors for the Housing
Authority of Salt Lake City. When he has exited the Chamber, please read aloud Motion 1b and vote on it.
MOTION 1b – ADOPT ANNUAL FUNDING ALLOCATION CDBG #5
I move that the Council approve a resolution adopting the 2025-2026 Annual Action Plan funding allocations
attached to the motion sheet as Exhibit A for item CDBG #5, the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City’s project
Revitalizing Riverside Apartments.
CM Mano may return.
Staff note: HUD has not yet announced the City’s final CDBG, ESG, HOME, and HOPWA funding amounts for
this year. Contingencies for how individual grant awards to applicants will be adjusted to reflect the actual
total funding provided by HUD are listed at the end of Exhibit A.
MOTION 2 – NOT ADOPT
I move that the Council proceed to the next agenda item.
Item H1
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: Jennifer Bruno
Executive Director
DATE:April 15, 2025
RE: Ordinance: Approving an MOU between Salt Lake City and the Salt Lake City Police
Association
MOTION 1 – ADOPT ORDINANCE
I move that the Council adopt the ordinance approving a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) between Salt Lake City and the Salt Lake City Police Association.
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
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:April 15, 2025
RE: Legislative Action to Review City Code Pertaining to the Number of
Unrelated People in a Dwelling Unit
MOTION 1 (adopt legislative action)
I move the Council adopt a legislative action asking the Administration to review City code sections regarding
the number of unrelated people living together in a dwelling unit, and the definition of “family” for
recommendations of how to update.
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:April 15, 2025
RE: Initiating a Legislative Action to Review City Code Pertaining to the Number of
Unrelated People Living Together in a Dwelling Unit
For many years Salt Lake City Code has limited the number of unrelated people living together in a dwelling
unit to three. It is not clear why this number was established.
During the April 8, 2025 work session announcements, the Council was supportive of initiating a legislative
action asking the Administration to review City code pertaining to the number of unrelated people living
together and the definition of “family” along with recommendations of how to potentially adjust or eliminate the
maximum.
When a complaint of more than the allowed number of unrelated people living together is received, it is difficult
to prove whether people are related by blood, marriage, or adoption without a cumbersome process of
requesting documentation that demonstrates the relationship.
It is a priority of this Council to utilize available tools to facilitate affordable housing for those who want to live
in Salt Lake City.
The Council can consider voting on the following motion to initiate a legislative action asking the Administration
to review and recommend potential changes to City code.
I move the Council adopt a legislative action asking Administrative staff to review City code
pertaining to the number of unrelated people living together in a dwelling unit and provide options for
the Council to consider.
Item Schedule:
Potential Action: April 15, 2025
Item H3
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
WWW.COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Nick Tarbet, Policy Analyst
DATE:April 15, 2025
RE: Temporary Land Use Regulation - 888 South 400 West
Motion 1 –
I move that the Council adopt an ordinance enacting temporary zoning regulations
authorizing temporary increase in overnight capacity at the youth homeless resource center
at 888 South 400 West.
Motion 2 –
I move that the Council not adopt the ordinance.
Item H4
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
WWW.COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Nick Tarbet, Policy Analyst
DATE:April 15, 2025
RE: Temporary Land Use Regulation - 131 East 700 South
Motion 1 –
I move that the Council adopt an ordinance enacting temporary zoning regulations
authorizing temporary increase in overnight capacity at the Geraldine E. King Women’s
Resource Center at approximately 131 East 700 South
Motion 2 –
I move that the Council not adopt the ordinance.
Item H5
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
WWW.COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Nick Tarbet, Policy Analyst
DATE:April 15, 2025
RE: Temporary Land Use Regulation - 242 West Paramount Avenue
Motion 1 –
I move that the Council adopt an ordinance enacting temporary zoning regulations
authorizing temporary increase in overnight capacity at the Gail Miller Resource Center at
242 West Paramount Avenue.
Motion 2 –
I move that the Council not adopt the ordinance.
Item H6
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
WWW.COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Nick Tarbet, Policy Analyst
DATE:April 15, 2025
RE: Temporary Land Use Regulation - 437 West 200 South
Motion 1 –
I move that the Council adopt an ordinance enacting temporary zoning regulations
authorizing temporary increase in overnight capacity at the St. Vincent de Paul Center located
at 437 West 200 South.
Motion 2 –
I move that the Council not adopt the ordinance.
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
4/9/2025 14:37 James Hemmersmeier Feedback on upcoming Agenda Councilman Wharton I hope all is well with you and your family. Thank you for serving Salt Lake City on the Council.
I’m a resident of your district. Today, I want to share feedback with you on some areas of concern that I understand
will be addressed in an upcoming Council meeting. As you know, the planning commission approved an
amendment put forward by the Mayor's office for a zoning change with more restrictions on parking in Salt Lake.
This along with the “Road Diets”, traffic calming, reduced street parking, higher fines and rates, and lower speed
limits are choking the city. With these continued changes, it is becoming increasingly difficult to do business in
Salt Lake City. With the city’s multi-million dollar deficit, we should be looking for ways to increase business not
raise taxes on a reduced amount of business. The restaurant tax is already at 9.75%. Other taxes have been
implemented where Salt Lake City residents shoulder an unfair share. The ongoing “road diets” add to commute
times and I would suspect add to our pollution problem. Let’s make Utah’s Capitol City the best place to live,
work, play AND do business. If we make it easier for people to do business in the City we will attract more
businesses, more residents and more visitors. As a resident and business owner, I want only the best for Salt Lake
City. Please contact me if I can do anything to help. Please do not support the Mayor’s proposed zoning change.
Chris Hemmersmeier CEO Jerry Seiner Dealerships
4/9/2025 14:59 Susan Masotti Support for Wasatch Community Gardens’ CDBG
Funding Request
Dear Salt Lake City Council, My name is Susan Masotti, and I’m your constituent living in the Avenues. I’m writing
to request your support for Wasatch Community Gardens’ (WCG’s) application for $40,000 in CDBG funds to
support its farm-based Green Team Job Training Program for women facing or experiencing homelessness. This
program provides paid employment, job training, and mentorship at WCG’s new City Farm on 1300 South, helping
participants secure stable housing and jobs. Green Team members are challenged to learn, grow, and rediscover
their strengths, even as they navigate difficult circumstances. A key part of the program’s success is WCG’s onsite
Case Manager, who maintains a realistic caseload to support Green Team members while also assisting
overworked shelter and outreach case managers. Over 100 Green Team graduates have transitioned to
independent living, with 80% securing housing and employment within six months. The impact of this program
extends far beyond individual participants. Green Team members play a critical role in ensuring thousands of
individuals and families have access to fresh, nutritious food. All produce grown at City Farm is donated to low-
income community members through WCG’s partner organizations, distributing $100,000 worth of healthy food
annually. In any given year, more than 40% of the Utah population served in shelters has received food grown by
the Green Team at WCG’s farm. With 12% of Utahns experiencing food insecurity and grocery prices rising,
sustainable, local food sources are more critical than ever. WCG is the only broad-scale, garden-to-mouth
nonprofit in Salt Lake City, providing growing space, food education, and distribution to shelters and community
partners. Without CDBG support, Salt Lake City compromises this vital resource that not only feeds our
community but also helps women reclaim stability in their lives. Please prioritize WCG’s Green Team Job Training
Program for CDBG funding. Thank you, Susan Masotti
4/9/2025 16:17 Kara Freedman Zoning request for 273 E 800 S Hi Eva, I hope you're well! I am a resident of District 4 and wanted to write in to express my support for the rezoning
request at 273 E 800 S, just a block south of where I live. I will be excited to see more housing built in what is
already a delightful medium density mixed residential & commercial area. First Step's proposal to rezone to RMF-
45 fits in line with their mission and I think it will be great to have more neighbors in the area who have stable
housing. I hope you vote yes on the rezone. Thank you for your time, Kara Freedman
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
4/9/2025 16:18 Scott BLAIR Alley Vacation PLNPCM2024-00439 Davis Oatway To Ms. Diana Martinez, I am in full support for the approval of the Alley Vacation located at 1409 S Edison Street,
Salt Lake City, Utah 84115 for Applicant Davis Oatway. I also want to state that the city does nothing to maintain
the alley to my knowledge as the pavement is almost nonexistent and overgrown with weeds, etc. If you have any
questions or concerns, please contact me. Thank you, Scott Blair Owner
4/11/2025 12:33 Andrea Globokar Support for Wasatch Community Gardens’ CDBG
Funding Request
Dear Council Person Wharton ,My name is Andrea Globokar and I’m your constituent living REDACTED, SLC. I’m
writing to request your support for Wasatch Community Gardens’ (WCG’s) application for $40,000 in CDBG funds
to support its farm-based Green Team Job Training Program for women facing or experiencing homelessness. In a
time when people feel no programs help the unsheltered citizens in our community, this program provides paid
employment, job training, and mentorship at WCG’s new City Farm on 1300 South, helping participants secure
stable housing and jobs. Green Team members are challenged to learn, grow, and rediscover their strengths, even
as they navigate difficult circumstances. A key part of the program’s success is WCG’s onsite Case Manager, who
maintains a realistic caseload to support Green Team members while also assisting overworked shelter and
outreach case managers. Over 100 Green Team graduates have transitioned to independent living, with 80%
securing housing and employment within six months. All produce grown at City Farm is donated to low-income
community members through WCG’s partner organizations, distributing $100,000 worth of healthy food annually.
In any given year, more than 40% of the Utah population served in shelters has received food grown by the Green
Team at WCG’s farm. WCG is the only broad-scale, garden-to-mouth nonprofit in Salt Lake City, providing growing
space, food education, and distribution to shelters and community partners. Please prioritize WCG’s Green Team
Job Training Program for CDBG funding. Thank you, Andrea Globokar
4/11/2025 12:57 Sean Cushing SLC City Park Security & Alternative Security
Solution
Dear Councilmen Puy and Wharton, and CAO Love, I'm writing as a constituent (homeowner in Central 9th) in
regard to the Salt Lake Tribune's 4/10 article addressing additional security measures to be taken in our city parks.
I'm also writing to introduce you to a potential alternative solution to security guards. I'm on the Board of Directors
of an SLC-based remote video monitoring company called Blue Eye (think virtual security guards). Blue Eye's
advanced AI analyzes video camera feeds to detect suspicious behavior, escalating to a human operator who then
leverages speakers hosted on-premises to address the suspect(s) with personalized messaging i.e. "To the man in
the black hoodie, this park is closed and you are trespassing. Please leave immediately or SLPD will be
dispatched". Assuming the individual(s) remain undeterred, Blue Eye will then manage the dispatch of police to
the property and stay engaged until the situation is resolved. Further, behind the scenes we capture robust data on
site-level activity in our customer accessible Reporting Portal, which could help inform future security and policing
strategies. Since cost is understandably an issue, I wanted to note that Blue Eye's service is approximately one-
fifth the price of physical security guards, despite the fact that guards lack mobility, cannot cover large surface
areas, and are prone to human error. We could also explore meaningful volume discounts as we're keen to support
our hometown (and, selfishly, want our parks safe too!). Recognizing that our city parks may not currently have
video surveillance infrastructure in place, we also have a large network of camera manufacturers we work with and
could assist you in sourcing that hardware (including solar power cameras that require no power source). The
article is well-timed as there's been internal discussions at Blue Eye at how we can work more closely with SLPD to
make our home city safer. Please let me know if you're interested in learning more, and I can connect you with
representatives from our sales and engineering teams to provide a demo. As a father of a 3 month old, many thanks
for taking important steps to keep our parks safe. Cheers, Sean Cushing -- Sean Cushing Managing Director,
Bandon Holdings
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
4/11/2025 13:10 Nate Leishman 1/2 Request for Rezoning Consideration of Parcels to
MU-8 in the Central Community
Dear Members of the Salt Lake City Council, My name is Nate Leishman, and I am reaching out on behalf of
Colmena Group regarding a request to rezone our parcels as part of Salt Lake City’s zone consolidation
amendment . Our parcels consisting of parcel # REDACTED totaling 1.54 acres located at approximately
REDACTED, Salt Lake City, UT. After careful consideration, we would like to formally request that these parcels be
considered for upzoning to the MU-8 (Mixed-Use, High-Density) designation. We believe that rezoning our
properties to MU-8 is both appropriate and beneficial for several key reasons: 1. Alignment with the Central
Community Master Plan: The MU-8 zone aligns with the city’s goals for mixed-use development that promotes the
integration of residential, commercial, and civic uses. Our parcels are located in an area designated for such
development, and we believe that this zoning change would support the city’s broader vision for growth and urban
revitalization. 2. State Street enhancement o Encourage redevelopment along State Street o Increase height along
state street o Neighborhood placemaking o Walkability 3. Encouraging Transit-Oriented Development (TOD): Our
properties are well-positioned to support transit-oriented development, being near major transportation corridors
and light rail stations. The MU-8 zoning would facilitate higher-density residential and commercial uses, helping to
reduce automobile dependency and contribute to the city’s goal of increasing walkability and transit access in
urban areas. 4. Benefits to the City and Community: o Economic Growth: The MU-8 zone allows for diverse
commercial activities alongside residential development. This can attract new businesses, create jobs, and
provide more opportunities for local entrepreneurs. o Enhanced Housing Options: Upzoning to MU-8 will allow for
the creation of additional housing units, contributing to the city’s growing demand for both affordable and market-
rate housing. o Community and Neighborhood Revitalization: By introducing higher-density, mixed-use
developments, we can revitalize underutilized land, improve neighborhood aesthetics, and foster a vibrant
community atmosphere. We are aware that obtaining the MU-8 zoning designation requires several steps to
ensure that this change aligns with the community’s needs and values. The steps we anticipate following include:
1. Review of the Master Plan and Zoning Compatibility: We will carefully review the Central Community Master
Plan and the current zoning designations to ensure our proposal aligns with the city’s goals. 2. Submission of
Zoning Petition: A formal petition for rezoning will be submitted, detailing how the proposed development will
adhere to the principles of mixed-use growth, transit-oriented development, and community enhancement.
4/11/2025 13:10 Nate Leishman 2/2 CONTINUED!! Request for Rezoning Consideration
of Parcels to MU-8 in the Central Community
3. Zoning Analysis and Evaluation: Our proposal will undergo an analysis to ensure it supports the city’s vision for
livable, sustainable, and integrated urban areas. 4. Community and Stakeholder Involvement: We are committed
to engaging with the local community and stakeholders to address any concerns and ensure that the development
aligns with their interests. 5. Planning and Zoning Commission Review: The proposal will be reviewed by the
Planning and Zoning Commission, who will assess its compatibility with the city’s broader development goals. 6.
City Council Approval: Upon the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendation, the final decision will be
made by the City Council. We sincerely believe that rezoning our parcels to MU-8 will not only support the city’s
long-term growth strategy but will also bring meaningful benefits to the surrounding community. We are
enthusiastic about the potential to contribute to Salt Lake City’s development and would greatly appreciate your
consideration of this request. Should you require any additional information or wish to discuss this proposal
further, please do not hesitate to reach out. We look forward to working collaboratively with the City Council and
the community to ensure the success of this project. Thank you for your time and consideration. Warm regards,
NATE LEISHMAN
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
4/14/2025 17:01 Laura Olsen Group Observation Project Hello Salt Lake City Council! I was asked to observe a group in action and chose yours. It is amazing to have the
option to go in person or be able to watch the livestream. I noticed and really appreciated your attentiveness to all
of the public's comments. In one meeting I watched, Puy and Dugan both made comments to help reassure the
public of your progress in funding and bills. I feel like it makes the organizations and residents feel heard. Thank
you and keep up the good work, Laura Olsen
4/14/2025 17:02 Libby H Peterson Upper Yale Heights LHD I am writing in favor of this LHD. I think that it is so important to preserve the history of Salt Lake City and the
Intermountain West area. It is a joy to walk in the neighborhood, enjoy the trees and yards, and talk with neighbors.
When people know their neighbors and participate in community happenings/events, they have pride in their
homes, city and state. Thank you, Libby Peterson
4/14/2025 17:05 Janine Bailey Sheldon Upper Yale Ave LHD As a 70-year-old graduate of Bonneville, Clayton, and East who still owns on the 1700 block of Yalecrest, I strongly
support the preservation from demolitions and non-contributing remodels on the 1800 block of Yale. What a
shame that so many smaller, older homes have fallen into the hands of greedy developers who have no
appreciation of or connection to the neighborhood. There are plenty of overpriced, low-quality McMansions in
other parts of the city/valley. Let’s do whatever we can to ensure that what’s left of this distinctive historic
neighborhood retains the beauty of its streetscape for future generations of residents and visitors to Salt Lake.
Thank you! Janine Sheldon
4/14/2025 17:07 Lynn Pershing Approval of Upper Yale Heights LHD designation Dear City Council Representatives I strongly support the designation of Upper Yale Heights as a Local Historic
District (LHD) Designation of this area as a LHD is a grass roots effort, created by property owners on the 1800
block of Yale Ave in SLC. The street located 1800-1900 East Yale Ave contains 24 houses of which 22 (92%) are
confirmed by the State Historic Preservation Office as historically contributing. It is a close knit community
containing lovely well-maintained examples of a variety of architectural styles predominantly constructed in brick
from the 1920-30’s with stable property values, and walkable shaded streets for dogs, cyclists and pedestrians
alike. 66.7% of the 24 property owners returned ballots exceeding city code requiring 50% +1 returned ballots from
the proposed boundaries 81.2% of the returned ballots supported designation of this street as a Local Historic
District, exceeding the required 66.6% of returned ballots supporting the LHD designation I strongly support this
grass roots effort by property owners and encourage the City Council to vote for final approval designating this well-
deserved City street as an LHD. Respectfully Lynn K. Pershing, Ph.D. Yalecrest 84108
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
4/14/2025 17:08 Bernie HART What does or does not work... Wayne, I googled the rate of recidivism for Utah's jails and prisons and learned that the current rate is 46%, and the
length of sentence seems to have little impact on recidivism. So, if what I am hearing is true, and we will be asking
the Courts for longer mandated sentences, there is no evidence to suggest the added jail time will help more
people. The only people longer sentences may help will be those charged with dealing with the homeless problem.
If we can't see them, the problem is not a problem. The problem with that thinking is that when the mentally ill
eventually leave jail, they will be struggling with the same issues. The number of people living on our streets will
decline for a short period of time. The number of people in our jails will increase, but eventually they will leave jail
and rejoin their ex-inmate friends on the street. And the bottom line is that if jail is the "solution", nothing may
change. The only thing that will change is that we get to label a person an inmate instead of homeless. What will
not change is the 46% needing help. They will still be a problem for both the homeless and criminal justice system.
A seemingly endless and forever problem. We are developing a way of testing a theory. If jail does help an
individual, we may be able to measure the impact jails have, or don't have, on a person and predict what will
happen. We hope to be able to measure the impact all those "we can help you" programs (in and out of jail) have
on a person. The more successful programs are, the lower the rate of recidivism. An added plus. If we can measure
outcomes, taxpayers benefit. We can start directing funding to programs that help the most people. This is getting
to be fun. We are working with some great people, Bernie
4/14/2025 17:09 Ted Dumont Your thoughts on private security for our Westside
Parks
Dear Council Member Petro, I’m writing to express our support for the city’s initiative to hire private security for our
westside parks, especially Riverside Park and its surroundings. As a resident of the westside for over 25 years, I’ve
seen firsthand both the value these parks bring to our community and the safety concerns that can sometimes
prevent people from fully enjoying them. With Riverside Park’s close proximity to the Jordan River Trail, a dedicated
security presence could help create a safer, more welcoming environment for families, neighbors, and trail users.
We appreciate the city’s efforts to address safety in our public spaces and believe this step could make a
meaningful difference, especially in concert with the increased police presence on the JRT. Please let us know your
thoughts on this proposal and whether you support the idea. If not, we would appreciate hearing your reasoning
and any alternative approaches you might suggest for improving safety in our parks. Thank you for your service and
for your continued work on behalf of District 1. Sincerely, Ted Dumont Kevin Reeves
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
4/14/2025 17:12 Adam Gmyrek 1/2 SLC Public Safety Plan 2025 under performing__12.
To whom it may concern, Please Note: The acronym of SLC-PSP 2025 will be used throughout this email; the acronym refers to
the Salt Lake City Public Safety Plan January 2025 produced by the Mayor of Salt Lake City (SLC) and her team. As a resident of
the Jordan Meadow neighborhood in SLC for the past 7-years and a homeowner for 5-years, I have become an advocate for my
neighborhood; Josh Rebollo & Victoria Petro-Eschler along with other SLC department supervisors can attest to this statement;
especially the MySLC app & the Salt Lake City Police Depart dispatch team. Also, I have and continue to interact with the
assigned Community neighborhood liaison Police Officer, Detective Oliver of the Salt Lake City Police Department (SLCPD). I
have sent numerous emails with pictures, had many conversations via cell phone, and voiced my concerns numerous times
attending public community neighborhood meetings, i.e., the Rose park monthly community meeting, the North Temple
neighborhood meeting, and the Jordan Meadows community meetings – when there is a chairperson scheduling meetings. My
correspondence is read with a blind eye, and my comments / statements at community meetings are listened to with deaf ears;
all-the-while, community leaders at the monthly meetings say, “we want to hear from you “, yet there is no change when I and
other community residents communicate the constant degradation of our community and neighborhoods during the monthly
meetings. I would like to bring attention to the ongoing homeless encampments that are allowed to take place on the Westside
of Salt Lake City and within its neighborhoods. I understand you may be aware of what is taking place on the Westside dealing
with encampments and the homeless; however, you may not get to see what I see on a daily basis when driving or biking to work,
running errands on the Westside, and/or recreating on the Westside of town. The photos below are taken from a known and
reoccurring encampment area on the Westside. I have been reporting to the City of Salt Lake for the past ≤ 3-years about the
illegal camping and RV encampments along Gladiola St, SLC, UT 84116. Apparently this behavior does not fall under the
“guiding principles” of the current SLC-PSP, (SLC-PSP 2025, pg. 7). The photos do not represent the true state the encampment
is in or its size. The photos should depict the seriousness of the issue. I am limited with the amount of photos I can take while in
the encampment before I draw to much attention with its occupants. The occupants of the encampment can and have become
hostile towards me taking photographs of their living conditions. Is it unreasonable to […want the City to resolve quality of life
issues like sanitation, discarded property, and illegal camping…] (SLC-PSP 2025, Pg. 11) for its citizens? This encampment is a
public safety issue; it is not a perceived public safety issue. There was an armed robbery in business quarter 4 of 2024 at this
location – SLCPD can confirm this statement. Also, this encampment is a public health safety issue. Ask yourself: How are the
occupants discarding their body fluids, grey water, etc.? What contaminates are flowing into the City drain(s) and entering the
Great Salt Lake? Is the discarded refuse increasing the Rattus norvegicus (rat) population? Many other questions can be posed
about this encampment and other unsanctioned yet City accepted encampments within the Westside community, i.e., (1700 S
in Glendale, W 700 S & Bangerter Hwy overpass area, W 900 S & Delong St, etc.) The City of Salt Lake knowingly continues to
allow this encampment and others to exist regardless of the endangerment it places upon the public and/or the environment.
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
4/14/2025 17:12 Adam Gmyrek 2/2 CONTINUED!! SLC Public Safety Plan 2025 under
performing__12.
What is taking place with the […updated ordinance aimed at addressing the negative impacts of camping including updates to
the regulations prohibiting the use of RVs for camping on streets in the City…]? Yes, the City does monthly abatements;
however, the City chooses not to […redouble efforts to enforce quality of life laws…] SLC-PSP 2025, Pg. 33). It is lamentable that
the City of Salt Lake chooses to blatantly disregard its own “Immediate Actions:” […that enforcement of public order offenses is
a priority for the City…] (SLC-PSP 2025, Pg. 32) – somehow the downtown area takes precedence over other areas within the
City limits for quick enforcement. The City of Salt Lake should post, “no over night RV parking & no camping signs” along
Gladiola St and other impacted areas as it has done along State Street; then have the City of Salt Lake parking enforcement
department enforce its own parking ordinances. Before anyone says, “there is no money for this”, take one million dollars from
the allotted m18.3 million dollar 2025 summer redesigning of Pioneer Park project. However, it is a money issue. The amount of
trash shown in the photos does not accumulate within a 4-5 day timespan; it is over several weeks! This is one of several blatant
examples the […Homeless people don’t respect municipal boundaries…] (SLC-PSP 2025, Pg. 17). Help me understand why the
hot spots outside the downtown area are not subjected to […hot spot policing…] (SLC-PSP 2025, Pg. 15)? Why is the City of Salt
Lake parking enforcement department not enforcing its parking ordinances? Waiting 20-30 days for the HEART team (Homeless
Engagement and Response Team) to arrive at each encampment and giving City service information to the same people over
and over and overmnonly enables them and emboldens their brazen behavior to continue. Additionally, it increases perceived
entitlement and does not allow for accountability. The past 4-years the homeless population and the RV population has grown
exponentially all the while their rights somehow have superseded the rights of the citizens who work, live, and recreate in City of
Salt Lake. Is it unreasonable as a citizen of Salt Lake to ask the City of Salt Lake, its City Council members, and the Salt Lake City
Police Department to enact rule of law & enforce its ordinances evenly amongst the homeless population, the RV population
and the law-abiding citizen population of Salt Lake? How about following and enacting what is within the SLC-PSP 2025? Why is
it that housed citizens of Salt Lake are held accountable and fined for City ordinance infractions, yet the homeless and RV
populations are not held financially accountable for their City ordinance infractions? The homeless population, the RV owners
who choose to live on the fringe of society, and the working class people can all be put on a payment plan. The accountability is
grossly lopsided and it continues to be grossly lopsided. There is no excuse not to hold an adult accountable for their actions
and/or inactions. Finally, if anyone would like to see/read the previous emails: SLC Public Safety Plan 2025 under performing_1-
11; please reach out to Josh Rebollo – District 1, Liaison for SLC Mayor, Victoria Petro-Eschler – District 1 Representative, or
Wayne Niederhauser – Director, Utah Office of Homeless Services. I have sent each representative the same emails with the
same attached photos of the City’s acquiescence toward the behavior of the homeless population and the behavior of the RV
owners on the Westside’s City streets and neighborhoods – it’s appalling and should not be tolerated! If it is not tolerated in the
Sugarhouse neighborhood it should not be tolerated on the Westside — period! “The proactive approach to a mistake is to
acknowledge it instantly, correct and learn from it. This literally turns a failure into a success.” – Stephen Covey. Thank you,
Regards, Adam Gmyrek
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
4/14/2025 17:15 Todd Boren Petition PLNHLC2023-00571 Yalecrest - Upper
Yale - Local Historic Disctrict
Dear City Council Members, I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed inclusion of the 1800 to 1900
block of Yale Avenue to the local historic district. While I understand and appreciate the intention to preserve
architectural heritage and cultural history, I believe this action would have several negative long-term
consequences for current and future homeowners in the area. The historic designation imposes significant
limitations on property owners’ ability to make changes, updates, or rebuilds to their homes. This dramatically
reduces flexibility for maintenance and necessary modernization, and can disincentivize much-needed investment
in our properties. In many cases, these restrictions require materials or methods that are significantly more
expensive, thus increasing the cost of ownership for residents who may already be financially stretched. Moreover,
this designation could decrease property values—not increase them—by narrowing the pool of prospective buyers.
Many potential homeowners are deterred by the red tape and high costs associated with historic guidelines,
preferring homes that allow for flexibility with customization and updates. In addition, homes risk appearing tired
or outdated over time due to limits on improvements, which may further hurt neighborhood vitality and overall curb
appeal. It is important to preserve our city’s history, but that must be balanced with the rights and needs of its
residents. A forced inclusion into a historic district undermines surrounding homeowners’ autonomy, equity, and
ability to adapt to evolving standards of safety, sustainability, and livability. I urge the Council to reconsider this
proposal and respect the voices of those who live in and care for these homes every day. Please do not impose
restrictions that diminish the livability, value, and long-term sustainability of our community. Thank you for your
time and consideration. Sincerely, Todd Boren
4/15/2025 14:25 Nisha Burke for 4/15/25 meeting: PLNPCM2024-01153 First
Step House Rezone (Harold Woodruff)
Hello, Regarding tonight's meeting addressing rezoning of 273 E 800 S: Neighborhood safety related to the First
Step House request to build in the neighborhood is of the utmost concern for nearby residents. The construction
site currently has safety risks outlined in the attached images (see PDF file attached). If First Step House is going to
demonstrate or foster an environment of safety for the neighborhood they are petitioning to change drastically with
request #PLNPCM2024-01153, the current level of safety on their construction site should quickly be
professionally assessed, and conceivably upgraded. If this matter can be taken into consideration during tonight's
discussion it would be appreciated. I will attend the meeting and represent these matters, but also wanted to
submit the attached images before the meeting commences. Thank you, Nisha Burke