HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/15/2025 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
WORK SESSION
April 15, 2025 Tuesday 2:00 PM
Council meetings are held in a hybrid meeting format. Hybrid meetings allow people to join online or in
person at the City & County Building. Learn more at www.slc.gov/council/agendas.
Council Work Room
451 South State Street, Room 326
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
SLCCouncil.com
7:00 pm Formal Meeting
Room 315
(See separate agenda)
Welcome and public meeting rules
In accordance with State Statute and City Ordinance, the meeting may be held electronically. After 5:00 p.m., please enter the
City & County Building through the main east entrance.
The Work Session is a discussion among Council Members and select presenters. The public is welcome to listen. Items
scheduled on the Work Session or Formal Meeting may be moved and / or discussed during a different portion of the Meeting
based on circumstance or availability of speakers.
The Website addresses listed on the agenda may not be available after the Council votes on the item. Not all agenda items will
have a webpage for additional information read associated agenda paperwork.
Generated: 09:16:30
Note: Dates not identified in the project timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. Item start
times and durations are approximate and are subject to change.
Work Session Items
1.Ordinance: Mixed-Use (MU) Zoning Consolidation Zoning Text
and Map Amendment Follow-up ~ 2:00 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive a follow-up briefing on a proposal that would amend the City's
zoning ordinance and zoning map by consolidating up to 27 existing commercial, form-
based, and mixed-use zoning districts into six new mixed-use (MU) districts. The
proposal aims to simplify zoning regulations, improve clarity of language, and
incorporate missing design standards. The new mixed-use districts will be similar to the
current districts but will have changes to setbacks, building height, lot coverage, and
permitted land uses. Other sections of Title 21A may also be amended as part of this
petition.
For more information visit https://tinyurl.com/SLCMixedUse.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, February 4, 2025; Tuesday, April 8, 2025; and Tuesday, April 15,
2025
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 1, 2025
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 6, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
2.Fiscal Year 2025-26 Proposed Budget: Department of Airports ~ 2:30 p.m.
45 min.
The Council will be briefed about the Mayor’s recommended budget relating to the
Department of Airports 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 - Tuesday, April 15, 2025
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
3.Fiscal Year 2025-26 Proposed Budget: Salt Lake City Public
Library System ~ 3:15 p.m.
45 min.
The Council will be briefed about the Library Board’s recommended Operations and
Capital Budget 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 - Tuesday, April 15, 2025
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
4.Tentative Break ~ 4:00 p.m.
20 min.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -
Set Public Hearing Date -
Hold hearing to accept public comment -
TENTATIVE Council Action -
5.Fiscal Year 2025-26 Proposed Budget: Department of Public
Utilities ~ 4:20 p.m.
45 min.
The Council will be briefed about the Mayor’s recommended budget for the Department
of Public Utilities 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 - Tuesday, April 15, 2025
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
6.Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.5 for Fiscal Year 2024-25
Follow-up ~ 5:05 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about Budget Amendment No. 5 for the
Fiscal Year 2024-25 Budget. Budget amendments happen several times each year to
reflect adjustments to the City’s budgets, including proposed project additions and
modifications. The proposed amendment includes funding to cover remaining costs for
the 400 South Bridge Reconstruction project, funds to repair homes in the Community
Land Trust, additional funding for the Hive Pass program because of increased usage,
and funding to expand the scope of a public restroom study.
For more information visit tinyurl.com/SLCFY25.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, April 1, 2025; 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
7.Council Policy Manual: Communication Budget Discussion ~ 5:25 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will hold a discussion about the Communication Budget section of the
Council Policy Manual and discuss options for how to update the policy.
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 - n/a
8.Ordinance: Enacting Temporary Zoning Regulations TENTATIVE
10 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about ordinances that would enact temporary zoning
regulations affecting the facilities located at each Homeless Resource Center: Volunteers
of America Youth Resource Center, Geraldine E. King Women’s Resource Center, Gail
Miller Resource Center, and St. Vincent de Paul Center.
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
9.Board Appointment: Art Design Board – Michelle Buhler ~ 5:55 p.m.
5 min.
The Council will interview Michelle Buhler prior to considering appointment 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
10.Board Appointment: Art Design Board – Wisam Khudhair ~ 6:00 p.m.
5 min.
The Council will interview Wisam Khudhair prior to considering appointment 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
11.Board Appointment: Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry, and
Trails (PNUT) Advisory Board – Sarah Foran ~ 6:05 p.m.
5 min.
The Council will interview Sarah Foran prior to considering appointment 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
12.Board Appointment: Transportation Advisory Board – Kelbe
Goupil ~ 6:10 p.m.
5 min.
The Council will interview Kelbe Goupil prior to considering appointment 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
13.Board Appointment: Transportation Advisory Board – Turner
Bitton ~ 6:15 p.m.
5 min.
The Council will interview Turner Bitton prior to considering appointment 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
14.Board Appointment: Transportation Advisory Board – Ari
Tepper ~ 6:20 p.m.
5 min.
The Council will interview Ari Tepper prior to considering appointment 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
Standing Items
15.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair -
-
Report of Chair and Vice Chair.
16.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director -
-
Report of the Executive Director, including a review of Council information items and
announcements. The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to
City Council business, including but not limited to:
•Travel; and
•Scheduling Items.
17.Tentative Closed Session -
-
The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session. A closed meeting described
under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including, but not limited to:
a. discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental
health of an individual;
b. strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining;
c. strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation;
d. strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property,
including any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the
transaction would:
(i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration; or
(ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best
possible terms;
e. strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water
right or water shares, if:
(i) public discussion of the transaction would:
(A) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration; or
(B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best
possible terms;
(ii) the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be
offered for sale; and
(iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body
approves the sale;
f. discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and
g. investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct.
A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to
Utah Code § 78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements
of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act.
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
On or before 5:30 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.
COUNCIL STAFF
REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Nick Tarbet, Policy Analyst
DATE:April 15, 2025
RE:Mixed-Use Zoning Consolidation
PLNPCM2024-00707
PROJECT TIMELINE:
Briefing 1: February 4, 2025
Briefing 2: April 8, 2025
Briefing 3: April 15, 2025
Set Date: April 1, 2025
Public Hearing: May 6, 2025
Potential Action: TBD
APRIL 8 WORK SESSION SUMMARY
During the Council’s April 8 briefing, the Council went over the first eleven straw polls, which they
indicated support for each of those recommendations.
The Council will have a follow-up briefing on April 15 to go over the rest of the straw polls. The public
hearing is set for May 6.
Straw Poll Results from 4.8.2025 Briefing
Issue Yes No
1 Allow drive through facilities for financial intuitions in Sugar House
districts.X
2
Allow up to 150’ in Sugar House area (south of 2100 south, 1300 E
McClelland to freeway). MU11 type height (with the addition of the
conditions outlined in the Granary Area sections)X
3 Change max height for row house in MU-5 and above to 45 feet X
Page | 2
4
Clarify language to allow for “vertical stacking” in row houses.
Request to include the change below
DWELLING, ROW HOUSE: A series of attached single-family
dwellings that share at least one common wall with an adjacent
dwelling unit and where the entry of each unit faces a public
street. Units may be stacked vertically and/or attached
horizontally. Each attached unit may be on its own lot.
Proposed Chage: “DWELLING, ROW HOUSE: A series of
attached single-family dwellings residential units that share…
X
5
Remove language that requires roof pitch / height be similar to
adjacent properties in MU-3. Proposed removing this in MU-3
Staff proposes removing this in MU-2 and MU-3 X
6a
Standardizing setback for similar zones
Urban House/Two-Family/Cottage
1. Open Space: Revise all to 10% open space with 20%
vegetation
X
6b
Row House
1. Front/corner side yard (min.)
MU-2/3: Maintain 5 ft in both, merge additional
language about landscaping and hardscape.
2. Front/corner side yard (max.)
MU-2/3: Eliminate maximum for MU-3 to match MU-2
3. Rear Yard
MU-11: Make consistent with MU-5/6/8, by increasing
MU-11 to 10'
4. Open Space Area (min)
ALL 10% OS / 20% vegetation
X
6c
Vertical Mixed Use, Storefront and Multi-family
1. Front/corner Side Yard min
MU2, MU3: Make both consistent, apply the 5' min.
MU-2 standard to MU-3.
Page | 3
MU5, MU-6-MU- 8: Make all consistent, apply the
variable use based 0' to 10' setback in MU-5/6 to MU-8.
2. Front /Corner Side Yard (max)
MU-2/3: No Max
MU-5/6/8: Apply MU-5/6 setback to MU-8.
3. Rear Yard: Merge rear yard language for MU-2/3.
4. Open Space Area (min)
ALL 10% OS / 20% vegetation
X
7
Add “Contractor’s Yard/Office (Indoor)” use to the Transitional
Overlay as a Conditional Use.
o Staff recommends including this use.
X
8
Areas unintentionally included as requiring activity use due to a code
provision in the recently adopted MU-8 code.
o Staff recommends removing “Richard Street, from Harvard
Avenue to Kelsey Avenue” as an area requiring an “Enhanced
Active Ground Floor Use.”
o 400 South, located between 500 West (start of rail overpass)
and the I-15 interchange (~800 West), was unintentionally
included in the requirement for a high activity use. Staff
recommends excluding this area from the use requirement due
to poor viability
X
9
Delete the requirement for a 6' walkway between multiple buildings
that are over 75' in façade length.
o Staff recommends deleting this requirement X
10
Add a prohibition on mature coverage counting toward the required
park strip vegetation coverage of 33% in MU-8 and MU-11.
o Staff recommends applying the requirement to other high-
intensity MU zones, the MU-8 and MU-11 X
11 Add a transition period to the MU zone adoption. X
Page | 4
o Staff recommends that the City Council include a transition
period of 3-6 months where developers could still utilize the
prior regulations. The Council expressed support for a 3
month flex period where developers could use either zone.
The following information was provided for the April 8, 2025, work session briefing.
FEBRUARY 4 WORK SESSION SUMMARY
During the Council’s February 4 briefing, Planning provided an overview of the zoning amendments.
Council Members asked a variety of questions about building height, setbacks, parking, design
standards, open space and potential changes to the proposed zoning map amendments. At the
briefing, some Council Members asked to meet with Planning staff to discuss details of the zoning
amendments.
Based on the briefing and follow-up meetings, the straw polls below have been prepared for the
Council to review and provide direction to staff on which to incorporate into the final draft ordinance.
The public hearing will be held on May 6.
Straw Polls
Items from Transmittal and Council Discussions
o Allow drive through facilities for financial intuitions in Sugar House districts.
o Allow up to 150’ in Sugar House area (south of 2100 south, 1300 E McClelland to freeway).
MU11 type height
o Change max height for row house in MU-5 and above to 45 feet.
o Clarify language to allow for “vertical stacking” in row houses.
Request to include the change below
DWELLING, ROW HOUSE: A series of attached single-family dwellings that share at least one
common wall with an adjacent dwelling unit and where the entry of each unit faces a public
street. Units may be stacked vertically and/or attached horizontally. Each attached unit may be
on its own lot.
Proposed Chage: “DWELLING, ROW HOUSE: A series of attached single-family dwellings
residential units that share…
o Remove language that requires roof pitch / height be similar to adjacent properties in MU-3.
Proposed removing this in MU-3
1. Staff proposes removing this in MU-2 and MU-3
6. Standardizing setback for similar zones Proposed Changes
Page | 5
o A. Urban House/Two-Family/Cottage Open Space: Revise all to 10% open space with
20% vegetation
o Row House
1. Front/corner side yard (min.): MU-2/3: Maintain 5 ft in both, merge additional
language about landscaping and hardscape.
2. Front/corner side yard (max.): MU-2/3: Eliminate maximum for MU-3 to
match MU-2
3. Rear Yard: MU-11: Make consistent with MU-5/6/8, by increasing MU-11 to 10'.
4. Open Space Area (min): ALL 10% OS / 20% vegetation
o Vertical Mixed Use, Storefront and Multi-family
1. Front/corner Side Yard min
MU2, MU3: Make both consistent, apply the 5' min. MU-2 standard to
MU-3.
MU5, MU-6-MU- 8: Make all consistent, apply the variable use based 0'
to 10' setback in MU-5/6 to MU-8.
2. Front /Corner Side Yard (max)
MU-2/3: No Max
MU-5/6/8: Apply MU-5/6 setback to MU-8.
3. Rear Yard: Merge rear yard language for MU-2/3.
4. Open Space Area (min) ALL 10% OS / 20% vegetation
7. Add “Contractor’s Yard/Office (Indoor)” use to the Transitional Overlay as a Conditional Use.
1.Staff recommends including this use.
8. Areas unintentionally included as an requiring activity use due to a code provision in the
recently adopted MU-8 code.
o Staff recommends removing “Richard Street, from Harvard Avenue to Kelsey Avenue”
as an area requiring an “Enhanced Active Ground Floor Use.”
o 400 South, located between 500 West (start of rail overpass) and the I-15 interchange
(~800 West), was unintentionally included in the requirement for a high activity use.
Staff recommends excluding this area from the use requirement due to poor viability
9. Delete the requirement for a 6' walkway between multiple buildings that are over 75' in façade
length.
1.Staff recommends deleting this requirement
Page | 6
10. Add a prohibition on mature coverage counting toward the required park strip vegetation
coverage of 33% in MU-8 and MU-11.
1.Staff recommends applying the requirement to other high-intensity MU zones, the
MU-8 and MU-11
11. Add a transition period to the MU zone adoption.
1.Staff recommends that the City Council include a transition period of 3-6 months
where developers could still utilize the prior regulations.
12. Modify the height limit for "private directional signs" from 4' to 8'.
1.Staff recommends increasing the height so that private parking-related signs can be
at eye level.
13. Include the proposed mapping changes
1.Staff recommends including the following changes in the final draft.
FB-UN2 Corners to MU-6 in Central 9th
Residential/Office (RO) Zone to MU-8 East Downtown and West Temple
Green Street/2100 South
Federal Property at 2100 S/Redwood Road
14. Modifications to 21A.10 public hearing notices to better match changes to State code that were
adopted this legislative session. Planning staff included some changes to 21A.10 in the
consolidation to address what the state code referred to as geographic areas and that cities
could define what that meant. This year, the state introduced “ministerial” code changes that
do not have to include mailed notices that the city would want to include in that section.
15. Parking options from Planning Staff
A few Council Members met with Community and Neighborhoods (CAN) staff to discuss how
some developments create the necessity to remove some off-street parking stalls, thus
impacting the neighborhoods where they are located. Planning staff provided the following
options for the Council to consider that could address those concerns.
o Any multi-family project over a certain number of dwellings could be required to
include a mix of dwelling sizes. An example could include requiring any development
with over 20 units to provide at least 25% of the units with 2 or more bedrooms. This
would limit a concentration of micro-units in any given area and promote more family
sized housing. It would require a text amendment and consideration for applying it to
any zone that allows larger apartment buildings and buildings four stories or greater.
o Mico-unit projects over a certain number of dwellings could be required to have a
parking minimum to help alleviate on-street parking pressures. An example could
include a micro-unit project with over 25 dwellings be required to have a .5 parking
Page | 7
ratio. This would require a text amendment and consideration for applying it to any zone that
allows larger apartment buildings and buildings four stories or greater.
c. A requirement could be added that buildings be limited to 30' in height if the existing
ROW does not satisfy aerial fire access requirements and no modifications to park
strips, on street parking, etc. are allowed. Or, the City’s consideration of removing on-
street parking would only be allowed for projects that meet certain policy objectives
such as affordable housing or family-sized housing. This could help reduce the
expectation that property owners have about what can be built on their property and
can address the perception that modifying the right of way by removing on street
parking, narrowing a park strip, or removing street trees is essentially a public asset
that is being “given” to a developer.
d. If a project is required to remove on-street parking to comply with fire code, the project
could be required to provide the same number of parking stalls on-site, with the City
recording a public easement to ensure that the parking stalls are available to the public
and posted accordingly. Consideration should be given to the impact providing parking
has on affordable housing, with possible exceptions for certain types of residential uses.
This would require resources for enforcement.
Requests From the Public
16. Request to rezone property MU-8 instead of MU-5 for some parcels on North Temple. The
constituent feels the MU-8 is better aligned with the project they would like to do.
1. Located at approximately 69, 59, 53, and 51 N Chicago, 955 North Temple.
17. Add kennel as permitted use
1. Current zoning allows a veterinary clinic which they plan to include. The constituent
feels adding "animal kennel" to the zone would provide additional clarity so they can
operate seamlessly without regulatory concerns.
1. Planning Staff recommends adding as Conditional to MU2/3/5 to match MU-
6/8/11 if the Council would like to make the use allowed
18. Legislative Actions pertaining to zoning
o Request the administration review interior blocks that were studied as part of the
zoning consolidation, with narrow streets and have single family structures, and
consider proposing a downzone for these properties.
o Request the Administration to analyze review and update parts of the Central City
Master plan related to the State Street corridor with the goal of rezoning parcels to a
higher density MU zoning district.
The following information was provided for the February 4, 2025, work session
briefing.
Page | 9
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will receive a briefing on a proposal to update the City's zoning ordinance and zoning map by
consolidating up to 27 existing commercial, form-based, and mixed-use zoning districts into six new
mixed-use (MU) districts. The goal of these amendments is to simplify zoning regulations, improve clarity
of language, and incorporate missing design standards. The new mixed-use districts will be similar to the
current districts but will have changes to setbacks, building height, lot coverage, and permitted land uses.
Goal of the briefing: Review the proposal, including Policy Questions (p. 4), and information provided
following the planning commission discussion. Evaluate whether additional feedback needs to be
provided prior to the Council’s public hearing on March 4.
OVERVIEW OF CHANGES
The Planning transmittal includes many attachments that succinctly summarize and visualize the draft
ordinance. Council staff included them as an attachment to this memo for quick access.
Attachment A – Zoning Standards / Illustrations for the MU Zones
Attachment B – Overlay Summary for CG M1
Attachment C – Parking Regulations for MU zones
Attachment D – Neighborhood Level Maps of MU Zones
Planning staff also developed a project page that provides extensive information on the project. It is a
helpful tool for anyone looking to get a deeper understanding of the proposed zoning amendments.
Additionally, they developed an interactive map showing the new MU zones' locations throughout the city.
The Planning Commission held ten briefings on the MU consolidation project. Two public hearings were
held, and a positive recommendation was ultimately forwarded to the City Council.
Since this item was forwarded to the Council, some unrelated zoning petitions that impact a few of the
properties identified in this zoning petition were approved. The planning staff is updating the ordinance
and zoning maps to reflect those changes. Policy question #3 below provides additional background.
MORE DETAILED VIEW OF KEY CHANGES
According to the transmittal letter (page 3), “consolidating these zoning districts will change the
regulations that apply to thousands of properties within the city (approximately 6,300 directly affected
properties).”
Pages 6-11 of the Transmittal Letter include a summary of each zone, Their purpose, and general zoning
regulations. Below is a general outline of the key changes. See the Transmittal Letter and attachments for
more in-depth information on the various zones.
1. Land Use Tables
Several amendments will be made to the Land Use tables. Many of the minor amendments
to the existing tables include consolidated definitions, the removal of zoning districts being
consolidated into the new land use table, and the removal of some land uses.
2. Creates 6 new zoning districts and rezones properties to the new zoning districts.
Attachment A is a fact sheet outlining the zoning standards for each new district, such as height,
setbacks, building size, and design standards. The interactive map also shows the new MU zones'
locations throughout the city.
Page | 10
MU-2 MU-3 MU-5
Consolidated Zones
o Residential Business (RB),
o Small Neighborhood
Business (SNB)
o Neighborhood Commercial
(CN)
Consolidated Zones
o Community Business (CB)
o R-MU-35 (Residential
Mixed Use - 35)
Consolidated Zones
o Form-Based Urban
Neighborhood 2 (FB-UN2),
o Corridor Commercial (CC),
o Community Shopping (CS),
o Form-Based Special
Purpose Corridor Edge (FB-
SE),
o Residential Mixed Use 45
(R-MU-45)
o Transit Station Area
Transitional (TSA-UN-T)
o Mixed Use (MU)
o South State Street Corridor
Overlay (SSSC)
MU-6 MU-8 MU-11
Consolidated Zones
o Form-Based Urban
Neighborhood 2 (FB-UN2)
o Form Based Special
Purpose Corridor (FB-SE)
o Sugar House Business
District 2 (CSHBD-2)
o Residential Office (RO)
o Transit Station Area -
Urban Core Transition
(TSA-UC-T)
o Special Purpose Transition
(TSA-SP-T)
o Mixed Use Employment
Center Transition (TSA-
MUEC-T)
Consolidated Zones
o Residential Mixed Use
(RMU)
o Transit Station Area -
Mixed Use Employment
Center Core (TSA-MUEC-C)
o Special Purpose Core (TSA-
SP-C)
o Urban Neighborhood Core
(TSA-UN-C)
Consolidated Zones
o CG (General Commercial),
o FBMU-11 (Form-Based
Mixed-Use 11)
o TSAUC- C (Transit Station
Area Urban Center Core)
o CSHBD-1 (Sugar House
Business District)
3.Establishes the general provisions that apply to all MU zones
See Attachment A
MU Building Types
Cottage, Urban House, Two-Family
Row House
Storefront, Vertical Mixed-Use, Multi Family Residential
o Heights
1.The number in the title of each district generally identifies the number of building
stories allowed by that zone. (some flexibility is granted for enhanced ground
floor uses)
Page | 11
o Setbacks
1.Make consistent across the various zoning designations,
2.Require larger buffers and setbacks when next to a low-scale single-family/two-
family
o Landscape buffers
1.A 10-foot landscape buffer is required when any of the MU zones abut single-family,
two-family zones, and multifamily zones
2.step-back requirements between higher-scale MU zones and zones under 35 feet in
height, including MU-2 and MU-3 zones,
o Lots/Buildings Without Public Street Frontage
1.Allow lots without public street frontage. Helps with deep lot configuration
o Open Space
1.In addition to the basic yard setback requirement, a general standard of 10% of the
lot area will be required for open space
2.Minimum dimension of 15’ x 15’ to ensure useability
o Mid-block Walkways
1.All zones are proposed to require the implementation of a mid-block walkway on a
property if one has been identified in an adopted City plan.
4.Create a Transitional Overlay for M-1 and CG properties
See Attachment B for details
The zoning amendments would create a significant number of nonconforming uses.
A proposed “Transitional Overlay” would generally allow a selection of more intensive
commercial and light industrial uses in these areas, allowing for reduced design standards
while including buffer and landscaping requirements. (Click on the interactive map link to
see the transitional overlay boundaries)
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. Effective Date—In the past, when the Council adopted significant zoning amendments that
impacted many different zones and properties, a delayed effective date was included so that
projects that may be caught up in the amendments, could either finish under the current
zoning standards or use the new ordinance. Council staff received one request for the Council
to consider delayed implementation for this petition.
Does the Council support including a delayed effective date for the MU zoning
consolidation?
2. Drive-through concerns – a constituent reached out to the City about the impacts the proposed
amendment would have on a project they are working on that includes an existing drive-
through.
Planning staff provided the following options to address the request for consideration:
a. Modify the land use table language to allow for financial institutions to have drive-
throughs in the MU11 zone.
Page | 12
b. Allow the drive-through use at that location as approved through a development
agreement
o It would have to go to the Planning Commission and the City Council for
approval.
The Council may wish to discuss these options with Planning staff and, if
either option is supported, request that staff make the change in the final
ordinance.
3. Post Planning Commission updates.
After the planning commission forwarded a positive recommendation, staff noted some
technical and substantive changes that needed to be made to the draft ordinance. The planning
staff is seeking Council direction on the following items, outlined on pages 15- 16 of the
Transmittal Letter. The Council will be asked to conduct straw polls to determine if these
changes are included in the final ordinance.
a. Add “Contractor’s Yard/Office (Indoor)” use to the Transitional Overlay as a
Conditional Use.
i. Staff recommends including this use.
b. Richard Street was unintentionally included as an area requiring a high activity use due
to a code provision in the recently adopted MU-8 code.
i. Staff recommends removing “Richard Street, from Harvard Avenue to Kelsey
Avenue” as an area requiring an “Enhanced Active Ground Floor Use.”
c. Delete the requirement for a 6' walkway between multiple buildings that are over 75' in
façade length.
i. Staff recommends deleting this requirement
d. Add a prohibition on mature coverage counting toward the required park strip
vegetation coverage of 33% in MU-8 and MU-11.
i. Staff recommends applying the requirement to other high-intensity MU zones,
the MU-8 and MU-11
e. Add a transition period to the MU zone adoption (see policy question #2 above)
i. Staff recommends that the City Council include a transition period of 9 to 12
months where developers could still utilize the prior regulations.
f. Modify the height limit for "private directional signs" from 4' to 8'.
i. Staff recommends increasing the height so that private parking related signs
can be at eye level.
g. Include the proposed mapping changes on pages 16-20
Staff recommends including the following changes in the final draft.
i. FB-UN2 Corners to MU-6 in Central 9th.
ii. Residential/Office (RO) Zone to MU-8 East Downtown and West Temple.
iii. Green Street/2100 South - maintain the FB-UN1 zoning on the west part
of the property.
Federal Property at 2100 S/Redwood Road – leave as PL.
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
Page | 13
1. Pages 20-23 of the Transmittal Letter outlines the public process. Starting in April 2024, the public
outreach included eight walking tours in various neighborhoods around the city, open houses,
various community events such as town halls, presentations to recognized community
organizations, and 10 briefings before the planning commission, along with 2 public hearings.
Straw Polls
MU Zoning Consolidation Discussion
4.15.2025
The Council considered and supported the first 11 items during the 4.8.2025 Work Session Briefing
Issue Yes No
1 Allow drive through facilities for financial intuitions in Sugar House
districts.X
2
Allow up to 150’ in Sugar House area (south of 2100 south, 1300 E
McClelland to freeway). MU11 type height (with the addition of the
conditions outlined in the Granary Area sections)X
3 Change max height for row house in MU-5 and above to 45 feet X
4
Clarify language to allow for “vertical stacking” in row houses.
Request to include the change below
DWELLING, ROW HOUSE: A series of attached single-family
dwellings that share at least one common wall with an adjacent
dwelling unit and where the entry of each unit faces a public
street. Units may be stacked vertically and/or attached
horizontally. Each attached unit may be on its own lot.
Proposed Chage: “DWELLING, ROW HOUSE: A series of
attached single-family dwellings residential units that share…
X
5
Remove language that requires roof pitch / height be similar to
adjacent properties in MU-3. Proposed removing this in MU-3
Staff proposes removing this in MU-2 and MU-3 X
6a
Standardizing setback for similar zones
Urban House/Two-Family/Cottage
1. Open Space: Revise all to 10% open space with 20%
vegetation
X
6b
Row House
1. Front/corner side yard (min.)
MU-2/3: Maintain 5 ft in both, merge additional
language about landscaping and hardscape.
2. Front/corner side yard (max.)
MU-2/3: Eliminate maximum for MU-3 to match MU-2
3. Rear Yard
MU-11: Make consistent with MU-5/6/8, by increasing
MU-11 to 10'
4. Open Space Area (min)
ALL 10% OS / 20% vegetation
X
6c
Vertical Mixed Use, Storefront and Multi-family
1. Front/corner Side Yard min
MU2, MU3: Make both consistent, apply the 5' min.
MU-2 standard to MU-3.
MU5, MU-6-MU- 8: Make all consistent, apply the
variable use based 0' to 10' setback in MU-5/6 to MU-8.
2. Front /Corner Side Yard (max)
MU-2/3: No Max
MU-5/6/8: Apply MU-5/6 setback to MU-8.
3. Rear Yard: Merge rear yard language for MU-2/3.
4. Open Space Area (min)
ALL 10% OS / 20% vegetation
X
7
Add “Contractor’s Yard/Office (Indoor)” use to the Transitional
Overlay as a Conditional Use.
o Staff recommends including this use.
X
8
Areas unintentionally included as requiring activity use due to a code
provision in the recently adopted MU-8 code.
o Staff recommends removing “Richard Street, from Harvard
Avenue to Kelsey Avenue” as an area requiring an “Enhanced
Active Ground Floor Use.”
o 400 South, located between 500 West (start of rail overpass)
and the I-15 interchange (~800 West), was unintentionally
included in the requirement for a high activity use. Staff
recommends excluding this area from the use requirement due
to poor viability
X
9
Delete the requirement for a 6' walkway between multiple buildings
that are over 75' in façade length.
o Staff recommends deleting this requirement X
10
Add a prohibition on mature coverage counting toward the required
park strip vegetation coverage of 33% in MU-8 and MU-11.
o Staff recommends applying the requirement to other high-
intensity MU zones, the MU-8 and MU-11 X
11
Add a transition period to the MU zone adoption.
o Staff recommends that the City Council include a transition
period of 3-6 months where developers could still utilize the
prior regulations.X
The Council will review items 12- 18b during the
April 15 work session briefing
12
Modify the height limit for "private directional signs" from 4' to 8'.
o Staff recommends increasing the height so that private
parking related signs can be at eye level.
13
Include the proposed mapping changes
o Staff recommends including the following changes in the final
draft.
o FB-UN2 Corners to MU-6 in Central 9th
o Residential/Office (RO) Zone to MU-8 East Downtown
and West Temple
o Green Street/2100 South
o Federal Property at 2100 S/Redwood Road
14
Modifications to 21A.10 public hearing notices to better match changes
to State code that were adopted this legislative session. Planning staff
included some changes to 21A.10 in the consolidation to address what
the state code referred to as geographic areas and that cities could
define what that meant. This year, the state introduced “ministerial”
code changes that do not have to include mailed notices that the city
would want to include in that section.
15
Parking options from Planning Staff
o Any multi-family project over a certain number of dwellings could
be required to include a mix of dwelling sizes. An example could
include requiring any development with over 20 units to provide at
least 25% of the units with 2 or more bedrooms. This would limit a
concentration of micro-units in any given area and promote more
family sized housing. It would require a text amendment and
consideration for applying it to any zone that allows larger
apartment buildings and buildings four stories or greater.
o Mico-unit projects over a certain number of dwellings could be
required to have a parking minimum to help alleviate on-street
parking pressures. An example could include a micro-unit project
with over 25 dwellings be required to have a .5 parking ratio. This
would require a text amendment and consideration for applying it
to any zone that allows larger apartment buildings and buildings
four stories or greater.
o A requirement could be added that buildings be limited to 30' in
height if the existing ROW does not satisfy aerial fire access
requirements and no modifications to park strips, on street
parking, etc. are allowed. Or, the City’s consideration of removing
on-street parking would only be allowed for projects that meet
certain policy objectives such as affordable housing or family-sized
housing. This could help reduce the expectation that property
owners have about what can be built on their property and can
address the perception that modifying the right of way by removing
on street parking, narrowing a park strip, or removing street trees
is essentially a public asset that is being “given” to a developer.
o If a project is required to remove on-street parking to comply with
fire code, the project could be required to provide the same
number of parking stalls on-site, with the City recording a public
easement to ensure that the parking stalls are available to the
public and posted accordingly. Consideration should be given to
the impact providing parking has on affordable housing, with
possible exceptions for certain types of residential uses. This would
require resources for enforcement.
16
Request from the Public
o Request to rezone property MU-8 instead of MU-5 for some
parcels on North Temple. The constituent feels the MU-8 is
better aligned with the project they would like to do.
o Located at approximately 69, 59, 53, and 51 N Chicago,
955, 963, 973 North Temple and 62 North 1000 West.
17
Request from the Public
Add kennel as permitted use
o Current zoning allows a veterinary clinic which they plan to
include. The constituent feels adding "animal kennel" to the
zone would provide additional clarity so they can operate
seamlessly without regulatory concerns.
o Planning Staff recommends adding as Conditional to
MU2/3/5 to match MU-6/8/11 if the Council would like
to make the use allowed
18a
Legislative Actions
Request the administration review interior blocks that were studied as
part of the zoning consolidation, with narrow streets and have single
family structures, and consider proposing a downzone for these
properties.
18b
Legislative Actions
Request the Administration to analyze review and update parts of the
Central City Master plan related to the State Street corridor with the
goal of rezoning parcels to a higher density MU zoning district.
19 MU-11 Additional Height Options
a. Planning Staff would like to clarify two of the options allowed
for 25' of additional height in the MU-11 zone in the Granary
and Sugar House:
o Revise the language from “100% ground floor
commercial use” to the zoning term “100% ground floor
Enhanced Active Use”
o Revise the term “affordable housing” to “affordable
housing in compliance with the Affordable Housing
Incentives (21A.52.050)”
b. Planning Staff would like to verify whether the Council prefers
to allow those developments to get a total of 61' of additional
height using only the “Affordable Housing Incentives,” going
from 125' to 186'. Or whether the Council would prefer those
developments reaching that height also include one of the other
options as well – a 20' midblock walkway or 100% ground floor
enhanced active uses.
Page | 1
2
5
8
7
6
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Nick Tarbet, Policy Analyst
DATE:April 15, 2025
RE:Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget, Department of Airports
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
Salt Lake City Corporation operates the Department of Airports as an enterprise fund. Airline passenger
and other concessions-related revenues fund department operations. The airport also receives funding
through federal grant programs like the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) via the federal government’s
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). In this way, the airport does not rely on city tax dollars for its
expenses, like operations and capital.
According to the Transmittal Letter (page 4), operating revenues will increase by $88.1 million to $559.6
million primarily due to terminal rents increasing by $39.1 million. This increase is related to the new
airline use agreement, portions of Concourse B and the central tunnel coming online. Enplanements
generate an additional $11 million in non-airline revenue through parking, rental cars, food and beverage,
and retail. The American Express airport lounge will open in October 2025 and is anticipated to bring in
over $5 million in non-airline revenue.
Operating expenses will increase by $23.6 million to $242.4 million. Employee-related increases include
salary and health care increases, increased expenses for professional services, consisting of janitorial,
window cleaning, baggage handling, networking contracts, and other contracts and increases.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: April 15, 2025
Public Hearing 1: May 20, 2025
Public Hearing 2: June 3, 2025
Potential Action: June 10, 2025
Page | 3
2
5
8
7
6
Revenues and Other Sources of Funds
Amended Budget
FY 2025 Forecast FY 2025 Proposed FY
2026
Operating Revenues $471,440,600 $488,356,300 $559,598,000
Grants and Reimbursements $97,515,600 $56,106,000 $6,387,500
Customer Facility Charges $248,000 -$8,013,000
Interest Income $16,099,700 $43,539,000 $32,600,000
Airport Improvement Fund ($8,908,800)($72,323,300)($129,644,000)
Total $576,395,100 $515,678,000 $476,954,500
Expenses and Other Uses of Funds
Amended Budget
FY 2025 Forecast FY 2025 Proposed FY
2026
Operating Expenses $218,806,300 $209,056,500 $242,379,300
Interest Expense $167,123,000 $167,123,000 $169,834,000
Bond Issuance Costs $2,800,000 $138,000 $2,800,000
Passenger Incentive Rebate $20,187,800 $19,274,900 $19,576,600
Capital Equipment $19,000,600 $19,000,600 $12,062,100
Capital Improvements $148,477,400 $101,085,000 $30,302,500
Total $576,395,100 $515,678,000 $476,954,500
KEY ELEMENTS
Employee additions and costs –
o 10 new full-time employees (FTEs) are requested
o Operating revenues are increasing by 18.6%, and operating expenses are increasing by
10.7% over the FY25 budget.
o The budget proposes significant increases to operating and maintenance expenses due to a
new Airline and Use Agreement and the removal of COVID-19 relief grants.
o Many of the increases in operating expenses are directly related to staffing for new facilities,
higher wages for both airport and contract employees, and increases in operating supplies
& vendor contracts to operate the new facilities.
Capital Equipment – pages 21-22 outline capital equipment expenditures
o Two Electric shuttle buses: $2,400,000
o Snowblower - $925,000
Page | 4
2
5
8
7
6
o SGRS equipment upgrade: $1,412,200
Provides airfield lighting
Capital Improvement Program Highlights – pages 23- 42 of the transmittal outline the capital
improvement project for the FY 26 budget. Some of the notable projects include:
o South Valley Regional Airport
Control Tower NEPA & Siting Study: $1,000,000
Dual Taxiways: $5,443,000
o Parking Improvements
Economy Lot Pavement Reconstruction (Design): $374,000
Economy Lot Pavement Rehabilitation: $1,578,000
Economy Parking Lot EVCS: $1,062,500
Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure - Phase V (FY26): $1,176,000
o Airfield
Taxiways A&B Modifications (Design): $3,006,000
o Miscellaneous
Rental Car Overflow Storage Lot Improvements: $1,199,000
Rental Car Quick Turn Around Equipment Replacement: $3,208,00
2300 West Realignment (facilitates future expansion for corporate hangars):
$2,196,000
Terminal Drive Resurfacing: $2,606,000
Estimated Grant Income - The coming year budget anticipates $6,387,500 in grants, down significantly
from the previous year’s $56,106,000, approximately 88%.
POLICY QUESTIONS
With the opening of the central tunnel, would the Council like to request an update on how that has
improved accessibility and travel times within the Airport?
During the Title 16 discussions, Council Members expressed the desire to receive future briefings
about how the Airport is meeting ADA standards.
o Is the Council interested in requesting an update at this time?
Would Council Members like more discussions about coordination efforts with the Airport and
UTA on collaboration opportunities pertaining to policies such as:
o Expansion of on-demand UTA transit service in the western part of the city.
o Greater coordination to produce a more user-friendly transit experience at the Airport that
could lead to increased ridership.
With the significant decrease in grant revenues for the year, the Council may wish to ask if there are
other grants available which the Airport is pursuing.
ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1. The Department of Airports is made up of eight divisions:
o Planning & Sustainability
Page | 5
2
5
8
7
6
o Commercial & Real Estate
o Information Technology
o Finance
o Maintenance
o Design & Construction Management
o Communications & Marketing,
o Operations
2. The Department plans to request the issuance of bonds this calendar year to support ongoing
concourse expansions and Airport development. The Council is tentatively slated to discuss the new
issuance in more detail with the Airport in mid-May 2025 and potentially adopt a resolution by
July 8, 2025.
3. During the previous budget cycles, the Council and Airport staff discussed updates to Title 16
Airports of the city code to ensure airport operations are consistent with Federal Aviation
Administration regulations and to clarify legislative, administrative, and federal decision-making
roles involving the airport.
In November of 2024, the Council adopted the ordinance updating Title 16, strengthening the City
Council’s policy and budgetary role, eliminating duplicate and outdated regulations, and codifying
commercial standards to standalone administrative documents for airport operators.
Page | 1
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY26
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Austin Kimmel, Public Policy Analyst
DATE:April 15, 2025
RE: Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 Library Annual Budget
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The proposed budget for the Salt Lake City Library General Fund for FY26 is $43,213,154. This represents an
increase of $6.9 million, or 18.9%, compared to FY25. The increase is driven primarily by a higher budget for
anticipated required pass-through property taxes to other entities and an increased Capital Projects budget.
The proposed Debt Service Fund budget is $992,000, while the Capital Project Fund budget is set at
$5,516,800.
The Salt Lake City Public Library system offers in-person services at its main downtown library and seven
branches across the City. It also provides a wide variety of services online. In Spring 2025, the Library will
open a temporary location in the Ballpark Neighborhood of District Five, called the Ballpark Library Lab, as it
prepares to construct a permanent branch in the neighborhood in the coming years.
The Council’s role in the Library budget process is unique to other City enterprise funds. The Library Board
sets the policy for Library operations, while the Council is tasked with reviewing and approving the overall
budget and setting the Library’s tax rate. The Mayor is recommending that the Council approve the Board’s
proposed budget for FY26. The following report provides an overview of the Library’s proposed budget.
Goal of the briefing: To review the Fiscal Year 2026 proposed Salt Lake City Library budget and consider
the Mayor’s recommendation to approve the Library Board’s proposed budget for consideration by June 30,
2025.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1.Balancing Capital Improvement Needs: Given the significant capital expenditures for the Crescent
Wall and Marmalade Branch façade projects, in addition to the completion of the Main Library roof
renovation, the Council may wish to ask how these planned major projects could compete with other
essential projects across the Library system.
2.Ballpark Library Lab: The Council may wish to ask how the Ballpark Library Lab can inform the future
development of a permanent location in the Ballpark neighborhood. The Council could also ask what the
Library plans to do with the temporary location once a permanent branch is established.
3.Staffing: The proposed budget does not include any additional FTEs; the Council could ask the Library to
elaborate on its staffing strategy for the Ballpark Library Lab and whether it has adequate coverage across
Project Timeline:
Set Date & 1st Briefing: April 15, 2025
2nd Briefing: in May or June (if needed)
Public Hearings: May 20 and June 3, 2025
Potential Action: June 10, or later TBD
Page | 2
all branches without compromising the quality of service.
4.Unionization: In January 2025, the Council approved a resolution allowing Salt Lake City Library
employees to consider forming a union. The Council may request the Library provide an update on the
status of collective bargaining activities since the adoption of the labor resolution, including how the
Library anticipates funding any financial obligations stemming from a potential collective bargaining
agreement in its FY26 budget. This update could address possible impacts on the Library's personnel
budget or operating model.
5.Potential 2026 Bond and Capital Campaign: The Council could ask the Library to expand on the
future bond and capital campaign, including requesting more details about its scope, estimated amount,
and specific projects to be included. The Council may also wish to clarify with the City Attorney, what role
the City Council has in a Library General Obligation bond process. By way of reminder, the City Council
voted to issue bonds in 2014 for the Glendale and Marmalade branch libraries via the Local Building
Authority.
BUDGET PRIORITIES
Library leadership provided the following priorities, which are summarized below and can be found on page 3 of
the Library’s FY26 Proposed Budget document (Attachment 1), that informed the Board’s FY2026 budget
proposal:
Competitive Staff Compensation: The Library has engaged a third-party consultant to analyze
employee compensation, ensuring it remains competitive. The FY26 budget includes employee raises to
help retain its workforce.
Prioritized Capital Projects: The proposed budget addresses maintenance needs for Library
buildings, including two major projects to be undertaken after the completion of the Main Library
renovation in May 2025: the upkeep of the Main Library Crescent Wall and the restoration of the
Marmalade Branch façade.
Capital Campaign and Bond Preparation – The Library has developed plans for the initial phase of
the 2022 Library Facilities Plan (Attachment B). The Library is also hopeful to propose a bond measure in
November 2026 with an accompanying capital campaign.
Strategic Planning Consultation – The Library is preparing to update its strategic plan, which was
last revised eight years ago.
REVENUES
Property taxes are the primary source of the Library's revenue. In FY25, the Council approved a property tax rate
increase for the Library, currently at 0.000646. This rate represents 64.6% of the cap established by Utah State
statute.
The FY26 budget does not propose a tax rate increase. The estimated total tax revenue is $38,998,794, and the
estimated new growth is $550,00. The budget and the table below assume that property values stay the same as the
Page | 3
prior year. However, the Library anticipates that this is unlikely, and if property values rise as expected, the tax rate
will be reduced.
The average annual impact for residents is about $35.53 for every $100,000 in residential property value.
Figure 1 - copied from page 8 of the FY26 Library Proposed Budget
The budget includes a required $4.1 million pass-through of property taxes to the Utah Inland Port Authority,
Convention Center Hotel, and the Community Reinvestment Agency. This represents an increase of $3,693,769
from last fiscal year's budget, reflecting anticipated growth in these areas. Budget adjustments were made in FY24,
and another adjustment will be needed in FY25 once final figures are received. The higher allocation in the
proposed FY26 budget aims to reflect the actual amounts received for this pass-through more accurately.
The Library's Fund Balance is projected to end FY25 at $9.9 million. The Library has a minimum target of keeping
the balance at or above 16%, which is approximately two months of operating expenses. According to the Library,
the target floor for the Fund Balance is $4.6 million. In other words, $4.6 million is the lowest amount the Library
would allow the Fund Balance to reach.
Other revenue sources:
Intergovernmental Revenues: $898,000
Charges for Services Revenues: $181,000 (unchanged from FY25)
Charges for Lost/Damaged Items: $20,000 (unchanged from FY25)
Miscellaneous Revenues (interest earnings, rental revenue, etc.): $216,000 (an increase of
approximately $11,350 from FY25, primarily due to anticipated growth in facility rental revenue)
Contributions & Transfers: $2,899,360 (primarily to transfer fund balance)
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
A. Staffing & Compensation
As outlined in the budget priorities above, competitive staff compensation is a primary focus of the
Library’s FY26 budget. In response to a compensation study conducted by a third-party consultant group,
the FY26 budget includes market adjustments specific to each position, with weighted emphasis on entry-
level positions. In addition, the FY2026 budget proposes a 4% pay increase for all Library employees. This
4% increase includes 2.5% cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) and a 1.5% longevity adjustment.
Personnel expenditures account for about 71% of the Library’s overall operating budget, consistent with
previous fiscal years. The FY26 proposed budget contemplates a $23,256,087 budget, an increase of
$2,784,226 from FY25.
No additional full-time equivalents (FTEs) are proposed for FY26. The Library indicates that some
Page | 4
positions have been reclassified to better align with its needs, maintaining the total number of FTEs at
249.675, the same as in FY25. A complete staffing profile, including those reclassified positions, can be
found on pages 6 and 7 of the Library’s FY26 Proposed Budget document (Attachment 1).
Like Salt Lake City departments, the City Library offers a high-deductible health plan with contributions to
each employee’s health savings account (HSA). Employees receive $1,000 for individual coverage and
$2,000 for employee plus dependent coverage. The proposed budget includes a 10% increase in
premiums.
B. Capital Projects & Debt Service
The Library proposes transferring $992,000 from its General Fund to the Debt Service Fund to cover the
lease payments for the Glendale and Marmalade branches. This amount covers the annual debt payments
for the Local Building Authority lease revenue bonds for both branches.
$5,516,800 is proposed for significant capital projects, including maintenance for the Crescent Wall and
the façade of the Marmalade branch.
Based on information shared by Library staff in January 2025, the total anticipated cost of the Crescent
Wall is expected to total approximately $7 million: $3 million in FY26 and a carryover of $1 million from
FY25 due to unplanned revenue. The remaining $3 million of the anticipated Crescent Wall budget will be
evaluated in the future. Additional information about this project can be found in Attachment 3.
Figure 2 - Copied from page 9 of Attachment 3: Crescent Wall, Skylight & Shops Project
According to the Library, the anticipated total budget for the Marmalade Façade improvement project will
total approximately $500,000.
Alongside these major projects, several others are proposed for FY26:
HVAC system
Fire systems
Master plan development
Replace Children’s patio gates
Landscaping improvements and various branch locations
Power & networking floor boxes
Powered ADA access for restrooms
Window grates at the Sprague Branch
Powder coat patio furniture
Pedestal lights at the Glendale Branch
Page | 5
Main Library outdoor environmental design
Anderson-Foothill site assessment
Replace Sprague Branch pavers
C. Other Changes by Expense Category
Materials & Supplies: $1,324,057 (an increase of about 2% compared to FY25)
Buildings, Grounds & Equipment: $2,178,163 (an increase of about 2% compared to FY25)
Services: $2,167,187 (increased by about 2% from FY25)
Collections & Other Capital Outlays: $2,930,000 (a decrease of $25,000 from FY25 due to a
reduction in materials processing costs)
Transfers, Grants & Donations: $10,655,800 (an increase of about $4 million from FY25,
mainly consisting of a $5.5 million transfer to Capital Projects as detailed above, along with a
budgeted $4.1 million for property tax pass-through to other entities)
Other Charges: $701,860 (an increase of $91,058 from FY25 due to rising property and liability
insurance costs and executive discretion)
ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. Library Branch Locations
Page | 6
ATTACHMENTS
1.Proposed FY2026 Library Budget
2.Library Master Facilities Plan 2022-2032
3.Crescent Wall, Skylight & Shops Project
ACRONYMS
COLA – Cost of Living Adjustment or Cost of Labor Adjustment
FTE – Full Time Equivalent
FY – Fiscal Year
HSA – Health Savings Account
HVAC – Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
ADA – Americans with Disabilities Act
Page | 1
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY26
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Austin Kimmel, Public Policy Analyst
DATE:April 15, 2025
RE: FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026 BUDGET,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES,
Water, Sewer, Stormwater, and Street Lighting Funds
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The total proposed FY26 budget for the Department of Public Utilities is $410,518,007, representing a
$149,643,376 or 26.71% decrease from the amended FY25 budget. The decrease is primarily driven by a
52.54% reduction ($162,654,324) in the department’s total capital projects and a 21.08% ($72,846,199)
reduction in the department’s bond/loan proceeds compared to FY25. An increase of 22% ($50,059,367) is
expected in total utility rate revenue compared to FY25.
The Department consists of four utilities: Water, Sewer, Stormwater, and Street Lighting. Each utility operates
as separate enterprise funds, generating revenue through user fees to fund separately allocated staffing,
materials budgets, and capital improvement programs. Each fund is responsible for extensive capital asset
networks, with the three water-related utilities largely regulated by state and federal requirements. The
department funds and implements infrastructure maintenance and upgrades to comply with current federal
regulations and mandates for reliable customer service.
Public Utilities is one of the oldest and largest water utility systems west of the Mississippi River. Its total
service area covers 141 square miles, covering Salt Lake City and the eastern side of Salt Lake Valley to the
mouth of Little Cottonwood Canyon. This includes water service to portions of Millcreek, Cottonwood Heights,
Holladay, Murray, Midvale, and South Salt Lake.
The Department of Public Utilities identified the following budget insights for FY26:
1.) Assessment and replacement of aging infrastructure,
2.) Federal and state regulatory obligations,
3.) Inflationary pressures,
4.) Implementation of the 2024 Water, Sewer, and Stormwater Rate Study, and
5.) Alignment of the Department of Public Utilities with the Mayor’s priorities for resiliency and
operational efficiency.
These budget insights are explained on page 4 of Public Utilities FY26 proposed budget (Attachment 1).
Project Timeline:
Set Date & 1st Briefing: April 15, 2025
2nd Briefing: in May or June (if needed)
Public Hearings: May 20 and June 3, 2025
Potential Action: June 10, or later date TBD
Page | 2
In FY25, a temporary rate stabilization fee was implemented on water and sewer utility accounts. The
stabilization fee has been eliminated in the FY26 budget and the proposed budget includes new rate
structures for the water, sewer, and stormwater utilities based on a 2024 rate study, which ensures utility
pricing structures remain appropriate and provide necessary and reliable revenues.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1.Customer Communication and Rate Impact Outreach: The Council may wish to ask the
Department to expand on its communication and outreach plan to inform customers across all classes
about the proposed rate changes. Additionally, the Council could ask how Public Utilities has
coordinated with other City departments, like Public Lands, about how the proposed rates may affect
their proposed operational budgets.
2.Water Usage Trends and Revenue Projections: Given that actual water sales were below
projections in previous years due to decreased usage, the Council may wish to ask the Department to
explain how the new rate design will generate the necessary revenue without requiring mid-year
adjustments or the reintroduction of a stabilization fee.
3.Streetlighting Rate Study Timeline and Implementation: The Council may wish to ask Public
Utilities about the current status of the streetlighting rate study, including the anticipated timeline for
completion. The Council could also ask if the Department anticipates the study being presented to the
Council and implemented in the FY27 budget. Lastly, the Council may ask if the study will address the
ongoing challenges of copper wire theft and the associated costs challenging that utility's budget.
4.Infrastructure Replacement Prioritization: With aging infrastructure identified as a key budget
insight, the Council may wish to ask the Department to expand on how it prioritizes replacement
projects and forecasts future years across all four utilities. How are factors such as asset condition,
service reliability risk, regulatory compliance, and coordination with other city capital projects weighted
in these decisions?
5.Water Reclamation Facility Status: As the Water Reclamation Facility approaches its anticipated
completion in July 2026, the Council may request if the Department anticipates additional cost
increases due to the current state of the markets and federal tariffs.
6.Climate Resilience Planning: The Council could ask the Department how climate change
considerations, particularly related to drought conditions and storm intensification, are incorporated
into infrastructure planning across all four utilities.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 2024 RATE STUDY
In 2024, the Department of Public Utilities conducted a comprehensive utility rate study with FCS Group, a
consulting firm specializing in municipal rate and fee setting. The study continues Public Utilities' practice of
conducting rate evaluations every five to six years, which is a necessary review in order to ensure the structure
meets the Department’s revenue needs, and adjusts based on projected capital and operating increases. Last
year, the Department applied a stabilization fee to water and sewer accounts, because the cost of providing
water and sewer service had outpaced the rate revenue. This year, the study and proposed new rate structure
means the stabilization fee is eliminated and the new rate structure will account for the needed revenues. The
impact across the board to customers who paid the stabilization fee will vary – when compared to utility bills
this past year, some customers will see a decrease, and others will either remain flat or see an increase. Water
and sewer utility bills will be affected by the amount of water used in any given billing cycle.
The study resulted in several recommended changes to more accurately reflect the actual cost of service delivery
across different customer classes. The study also reflects key feedback about incorporating values such as
affordability, fairness, water conservation, clarity of charges, predictability. The rates and rate structure were
developed to address sufficient revenue for critical infrastructure capital programs, operations, and ongoing
Page | 3
compliance with state and federal regulations. The study encompasses Fiscal Year 2026 (FY26) through 2029
(FY29).
The FY26 budget incorporates the results and recommendations of the rate study, which is notable since this is
the first substantial modification to the utility rate design for water, sewer, and wastewater in several years.
Customers should anticipate changes to their utility bills as a result of the new rates and design. While Public
Utilities also manages Streetlighting, this service will be analyzed in a separate rate study.
The chart below shows key utility service impacts for an average city resident. The example below is based on a
residential customer scenario of “low” utility usage during a month. The assumptions in this scenario include 8
ccf of water usage, 4 ccf of sewer usage, and less than .25 acre property for stormwater charges. It should be
noted that more than half of the water bills sent to customers during the year are for water use of 5 ccf or lower.
Because each utility customer is different, actual impacts to customers will vary. However, the example below
provides the Council an approximation of the financial impacts the implementation of the new water, sewer,
and wastewater rates and design structure may have on a residential customer.
Example of utility rate changes on select residential customer with low utility usage:
Utility FY25 Utility
Monthly Cost
Proposed FY26
Utility Monthly
Cost
Estimated
Monthly Change
in Cost
Estimated
Annual Change
in Cost
Water $41.13 $47.15 $6.02 $72.25
Sewer $35.46 $37.94 $2.48 $29.76
Stormwater $8.33 $8.75 $0.42 $5.04
Streetlighting $6.86 $7.89 $1.03 $12.30
Total $91.78 $101.73 $9.95 $119.35
Customers outside of Salt Lake City will experience an approximate 35% higher cost than city residents to
compensate for the property tax assessment city residents pay to the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake
City and Sandy, and because outside-city customers do not share the same inherent risks that city customers
bear as owners and operators of the water system. The budget book includes more information about other
classes of users for each utility listed.
OPERATING BUDGET SUMMARY
The proposed operating budget for Public Utilities is $177,326,052, representing a 17.07% increase from the
FY25 budget. The increase is driven by several key factors: additional compensation and benefits to support 15
new employees; payments to other departments for IMS charges, administrative service fees, payment in lieu of
taxes, and risk management; a $927,121 increase in payments to the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake
and Sandy for water purchased, then conveyed through the Salt Lake City water system.
Page | 4
Figure 1 - Copied from page 7 of Public Utilities FY26 Proposed Budget Book
Public Utilities proposes adding 15 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees in the proposed budget to support
operational and regulatory requirements for the water, sewer, and stormwater utility systems. Public Utilities
currently has a total of 484 FTEs, including seasonal and part-time employees. The 15 proposed new employees,
described more below, would bring the total number of FTEs to 499.
BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS BY UTILITY
Page | 6
A. Water Utility
The FY26 proposed water budget is $216,611,815, an increase of $4,882,815 or 2.31% from FY25. The
increased budget is driven a new rate and design structure, as recommended by the 2024 rate study. The
revenue budget proposes using debt and a grant to finance major infrastructure projects such as the City
Creek Water Treatment Plant, lead service line replacements, and other regulatory-driven capital
projects. A bond issuance of $24,000,000 is anticipated during FY26.
WATER UTILITY
Revenue
AMENDED FY25 PROPOSED FY26 PERCENT CHANGE
Water Rates Revenue $119,655,560 $143,182,162 19.66%
Interest $4 63,989 $468,629 1.00%
Interfund Charges 2,325,645 $2,325,645 4.02%
Other Revenues $2,000,000 $2,000,000 unchanged
Impact Fees $70,401,000 $32,220,653 unchanged
Contributions $38,770,000 $15,075,000 -61.12%
Bond Proceeds $100,558,000 $24,134,000 -75.99
From (To) Reserves ($56,682,698)$24,601,383 -143.40%
Total Revenue $211,729,000 $216,611,815 2.31%
Expenditures
Personal Services $35,599,948 $42,125,279 18.33%
Materials & Supplies $7,182,025 $7,662,206 6.69%
Charges for Services $57,938,676 $61,954,227 6.93%
Debt Service $17,114,227 $17,596,432 2.82%
Capital Outlay $7,731,124 $6,923,671 -10.44%
Capital Improvements $86,163,000 $80,350,000 -6.75%
Total Expenditures $211,729,000 $216,611,815 2.31%
In previous years, actual water sales were below projections due largely to decreased water usage. This,
in combination with the implementation of large aging infrastructure capital projects resulted in a
temporary rate stabilization fee in FY25, which has been eliminated in FY26. Based on the new rate
design and cost of service, water sales in FY26 are expected to be 19.66% higher than in FY25.
Public Utilities plans to transfer $24,601,383 from its reserve funds to pay for capital improvements.
The expenditure budget for the water utility is proposed to increase by $4,882,815, or 2.31%, from
FY25. The expenses for the Water Fund in FY26 are driven by increased personnel costs, including the
addition of 7.90 FTEs; increased supply and chemical costs; a 2.82% increase in debt service to comply
with current bond issues and anticipation of the Series 2026 debt; and various capital outlay
expenditures (watershed purchases, land purchases, vehicles, equipment, etc.); and capital
improvement expenditures.
Page | 6
Figure 2 - Copied from page 12 of Public Utilities FY26 Proposed Budget Book
B. Sewer Utility
The FY26 proposed Sewer budget is $159,022,034, a significant decrease from FY25 by $153,426,791,
or a 49.10% decrease most notably due to the capital budget. $48,865,324 of the Sewer Fund’s
$73,230,324 capital improvement budget, is designated for the new Water Reclamation Facility (WRF),
and approximately $2 million will be used on the existing WRF. The WRF is the City’s largest public
works project, and it is anticipated to be complete in July 2026. The total cost for the project is now
nearly $940 million.
Sewer service fees (those paid by customers) are expected to increase by $22,714,368, or 25.84%, for a
total budget of $110,630,000.
SEWER UTILITY
Revenue
AMENDED FY25 PROPOSED FY26 PERCENT CHANGE
Sewer Rates Revenue $87,915,632 $110,630,000 25.84%
Interest $784,650 $900,556 14.77%
Permits $267,500 $267,500 unchanged
Other Revenues $1,132,002 $1,132,002 unchanged
Bond / Loan Proceeds $240,009,000 $242,580,801 1.07%
Impact Fees $1,650,000 $1,650,000 unchanged
From (To) Reserves ($19,309,959)($198,138,825)926.10%
Total Revenue 312,448,825 159,022,034 -49.10%
Expenditures
Personal Services $16,576,744 $20,005,102 20.68%
Materials & Supplies $4,155,306 $5,051,957 21.58%
Charges for Services $13,405,363 $21,394,753 59.60%
Debt Service $33,150,579 $36,809,653 11.04%
Capital Outlay $2,462,500 $2,530,245 2.75%
Capital Improvements $242,698,333 $73,230,324 -69.83%
Total Expenditures $312,448,825 $159,022,034 -49.10%
Page | 8
The sewer expenditure budget in FY26 is driven by increased personnel costs, including the addition of
3.60 FTEs; increased materials and supplies; a $3.6 million increase in debt service to comply with
existing debt and interest payments for the Series 2026 debt; various vehicle and equipment purchases
and billing software costs; and capital improvement expenditures. Some of the increases are due to the
operation of the existing WRF concurrently with the new WRF when it is complete.
Figure 3 - Copied from page 13 of Public Utilities FY26 Proposed Budget Book
C. Stormwater Utility
The FY26 proposed Stormwater budget is $26,465,800, a decrease from FY25 by $2,740,995, or a
9.38% decrease. Due to the new rate structure, revenue is expected to increase by about 20.53% from
FY25.
STORMWATER UTILITY
Revenue
AMENDED FY25 PROPOSED FY26 PERCENT CHANGE
Stormwater Rates Revenue $14,909,297 $17,970,000 20.53%
Interest $266,901 $3 01,904 13.11%
Other Revenues $63,000 $72,065 14.39%
Impact Fees $750,000 $825,000 10.00%
Contributions $2,000,000 $125,000 -93.75%
Bond Proceeds $5,028,000 $6,034,000 -20.01%
From (To) Reserves $6,189,597 $1,137,831 -81.62%
Total Revenue 29,206,795 26,465,800 -9.38%
Expenditures
Personal Services $5,707,591 $7,186,214 25.91%
Materials & Supplies $664,497 $710,250 6.89%
Charges for Services $6,125,631 $6,873,850 12.21%
Debt Service $1,673,376 $1,726,499 3.17%
Capital Outlay $2,429,500 $2,334,987 -3.89%
Capital Improvements $12,606,200 $7,634,000 -39.44%
Total Expenditures 29,206,795 26,465,800 -9.38%
In 1993, the City completed a Drainage Master Plan, and the FY26 budget includes an update which will
incorporate considerations for water quality and account for the anticipated impacts of climate change,
Page | 8
such as storm intensification, in addition to traditional conveyance methods. The FY26 Stormwater
budget also proposes the addition of 3.50 full-time equivalent positions (FTEs)
An issuance of $6 million of revenue bonds is anticipated in FY26.
$7.6 million is proposed for Stormwater’s Capital Improvement Program to renovate portions of the
stormwater collection system. This is a decrease of about $4.9 million from FY25’s Stormwater Capital
Improvement Program. The projects listed below are anticipated to be covered by these dollars:
Figure 4 - Copied from page 19 of Public Utilities FY26 Proposed Budget Book
D. Streetlighting Utility
The FY26 proposed Streetlighting budget is $8,418,358, an increase from FY25 by $1,641,595, or a
24.22% increase. Streetlighting fees are proposed to increase by 15% to keep up with increased costs
and to continue implementing the street lighting master plan. The Administration is embarking on a
streetlighting rate study, which will inform revenue requirements and streetlighting fees in future
budgets.
STREETLIGHTING UTILITY
Revenue
AMENDED FY25 PROPOSED FY26 PERCENT CHANGE
Streetlighting Rates Revenue $5,051,294 $5,808,988 15.00%
Interest $42,594 $45,652 7.18%
Other Revenues $100 $240 140.00%
General Fund Contributions $20,000 $20,000 unchanged
From (To) Reserves $1,662,775 $2,543,478 52.97%
Total Revenue $6,776,763 $8,418,358 24.22%
Expenditures
Personal Services $446,120 $421,410 -5.54%
Materials & Supplies $6,994 $9,994 42.89%
Charges for Services $3,640,121 $3,930,810 7.99%
Debt Service $193,528 $193,528 unchanged
Capital Outlay $1,250,000 $2,422,616 93.81%
Capital Improvements $1,240,000 $1,440,000 16.13%
Total Expenditures $6,776,763 $8,418,358 24.22%
Page | 9
One of the unique challenges the Streetlighting utility faces compared to other utilities, is the theft of
copper wire, which leads to significant damage to the infrastructure. The FY26 budget proposes
$1,000,000 for system repairs due to theft-related damages. Public Utilities continues to explore ways
to mitigate wire theft.
Public Utilities proposes a $20,000 transfer from the General Fund for the private lights program in
FY26. $1,440,000 is anticipated for Streetlight’s Capital Improvement Program.
Figure 5 - Copied from page 12 of Public Utilities FY26 Proposed Budget Book
ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Public Utilities Debt Service Schedule & Metro Water Assessment
This chart from the department’s budget book shows the timing of debt service (payments) on bonds and loans.
The revenue generated from the bonds is used to fund capital programs in the utilities.
Total debt service will increase this fiscal year and in subsequent years. The timing of these infrastructure costs
is partially determined by state and federal government regulatory requirements. It is also determined by
opportunities to coordinate projects with the City’s other capital programs, such as road reconstruction.
Figure 6 - Copied from page 90 of Public Utilities FY26 Proposed Budget Book
Page | 10
Declining Water Delivery Volumes
The chart below shows the ongoing decline in projected water delivery volumes for Fiscal Years 2025 and 2026.
The decline in the estimated millions of gallons delivered reflects ongoing conservation efforts and changing
consumption patterns.
Despite the fewer budgeted gallons, the implementation of changes from the 2024 Rate Study and its
recommended rate adjustments aim to ensure the department will receive sufficient revenue to maintain critical
infrastructure and service delivery.
Figure 7- Copied from page 91 of Public Utilities FY26 Proposed Budget Book
ACRONYMS
CCF – Centum Cubic Feet (one hundred cubic feet of water)
FTE – Full Time Equivalent
FY – Fiscal Year
IMS – Information Management Services Department
WRF – Water Reclamation Facility
ATTACHMENTS
1.Fiscal Year 2025-26 Public Utilities budget book
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.
Page | 1
COUNCIL STAFF
REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Lehua Weaver and Kira Luke
(with help from former Executive Director, Cindy Gust-Jenson)
DATE: April 15, 2025
RE:Council Policy Manual – Communication Budgets
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
Each Council Member has at their discretion a “Communication Budget” to use for mailings,
events, and other community related activities. The funds are budgeted to allow Council
Members to quickly and easily participate in and pay for eligible uses. Over the years, the
Council has relied on the Communication Budget section of the Council Policy Manual to help
guide use of the money. The current section of the Council Policy Manual (see Attachment 1,
referred to herein as the “Policy”) outlines the main activities anticipated and eligible, including
sharing information with constituents, supporting events within the district for all to enjoy, and
other community building activities.
The Policy is outdated and does not recognize all current uses, the increased dollar amount that
is available to each District, or the availability of a full-time Liaison to work with each Council
Member. The additional staff and funding availability broadens Council Members’ opportunities
to more fully deploy their communications budgets. However, the outdated Policy has caused
confusion and frustration. Updates would give more clarity, improve equitable access, and
ensure the effectiveness of these taxpayer dollars.
Given current practice and use of the Budgets, the Council may wish to review the Policy and
give staff direction on updates.
Purpose of the briefing: Review the policy questions and potentially direct staff to update
the communications budget policy and return with an updated Policy for review and Council
consideration.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: April 15, 2025
Page | 2
POLICY QUESTIONS & BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Currently, each Council district has a budget of $16,200 to spend on these communication and
community building activities as permitted under the Policy.
Since the budget amount was increased a few years ago, and Council staff communication and
graphic designer resources have grown, the typical uses of the funds have changed. Additionally,
recognized community groups have become familiar with the opportunity to request funds to
support mailers, events, and supplies as well. As the uses have changed, the Policy is in need of
updating.
Council staff has outlined various questions for the Council to consider on how the Policy should
be updated. The questions and any preliminary options are only provided as a starting point for
the discussion.
1. Current Policy components
a. Current policy language of allowed & anticipated uses of Communication
Budgets:
i. Communication efforts & mailings – newsletters, postcards, etc. to share
information on city issues.
ii. District meetings –invitations, refreshments, copies, displays etc. for
either small group meetings in the office or larger town hall district-wide
meetings.
iii. Community building activities/events – either hosted & put together by
Council staff or supporting another public/community group event;
activities are free and open to the public; support for other community
events is limited to $500 (has not been updated).
b. Process: Council Members are the main point of contact for directing use of the
Communication budget – either by planning an event, coordinating with a
Community Council Chair, or requesting pins, shirts, “swag,” etc.
c. Budget amount: current allocations are $16,200 per district.
d. Title: Council District Communication Budget
2. Approved uses
a. Would Council Members like to maintain the current list of allowable uses of the
Communication Budgets?
b. Are there other uses for the Communication Budget that Council Members would
like to consider adding to the list of approved uses in the Policy?
i. For example, some of the following uses have evolved over time:
1. Stuff We All Get (SWAG) – design and ordering large quantities of
gear to be distributed to the community (t-shirts, reusable bags)
2. Sponsorships of or donations to organizations or for
multiple/ongoing community activities (sports, outside
publications, advertising space, festivals, etc.)
Page | 3
3. Support for a community service project – this could fit within the
existing policy, but could also be specifically identified since it may
require unique supplies or support.
ii. Other items that have not been paid for, but the question has come up
periodically:
1. Purchase of tickets to fundraising events
2. Partnership with a school to promote an educational topic related
to City services, i.e. water conservation or recycling
3. Training or conference attendance for non-city staff
4. Donation to local non-profit efforts (food bank or clothing drives)
5. Recognition event of local community members who have
contributed to the District.
6. Funding for an art project or community identifiers/markers
c. Would Council Members like to establish a maximum amount that can be
contributed to outside community organizations?
i. This could be tied to types of use or over a period of time, i.e. $x amount
per calendar year or $x amount per event.
1.Other City funding sources - There are a few other ways that Community groups can
access City sponsorship funds for their events. For example, special events can apply for
the City’s ACE Funding. Community Councils can also apply for and receive funds from
the Mayor’s Office to help with mailing costs and online meeting licenses.
a. Does the Council want to assess the total amount of funding available to
Community groups and streamline the process so that all Community groups
have timely and equal access to funds and the application process is consistent
across the City?
b. If the Council is interested in reviewing the other sources of funding and
evaluating opportunities for coordination, you could direct staff to review and
propose changes.
2.Annual budget amount:
a. Does the Council feel as though the current budget per district is still
appropriate/adequate?
b. Would the Council like to consider changing the amount of funding appropriated
for the communications budget?
c. The current policy outlines the process for “carryover funds” in order to sync up
the fiscal year (July – June) with the Council terms (calendar year). Does the
carryover practice work for Council Members or are there any changes to
consider?
3.Fiscal procedures and budget transparency - Currently, this budget allocation
meets the fiscal procedures requirements, because it is part of the Council Office budget
adopted as part of the annual budget.
a. As some unique uses and requests have come up, should additional steps be
required to ensure transparency for the use of communication funds consistent
with fiscal procedures guidelines?
Page | 4
c.Would the Council like to consider updating the Policy to reflect that unique
requests (based on activity or amount, or otherwise outside of those uses
explicitly stated in the Policy) would be subject to inclusion in a budget
amendment to ensure fiscal transparency?
d.Would the Council like staff to create a yearly report summarizing how each
district uses the communication budget to promote transparency?
4. Special projects/interests
a. Depending on the Council’s direction on the previous items, there may be some
potential uses that are not eligible under the policy. A sample of this over the
years could be: contributing to the cost of programs with partner organizations
(i.e. free fare months with UTA), encouraging new art projects in the districts,
support for new infrastructure projects (i.e. futsal courts at the Mead Ave
underpass), etc. These have been handled through the Communication Budgets
and other times through a budget amendment with general fund or office
budgets.
i. Does the Council have direction on whether these should be allowed uses
for the Communication funds or through another city program?
5.Project Timelines – This section of the Policy Manual does not address the balance of
requests on staff in terms of workload balancing, prioritization, and turn around.
a.Staff resources have been increased over the years to accommodate more
requests for graphic design, coordination with community members, etc.
However, the amount of funds available in each district has created an increased
workload for staff. Would the Council be open to adding information about staff
turnaround and estimated timeframes so that it is part of the consideration for
requests?
b.Would the Council be interested in establishing a priority-setting process to guide
staff resources during busy periods or at the end of the fiscal year (if the rollover
process continues), to manage workload and expectations more effectively?
6.Misc.
a. Title: Would the Council consider updating the title to more accurately reflect
current practice? Option: Council District Budget for Communication, Outreach,
and Community Building
b.Coordination: would the Council like the policy to outline a mechanism for staff
to coordinate with the Administration to avoid redundancy and provide
consistency in how funding to outside organizations or special projects is
allocated?
Attachment 1: Current Communication Budget Policy section
A.18 COUNCIL DISTRICT COMMUNICATION BUDGET (2/2016)
Page | 5
Each Council district will have a communication budget to be used by the Council Member for
communicating with constituents within his/her district. Funds in the district communication
budget will be expended at the Council Member’s discretion and may include, but not be limited
to:
1. District meetings
2. Newsletters, postcards, mass mailings, flyers (District mailings of 25 pieces or more will
also be tracked, with one exception. Mailings relating to citywide issues which are
distributed to all Council districts will not be counted as a district expense.)
3. Refreshments, lunch meetings with constituents, etc.
4. Community building activities: activities sponsored by city- associated agencies
including community councils, county government, non-profit agencies, or community
organizers working within the community to provide a non-political event open and free
to the residents of the specified council district.
A. For events organized or hosted outside the Council Office the funding limit is not to
exceed $500 per event, and requires inclusion of the Salt Lake City logo on sponsor-
related material.
B. For events organized or hosted by the Council Member, there would be no limit other
than the funds available in the communication budget.
a. Each district’s communication budget will total $6,200 per calendar year to coincide with
terms of office as new Council Members are elected This amount can be amended annually
by a vote of the full Council. Liaisons will track all district expenses during the calendar year
and offset Council Members’ budgets accordingly.
b. Council Members may not supplement their communication budget balances through
personal contributions nor through independent fundraising so that the amount available to
each Council Member remains equal.
c. If a project, which is usually funded from these communication budgets, such as a district-
wide mailing, is more expensive than the available funds (such as booklets, multi-part
mailing, etc.), the Council Member may either use carryover funds (as described below) or
may petition the full Council to consider the project for each Council District and identify
alternate funding. (An example may be a City-wide Emergency Booklet mailing.)
1. For fundraising efforts related to other projects, such as Capital Improvement Projects,
please see Policy Manual Section A31. Solicitation of Funding from Private Parties.
d. Accounting and carryover of communication budgets
1. Council staff will provide a quarterly accounting to each Council Member on the status of
funds in the district’s communication budget.
2. If a district’s communication budget is fully expended prior to the end of the calendar
year, it will remain at a zero balance until the beginning of the next calendar year.
3. If a district’s communication budget is not fully expended by the end of the calendar
year, and the Council Member is continuing in office, the remaining budget amount will
automatically be carried over and available to the Council Member in the first six months
of the next calendar year or allow remaining funds to go toward capital needs of the
Council Office.
Page | 6
e. If the Council Member is not able to utilize the amount carried over by June 30 and has a
project in mind or started, the Council Member may include a request on Budget
Amendment No. 1 to re-allocate that funding to the Council Office for the district
communication budget.
i. Staff will work with Council Members in advance of June 30 to plan for the use of
carried over funds.
ii. The Budget Amendment request should provide information to the Council on how
and when the funds will be used.
iii. The reallocated funds will expire at the end of the calendar year.
iv. The funds to be re-allocated should be related to the cost of the pending project and
shall not exceed one typical year’s district communication budget.
v. The Council may elect to give preliminary approval informally in the Announcements
section of a Council Meeting, and follow-up with formal Budget Amendment
approval. The project may move ahead once preliminary approval is granted.
e. For Council Members going out of office, all use of the district communication budget
should be completed entirely by December 31. Any remaining funds in the communication
budgets at the end of a Council Member’s term will not be carried over to the incoming
Council Member since the new communication budget starts in January of each year. To help
assure a smooth transition and to recognize the degree to which staff resources need to be
focused on the Induction, under no circumstances should a mailing or distribution of
materials take place after January 1 of the year end for an outgoing Council Member unless
the City Council grants an exception in advance and the incoming Council Member is
notified as a courtesy.
City Council Announcements
April, 15, 2025
For You Information
A. Agenda Packet Days Shift to Fridays during Budget Season
Friendly reminder, to help accommodate the volume of budget information and
rapid pace of Council meetings during budget, agenda packets are published on
Fridays instead of Thursdays.
This shift would begin on May 9th for the May 13th Council meeting and end
after the budget is adopted.
Meetings will also adjust to starting at 1:00 pm, unless otherwise noted.
Information Needed
A. Downtown Alliance Exploration
Registration is now open for the 2025 Downtown Alliance Exploration in Seattle,
WA Wednesday, September 17 to Friday, September 20, 2025. Several Council
Members have expressed interest in attending. Per the recently adopted travel
policy below, staff is adding this to announcements for Council discussion.
A. 38 COUNCIL OFFICE TRAVEL, TRAINING, AND CAPACITY
BUILDING (11/2024)
5. National Travel:
B. Any and all Council Members may attend the ULCT conference
in St. George and the NLC conference in Washington, D.C.
C. The remaining conferences are limited to three Council
Members per trip. This minimizes transparency and OPMA
concerns. If more than three wish to attend the same
conference, Council Members who have attended fewer
conferences in a calendar year or have attended the conference
in question least recently shall be given priority to attend the
conference.
How would the Council like to move forward on attendee selection?
o Last year’s DTA attendees: Dan, Eva, Ale and Vic.