HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/18/2025 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
WORK SESSION
March 18, 2025 Tuesday 5:00 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
5:00 PM Work Session
Or immediately following the 2:00 PM
Community Reinvestment Agency Meeting
No Formal Meeting
Please note: A general public comment period will not be held this day. This is the Council's monthly scheduled
briefing meeting.
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: 17:20:48
Note: Dates not identified in the project timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. Item start
times and durations are approximate and are subject to change.
Work Session Items
1.Informational: State Legislative Briefing Follow-up ~ 5:00 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about issues affecting the City that may arise
during the 2025 Utah State Legislative Session.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, January 7, 2025; Tuesday, February 4, 2025; Tuesday, February 11,
2025; Tuesday, February 18, 2025; and March 18, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
2.Ordinance: Zoning Map Amendment at Approximately 273
East 800 South ~ 5:30 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the zoning for the
property at approximately 273 East 800 South from I (Institutional District) to RMF-45
(Moderate/High-Density Multi-Family Residential District). The proposal would enable
a deeply affordable housing project development with 34 one-bedroom apartments
available to those with 30% Area Median Income (AMI) or lower. The property currently
contains a vacant office building. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to
another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District
4. Petitioner: Harold Woodruff, on behalf of First Step House.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, March 18, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 25, 2025
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 15, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 6, 2025
3.Ordinance: Alley Vacation Near 1409 South Edison Street ~ 5:50 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal to vacate a portion of City-owned
alley adjacent to properties at approximately 1409 South Edison Street and 1404 South
200 East. If approved, the alley segment property would be divided and transferred to
the abutting property owners. The Planning Commission forwarded a negative
recommendation. Located within Council District 5. Petitioner: Davis Oatway, an
adjacent property owner.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, March 18, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 25, 2025
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 15, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 6, 2025
4.Dinner Break ~ 6:10 p.m.
30 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 Funding Allocations for One-year Action
Plan for Community Development Block Grant & Other Federal
Grants
~ 6:40 p.m.
45 min.
The Council will receive a briefing on recommendations for allocating grant funding
provided through four federal Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD)
programs. The recommendations are from a local-resident advisory board, as well as the
Mayor, and are based on in-depth review of applications submitted by local
organizations. These organizations, which are mostly non-profits, specialize in providing
services to Salt Lake City’s most economically vulnerable residents. For fiscal year 2025-
26, approximately $7.7 million dollars is expected to flow through the Division of
Housing Stability to the organizations ultimately selected by the Council. The HUD
programs that provide this funding and oversee activities of grant recipients are:
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), the HOME Investment Partnership
Program, Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG), and Housing Opportunities for Persons
with AIDS (HOPWA). The resolution under consideration would also approve an
Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City and the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD), as well as the new fiscal year 2025-29
Consolidated Plan.
For more information visit www.tinyurl.com/annualhudgrants.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, March 18, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, February 18, 2025
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 4, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 15, 2025
6.Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.4 for Fiscal Year
2024-25 Written Briefing
-
The Council will receive a written briefing about Budget Amendment No.4 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 a grant to mitigate lead paint hazards.
For more information visit tinyurl.com/SLCFY25.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, March 18, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 4, 2025
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 25, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 1, 2025
Standing Items
7.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair -
-
Report of Chair and Vice Chair.
8.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 scheduling items.
9.Tentative Closed Session -
-
The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session. A closed meeting described
under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including, but not limited to:
a. discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health
of an individual;
b. strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining;
c. strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation;
d. strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property,
including any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the
transaction would:
(i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration; or
(ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best
possible terms;
e. strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water
right or water shares, if:
(i) public discussion of the transaction would:
(A) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration; or
(B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best
possible terms;
(ii) the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be
offered for sale; and
(iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body
approves the sale;
f. discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and
g. investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct.
A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to
Utah Code § 78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements
of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act.
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
On or before 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 13, 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.
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:March 18, 2025
RE: First Step House Zoning Map Amendment at Approximately 273 East 800 South
PLNPCM2024-01153
ISSUE AT A GLANCE
The Council will be briefed about a proposal to amend the zoning map for the parcel at 273 East 800 South
from its current I (Institutional) zoning to RMF-45 (Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential).
First Step House, an organization that assists those with very low income and behavioral health conditions,
owns the property and intends to construct a deeply affordable housing development with approximately
34 one-bedroom apartments available to those with incomes at 30% area median income (AMI) or lower.
Multi-family housing is not permitted in the I zoning district unless adaptive reuse incentives are used. A
vacant single story office building on the site was not large enough to be utilized for the intended housing
and has been demolished.
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at its December 11, 2024 meeting and held a public
hearing at which six people spoke or had their comments read expressing opposition to the proposal.
Concerns cited include: an oversaturation of homeless services in the area, the proposed building is out of
character for the neighborhood, and a preference for family-sized for sale housing to help stabilize the
neighborhood. Planning staff recommended and the Commission voted 6-0 to forward a
positive recommendation to the Council with a condition that the applicant enter into a
development agreement with the City requiring the housing to be available to those with
incomes at 30% AMI or lower.
Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning map amendments, determine if the Council supports
moving forward with the proposal.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: March 18, 2025
Set Date: March 25, 2025
Public Hearing: April 15, 2025
Potential Action: May 6, 2025
Page | 2
POLICY QUESTION
1. The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration how the proposed RMF-35/45 zoning
consolidation project might affect the applicant’s request. This petition was on the Wednesday,
March 12 Planning Commission agenda. (See Consideration 4 below for more information.)
2. The Council may wish to discuss the Planning Commission recommendation to include a
development agreement restricting housing to those with incomes at 30% AMI or lower if a
residential development is constructed on the property.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The approximately 0.64-acre parcel is located on the northwest corner of 800 South and 300 East.
Surrounding zoning is a mix of low and medium-density RMF-30, 35, and 45 multi-family, RB (Residential
Business), and SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential) as shown in the area zoning map below.
Single-family homes are located to the west of the subject property and fronting 800 South east of 300
East. Multi-family residential developments are located to the north, east, and south.
First Step House also owns a facility at 440 South 500 East that provides treatment services for those
recovering from addiction. The proposed building that is the subject of this request is not intended to
provide treatment but would have onsite supportive services including move-in orientation, case
management, and tenant rights education.
Area zoning map with the subject property shaded in blue.
Transit options in the area include bus lines on 900 South, and on State Street. Additionally, the red line
Library Trax station is approximately a half mile to the north on 400 South. There is also a network of bike
lanes in the area including a protected lane on 300 East.
Page | 4
The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property. Because zoning of a property can outlast
the life of a building, any rezoning application should be considered on the merits of changing the zoning of
that property, not simply based on a potential project.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
Planning staff identified five key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 3-5 of the
Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the staff
report.
Consideration 1 – How the Proposal Helps Implement City Goals & Policies Identified in
Adopted Plans
Planning staff reviewed the proposed zoning map amendment and how it aligns with Plan Salt Lake,
Housing SLC, and Thriving in Place. They found the proposal would provide deeply affordable housing
units in an area with needed infrastructure, services and nearby transit options.
Although the Central Community Master Plan future land use map calls for this property to remain within
the Institutional zoning district, Planning noted there is not demand for office space in the existing
building.
Consideration 2 – General Plan Amendment
As discussed above, the Central Community Master Plan future land use map lists the property as
Institutional. In most instances a general plan amendment would be required so the proposed zoning
would align with the area’s community plan. However, City code does not require a general plan
amendment when proposed zoning includes affordable housing that is consistent with an identified need in
a housing plan adopted by the City.
Consideration 3 – Comparison of Zoning Districts
The following table found on pages 4-5 of the Planning Commission staff report compares current and
proposed zoning designations. It is replicated here for convenience.
Notable differences include reduced setbacks and buffers between the proposed building and adjacent
single-family homes in the RB, and RMF-35 zones.
Additionally, as discussed above, the Institutional zone allows residential uses only when adaptive reuse
incentives are used for existing buildings.
Zoning Standard Institutional (Current)RMF-45 (Proposed)
Maximum Height 35 feet and up to 75 feet with
design review and additional
setbacks.
45 feet
Front Yard 20 feet 25 feet
Rear Yard 25 feet 30 feet
Interior Side Yard 20 feet 8-10 feet
Page | 5
Maximum Building
Coverage
60%60%
Landscape Buffers Required when abutting a
residential district.
Required when abutting a lot in
a single-family or two-family
residential district.
Allowed Uses No residential uses allowed,
unless utilizing incentives to
reuse existing building(s).
All forms of residential are
allowed, except two-family and
twin homes.
Design Standards
Required
Exterior lighting None required
Consideration 4 – Potential Future Zoning Changes
Planning staff has been working on a proposal to combine the RMF-35 and RMF-45 zoning districts into a
new RMF-40 zoning district with a maximum height of 40 feet. However, on March 12, 2025 the Planning
Commission received a follow-up briefing on the proposed RMF-35/45 zoning consolidation and held a
public hearing. The Commission voted to continue the public hearing and table the item. Planning staff was
asked to continue working on the proposal. This will be reviewed again by the Commission before making a
recommendation to the City Council. The proposed consolidation, as currently proposed, does not include
an option to add additional height through the Affordable Housing Incentives.
In terms of how these proposed changes affect this project, it is worth noting that a future development on
the subject site would be vested under zoning regulations in place when a complete building permit
application is submitted. The desired height of this applicant would currently work within the existing
RMF45 zone.
Consideration 5 –Public Input
Planning staff received several emails and phone calls supporting and opposing the proposed development
at the subject site. Those who are opposed cited concerns with the concentration of affordable housing,
social services, and homeless resources in the neighborhood, parking, and crime. Those expressing support
of the proposal noted the opportunity to help people who need services, the good work First Step House
does, and the benefits of providing housing for unsheltered people in the community.
The Central City Neighborhood Council submitted a letter to Planning expressing opposition to the
proposed development if the property is rezoned. They cited concerns with an existing concentration of
supportive services and low-income housing, the site’s proximity to Taufer Park and apartments that have
a history of drug problems, and a desire to have for sale and/or family-sized housing, or retail uses on the
site.
Analysis of Standards
Attachment D (pages 32-34) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning map amendment
standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. The standards and findings are
summarized below. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for additional information.
Factor Finding
Page | 6
Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent
with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of
the city as stated through its various adopted
planning documents.
Complies
Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the
specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance.
Complies
The extent to which a proposed map amendment will
affect adjacent properties
May affect abutting
properties due to
potential height.
Some surrounding
properties could be
developed to similar
heights and uses.
Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent
with the purposes and provisions of any applicable
overlay zoning districts which may impose additional
standards.
Not applicable
The potential impacts on the city to provide safe
drinking water, storm water, and sewer to the
property and other properties based on the
additional development potential of future
development including any impact that may result in
exceeding existing or planned capacities that may be
located further away from the subject property.
Utilities already exist
but the developer may
need to upgrade.
The status of existing transportation facilities, any
planned changes to the transportation facilities, and
the impact that the proposed amendment may have
on the city’ s ability, need, and timing of future
transportation improvements.
Nearby bus, Trax,
and bike lanes
provide
transportation
options.
The proximity of necessary amenities such as parks,
open space, schools, fresh food, entertainment,
cultural facilities, and the ability of current and
future residents to access these amenities without
having to rely on a personal vehicle.
Parks, shops,
restaurants, and the
future Intermountain
Health hospital are
within walking or
biking distance.
The potential impacts to public safety resources
created by the increase in development potential that
may result from the proposed amendment.
No concerns from
police but
recommended
installing fencing,
cameras and lighting.
The potential for displacement of people who reside
in any housing that is within the boundary of the
Not applicable
Page | 7
proposed amendment and the plan offered by the
petitioner to mitigate displacement.
The potential for displacement of any business that is
located within the boundary of the proposed
amendment and the plan offered by the petitioner to
mitigate displacement.
Not applicable
The community benefits that would result from the
proposed map amendment.
Provides deeply
affordable housing.
City Department Review
During City review of the petitions, no responding departments or divisions expressed concerns with the
proposal but stated additional review, permits, and utility upgrades would be required if the property is
developed.
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
• October 8, 2024 – Petition for zoning map amendment received by Planning Division and
assigned to Cassie Younger, Senior Planner.
• October 15, 2024 –
o Central City Community Council and additional recognized organizations sent notice
informing them of the petition.
o Early notification letters mailed to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the
proposal.
• October 20, 2024 – Proposal posted to the City’s online open house webpage.
• November 6, 2024 – Applicant presented their proposal at the Central City Community Council
meeting.
• November 23, 2024 – Planning Commission public hearing notice posted on property.
• November 27, 2024 – Public hearing notice posted to City and State websites and hearing notice
mailed.
• December 11, 2024 – Planning Commission public hearing. The Commission voted 6:0 to forward
a positive recommendation to the City Council.
• January 6, 2025 – Ordinance requested from City Attorney’s Office.
• February 19,2025 – Planning received signed ordinance from the Attorney’s Office.
• February 21, 2025 – Transmittal received in City Council Office.
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Brian Fullmer, Policy Analyst
DATE:March 18, 2025
RE: Alley Vacation – Alley Section Adjacent to 1409 South Edison Street
(PLNPCM2024-00439)
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will be briefed about a proposal to vacate an approximately 11-foot by 52-foot alley segment
between the applicant’s property at 1409 South Edison Street, and property at 1404 South 200 East in City
Council District Five. The alley begins at Cleveland Avenue and dead ends at the applicant’s north property
line where it meets a concrete wall around property owned by the State of Utah.
If approved by the City Council, the alley property would be divided and given to the two abutting property
owners. Both owners are supportive of the alley vacation.
Planning staff recommended the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City
Council. The Commission reviewed this petition at its November 13, 2024 meeting and held a public
hearing at which no one spoke. Commissioners discussed the potential for the adjacent State of Utah
property being redeveloped at some point and benefits of an alley serving the property. The Commission
voted unanimously to forward a negative recommendation to the City Council for the
proposed alley vacation.
Goal of the briefing: Review the alley closure and determine if the Council supports moving forward
with the proposal.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: March 18, 2025
Set Date: March 25, 2025
Public Hearing: April 15, 2025
Potential Action: May 6, 2025
Page | 2
Aerial image showing separate alleys (in purple) north and south of State of Utah property (outlined in red).
(An alley was never platted on the State property.) The subject alley vacation segment is indicated by a green
check mark. A red “X” indicates where the north alley is blocked adjacent to Utah Power & Light property
outlined in blue. A second red “X” indicates where Edison Street south of 1300 South terminates at the State
property. Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
A gate blocking the alley at the south end of the applicant’s property was illegally constructed by a previous
owner many years ago. The applicant did not realize the alley property was not his until he received a
zoning enforcement notice for blocking the alley. Property owners to the south use the alley to access their
properties and garages. This use will not be affected if the subject alley segment is vacated.
During the Planning Commission briefing Commissioners expressed a desire for the applicant to be able to
use the alley property while preserving options for future connectivity to the north. They asked about an
easement that would accomplish this. The Attorney’s Office said that is a possibility but would be a process
separate from the subject alley vacation.
A different alley runs between the north side of the State of Utah property mentioned above and 1300
South. It is worth noting that an alley was not platted on the State property, so the two alley sections never
connected to form a complete alley through the block between Cleveland Avenue and 1300 South. Utah
Power & Light has a power facility adjacent to the State of Utah property that blocks the alley north of the
State property.
Page | 3
Rocky Mountain Power has an easement on the full length of the alley from Cleveland Avenue to the
applicant’s property. This allows the company to service its overhead power lines. Access to these lines will
need to be maintained if the Council adopts the alley vacation request.
City Department Review
Attachment G of the Planning Commission staff report includes comments from City department review of
the proposal. These are summarized below. Please see the staff report for additional information.
During City review of the petition, the Engineering Division said it is generally opposed to vacating public
rights-of-way. The existing Rocky Mountain Power easement was also discussed and the requirement to
maintain access for the company to service its lines. No other responding departments or divisions
expressed concerns with the proposal.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
Planning staff identified three key considerations during analysis of these proposals which are found on
pages 5-6 of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis
please see the staff report.
Consideration 1 – Property Owner Consent
City code requires a minimum of 75% of property owners abutting alleys being considered for vacation sign
a petition expressing support. As noted above, there are two properties abutting the subject alley segment
and both property owners signed the petition.
Consideration 2 – Policy Considerations
Planning staff found the proposed alley vacation satisfies the Lack of Use policy consideration included in
the table below.
Consideration 3 – Master Plan Considerations
Planning staff reviewed how the proposed alley vacation aligns with the Central Community Master Plan
and Plan Salt Lake. Both plans support connectivity and circulation within neighborhoods. Alleys can help
provide these connections, but because the subject alley does not connect through the block between
Cleveland Avenue and 1300 South, it only serves abutting property owners. And as noted above, the
proposed vacation would impact the two property owners next to the alley segment.
ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS
Attachment E (pages 13-15 of the Planning Commission staff report) includes factors to consider when
reviewing alley vacation requests. The following is a summary of what is in the staff report. Please see the
report for additional information.
Factor Finding
14.52.020 - The City will not consider disposing of its
interest in an alley, in whole or in part, unless it
receives a petition in writing which demonstrates that
the disposition satisfies at least one of the following
policy considerations:
A - Lack of Use- The City’s legal interest in the
property appears of record or is reflected on an
applicable plat; however, it is evident from an on-site
inspection that the alley does not physically exist or
has been materially blocked in a way that renders it
unusable as a public right-of-way.
Complies
Planning staff found the alley vacation
request is consistent with policy
consideration A – Lack of Use.
Page | 4
B - Public Safety- The existence of the alley is
substantially contributing to crime, unlawful activity
or unsafe conditions, public health problems, or
blight in the surrounding area.
C - Urban Design- The continuation of the alley does
not serve as a positive urban design element.
D - Community Purpose- The petitioners are
proposing to restrict the general public from use of
the alley in favor of a community use, such as a
neighborhood play area or garden.
Section 14.52.030.B Salt Lake City Code directs the Planning Division to analyze factors in the following
table. Planning staff found the proposed alley meets six of the eight factors.
Factor Planning Staff Finding
The City Police Department, Fire Department,
Transportation Division, and all other relevant City
Departments and Divisions have no objection to the
proposed disposition of the property.
Does not comply.
The Engineering Division noted it
generally opposes any vacation of public
rights-of-way.
The petition meets at least one of the policy
considerations stated above.
Complies with Policy Consideration A –
Lack of Use.
The petition must not deny sole access or required off-
street parking to any adjacent property.
Complies
The petition will not result in any property being
landlocked.
Complies
The disposition of the alley property will not result in a
use which is otherwise contrary to the policies of the
City, including applicable master plans and other
adopted statements of policy which address, but which
are not limited to, mid-block walkways, pedestrian
paths, trails, and alternative transportation uses.
Complies
No opposing abutting property owner intends to build
a garage requiring access from the property, or has
made application for a building permit, or if such a
permit has been issued, construction has been
completed within 12 months of issuance of the
building permit.
Complies
The petition furthers the City preference for disposing
of an entire alley, rather than a small segment of it;
and
Does not comply.
The request is to vacate only a segment
of the alley.
The alley is optional for actual or potential rear access
to residences or for accessory uses.
Complies
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
July 12, 2024 – Petition submitted to Salt Lake City Planning Division.
July 18, 2024 – Petition assigned to Diana Martinez, Senior Planner.
August 21, 2024 –
o Early notification sent to the Liberty Wells Community Council Chair.
o 45-day input period begins.
August 22, 2024 – Early notification letter sent to abutting property owners and tenants within
300 feet of the alley segment requested to be vacated.
Page | 5
October 7, 2024 – 45-day comment period for recognized organizations ends.
November 1, 2024 – Public hearing notice signs with project information posted at the applicant’s
address and at the beginning of the alley on Cleveland Avenue.
December 13, 2023 – Planning Commission held a public hearing and forwarded a unanimous
negative recommendation to the City Council for the proposed amendments.
November 14, 2024 – Ordinance requested from Attorney’s Office
February 21, 2025 – Ordinance received from Attorney’s Office.
March 4, 2025 – Transmittal received in City Council Office.
ALLEY CLOSURE PROCESS
The alley closure process is dictated by Chapter 14.52 Salt Lake City Code which is included below for reference.
14.52.010: DISPOSITION OF CITY'S PROPERTY INTEREST IN ALLEYS:
The City supports the legal disposition of Salt Lake City's real property interests, in whole or in part, with
regard to City owned alleys, subject to the substantive and procedural requirements set forth herein. (Ord.
24-02 § 1, 2002)
14.52.020: POLICY CONSIDERATIONS FOR CLOSURE, VACATION OR ABANDONMENT OF
CITY OWNED ALLEYS:
The City will not consider disposing of its interest in an alley, in whole or in part, unless it receives a
petition in writing which demonstrates that the disposition satisfies at least one of the following policy
considerations:
A. Lack Of Use: The City's legal interest in the property appears of record or is reflected on an applicable
plat; however, it is evident from an on site inspection that the alley does not physically exist or has been
materially blocked in a way that renders it unusable as a public right-of-way;
B. Public Safety: The existence of the alley is substantially contributing to crime, unlawful activity,
unsafe conditions, public health problems, or blight in the surrounding area;
C. Urban Design: The continuation of the alley does not serve as a positive urban design element; or
D. Community Purpose: The petitioners are proposing to restrict the general public from use of the alley
in favor of a community use, such as a neighborhood play area or garden. (Ord. 24-02 § 1, 2002)
14.52.030: PROCESSING PETITIONS:
There will be three (3) phases for processing petitions to dispose of City owned alleys under this section.
Those phases include an administrative determination of completeness; a public hearing, including a
recommendation from the Planning Commission; and a public hearing before the City Council.
A. Administrative Determination Of Completeness: The City administration will determine whether or
not the petition is complete according to the following requirements:
1. The petition must bear the signatures of no less than seventy five percent (75%) of the neighbors
owning property which abuts the subject alley property;
2. The petition must identify which policy considerations discussed above support the petition;
3. The petition must affirm that written notice has been given to all owners of property located in the
block or blocks within which the subject alley property is located;
4. A signed statement that the applicant has met with and explained the proposal to the appropriate
community organization entitled to receive notice pursuant to title 2, chapter 2.60 of this Code; and
5. The appropriate City processing fee shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule has been
paid.
B. Public Hearing And Recommendation From The Planning Commission: Upon receipt of a complete
petition, a public hearing shall be scheduled before the Planning Commission to consider the proposed
disposition of the City owned alley property. Following the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning
Commission shall make a report and recommendation to the City Council on the proposed disposition of
the subject alley property. A positive recommendation should include an analysis of the following factors:
1. The City Police Department, Fire Department, Transportation Division, and all other relevant City
departments and divisions have no reasonable objection to the proposed disposition of the property;
2. The petition meets at least one of the policy considerations stated above;
Page | 6
3. Granting the petition will not deny sole access or required off street parking to any property adjacent
to the alley;
4. Granting the petition will not result in any property being landlocked;
5. Granting the petition will not result in a use of the alley property which is otherwise contrary to the
policies of the City, including applicable master plans and other adopted statements of policy which
address, but which are not limited to, mid block walkways, pedestrian paths, trails, and alternative
transportation uses;
6. No opposing abutting property owner intends to build a garage requiring access from the property,
or has made application for a building permit, or if such a permit has been issued, construction has been
completed within twelve (12) months of issuance of the building permit;
7. The petition furthers the City preference for disposing of an entire alley, rather than a small segment
of it; and
8. The alley property is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to residences or for accessory
uses.
C. Public Hearing Before The City Council: Upon receipt of the report and recommendation from the
Planning Commission, the City Council will consider the proposed petition for disposition of the subject
alley property. After a public hearing to consider the matter, the City Council will make a decision on the
proposed petition based upon the factors identified above. (Ord. 22-19, 2019: Ord. 58-13, 2013: Ord. 24-11,
2011)
14.52.040: METHOD OF DISPOSITION:
If the City Council grants the petition, the City owned alley property will be disposed of as follows:
A. Low Density Residential Areas: If the alley property abuts properties which are zoned for low density
residential use, the alley will merely be vacated. For the purposes of this section, "low density residential
use" shall mean properties which are zoned for single-family, duplex or twin home residential uses.
B. High Density Residential Properties And Other Nonresidential Properties: If the alley abuts
properties which are zoned for high density residential use or other nonresidential uses, the alley will be
closed and abandoned, subject to payment to the City of the fair market value of that alley property, based
upon the value added to the abutting properties.
C. Mixed Zoning: If an alley abuts both low density residential properties and either high density
residential properties or nonresidential properties, those portions which abut the low density residential
properties shall be vacated, and the remainder shall be closed, abandoned and sold for fair market value.
(Ord. 24-02 § 1, 2002)
14.52.050: PETITION FOR REVIEW:
Any party aggrieved by the decision of the City Council as to the disposition of City owned alley property
may file a petition for review of that decision within thirty (30) days after the City Council's decision
becomes final, in the 3rd District Court. (Ord. 24-02 § 1, 2002)
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Allison Rowland, Senior Policy Analyst
DATE:March 18, 2025
RE: Fiscal Year 2025-26 Funding Allocations and One-year Action Plan for U.S. Housing and
Urban Development Department Grants, including Community Development Block
Grants & Others
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
Each year the Council is responsible for allocating millions of dollars in grants from the U.S. Housing and Urban
Development Department (HUD) among local organizations that serve Salt Lake City residents. The
organizations are primarily non-profits that specialize in providing services to the most economically vulnerable
people in the City. For Fiscal Year 2025-26 (FY26), over $7.7 million dollars is expected to flow through the
Division of Housing Stability to organizations selected by the Council. The HUD programs that provide this
funding and define the eligible activities for grant recipients are: Community Development Block Grants
(CDBG); the HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME); Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG); and,
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA). Details on the proposed grants that make up these
totals can be found in Attachment C1.
FY26 Funding (Estimated) by Grant Category and Source
Grant Source Amount Total
HUD Award $3,335,779
Recaptured
Funding $650,000CDBG
Program Income $900,000
$4,885,779
HUD Award $298,628
ESG Recaptured
Funding $0 $298,628
HUD Award $823,258
Recaptured
Funding $122,000 HOME
Program Income $700,000
$1,645,258
HUD Award $945,200
HOPWA Recaptured
Funding $0 $945,200
Project Timeline:
Set Date: February 18, 2025
1st Briefing & Public Hearing: March 4, 2025
2nd Briefing: March 18, 2025
3rd Briefing: April 1 or 8, 2025 (if needed)
Potential Adoption Vote: April 15, 2025
The City’s longer-run funding goals and strategies for using HUD funds are guided by a five-year Consolidated
Plan. The updated Plan, which was drafted by the Division of Housing Stability for the period FY2025 to 2029, is
also under Council consideration (See Attachment C2). Along with the local goals and strategies that the
successful applications must support to access annual grant funding, the draft Plan also proposes slight
modifications to the geographical area that must be defined for targeted CDBG spending on public infrastructure
and economic development. A map of the proposed target area appears in Attachment C3.
Goal of the briefing: Discuss the Council’s federal grant priorities, ask questions about applications, and
ultimately, award funding to eligible programs and projects.
ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Grants offered through HUD provide substantial funding amounts to local organizations that serve people with
low- and moderate-income (LMI) levels; people experiencing or on the verge of homelessness; potential
homeowners; and people with AIDS/HIV who need affordable housing. Most of the funds are “passed through”
the City to specific recipients or programs, including several programs that are administered by the City through
an annual competitive grant process.
A. Sources of Annual Funds. For FY26, the Division of Housing Stability (which is part of CAN, the
Department of Communities and Neighborhoods) estimates that the total amount available in HUD funding
for use in housing and related activities is nearly $7.8 million. These grants are considered “entitlement”
funds—that is, Federal money provided on a recurring basis, with amounts linked to formulas that consider
population and other demographics variables. The amount available to the City also varies each year because
it draws from three different sources: new funding, recaptured funds, and program income. The total
estimate is the sum of the grants awarded in the previous funding year, combined with any recaptured funds
and program income (see below).
Staff note: In the past, HUD award amounts have been received sometime between March and May. Since
these funds depend on Congressional approval of an annual Federal budget and, as of this writing,
Congress is still operating under a Continuing Resolution for Federal FY25, HUD cannot yet issue its
finalized award notifications. HUD typically finalizes and announces awards within 30 days.
POLICY QUESTION: The Council may wish to discuss potential options with the
Administration, should adoption of a Federal budget be further postponed.
1.New Funding. Because the precise amount of new grants is typically not determined before the
Council discussion and allocation process, the Division of Housing Stability provides estimates based
on awards from the previous funding year. The funding amounts are updated by the Division once
final notification is received from HUD, and these are adjusted for each grantee based on
contingencies approved by the Council as part of the allocation process (see section E, below).
Approximately $6,224,865 in new funds is estimated to be available through the four HUD programs
for FY26. Specifically,
- Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), $3,335,779;
- HOME Investment Partnership Program, $1,645,258;
- Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG), $298,628; and,
- Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA), $945,200.
2. Recaptured Funds. At the close of each HUD program year, once agreements expire or
projects are completed, funds available for “recapture” are identified. This occurs when, for
example, a project is completed under budget, contracts expire before funds are used, or a
project or program is somehow unsuccessful. The City can use these funds in the next round of
allocations, subject to the federal requirements, eligibility criteria, and limitations of the original
federal funding source. They are not allowed to be used for City administration and planning
activities, or for CDBG Public Services programs. For FY26, recaptured CDBG funds amounted
to $650,000, and HOME funds to $122,000 (details of specific programs, activities and funding
amounts can be found on page 4 of the transmittal).
3. Program Income. Several income-generating programs are funded by CDBG and HOME,
including downpayment assistance, first-time homebuyer mortgages, and certain home
rehabilitation programs. The amounts fluctuate from year to year. All program income
generated by HUD funding must be spent before any entitlement funds are drawn down, so the
City typically allocates anticipated program income at the same time as annual entitlement
funding. Contingencies are built in for differences between the estimates and actual revenue,
since the amount of program income allocated is based on estimates of revenue not yet received.
For FY26, the estimated amount of Program Income available for allocation are $900,000 in CDBG
funds, and $700,000 in HOME funds. The transmittal notes: “Due to increasing administrative
burden in the deployment and oversight of these funds, the Administration is requesting the full
allowable 20% (including from Program Income) for the 2025-2026 program year.”
B. Estimated Available FY26 Funding by Grant Category and Source. As noted above, any prior-year
grant awards that remain unused by the grantee during the year are “recaptured” and made available for
other use in the following HUD cycle. The City also adds any “program income” to the annual HUD grant
allocations to ensure it is reallocated promptly, per HUD guidance.
FY26 Funding (Estimated) by Grant Category and Source
Grant Source Amount Total
HUD Award $3,335,779
Recaptured
Funding $650,000CDBG
Program Income $900,000
$4,885,779
HUD Award $298,628
ESG Recaptured
Funding $0 $298,628
HUD Award $823,258
Recaptured
Funding $122,000 HOME
Program Income $700,000
$1,645,258
HUD Award $945,200
HOPWA Recaptured
Funding $0 $945,200
The City allocates these funds through an open and competitive process. Applications are evaluated based
on HUD requirements and how well they align with the City’s Five-Year Consolidated Plan goals (see
section F below). The Council considers all public comments received, along with the recommendations
from the Mayor and the Community Development and Capital Improvement Program (CDCIP) advisory
board before making funding decisions. All funding decisions made by the Council are ultimately subject
to HUD approval. See section G, below, for trends in program funding for Salt Lake City over recent years.
4.Community Development and Block Grant (CDBG). This program provides annual
grants to states, cities, and counties to create safe and affordable housing opportunities, expand
neighborhood transportation and economic opportunities, invest in social service programs, and
more. As noted in the chart above, in FY26 approximately $4,885,779 is available for allocation
to CDBG programs. The total sum of local requests for these funds was $9,572,869, nearly
double the amount available (see table in section C1 below).
CDBG grants focus on community development with an emphasis on physical improvements. CDBG
funds are allocated to organizations in three categories, listed below. City administration fees are
limited to 20% of the annual grant award and program income received during the program year.
a. Housing
b. Neighborhood Improvements: This category funds transportation and economic
development infrastructure (within the designated target area, see Attachment C3 for
map).
c. Public Services: This category focuses on services for individuals in need, and not
necessarily on physical improvements as other CDBG categories do, and it is typically
the most competitive category. Its total amount is limited to 15% of the annual CDBG
award, and the recommendations for funding requests from the CDCIP Board and
Mayor add up to this maximum. This means that if the Council would like to allocate
money to any application beyond the Mayor’s recommended funding in this category,
those funds must be shifted from another Public Services application.
5.Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG). The ESG program focuses on preventing homelessness
and providing services to individuals who are experiencing homelessness. Examples are street
outreach, emergency shelter, prevention efforts, and rapid re-housing assistance. As noted in
the chart above, in FY26 approximately $298,628 is available for allocation to ESG programs.
The total sum of local funding requests for these funds was $728,481, about two-and-a-half
times the amount available (see table in section C1 below).
ESG funds are allocated to organizations providing services in two categories. City administration fees
are limited to 7.5% of the annual grant award.
a. ESG Part 1: Street Outreach and Emergency Shelter (limited to 60% of the total
annual grant award).
b. ESG Part 2: Homelessness Prevention, Rapid Re-Housing, and Homeless
Management Information Systems.
6.HOME Investment Partnership (HOME). This is the only grant program entirely focused
on expanding the supply of quality affordable housing for low-to-moderate-income residents. It
allows states and municipalities to fund a wide range of activities, such as building, buying, or
rehabilitating affordable housing for rent or homeownership, and may provide direct rental
assistance to renters. As noted in the chart above, approximately $1,645,258 is available in FY26
for allocation to CDBG programs. The total sum of local funding requests for these funds was
$3,292,861, or double the amount available (see table in section C1 below).
HOME funds are allocated to organizations providing services in two categories. City administration
fees are limited to 10% of the annual grant award and program income received during the program
year.
a. Standard HOME Funds.
b. Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDO). This program specifically,
15% of the annual grant award goes to certified projects for which create or develop
affordable
rental or homebuyer housing. Rental assistance, homeowner rehabilitation, and down
payment assistance are not eligible expenses. For this reason, the Housing Stability Division
is working with the Community Reinvestment Agency (CRA) to include these funds in the
CRA’s annual Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) process for funding affordable housing
development. The Community Development Corporation of Utah is seeking certification as
a CHDO in Salt Lake City, but the Housing Stability Division states that expanding the
number of CHDOs remains challenging. Other areas of the country have similarly struggled
to meet the certification criteria.
7.Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA). The HOPWA Program is the
only Federal program dedicated to the housing needs of people living with HIV/AIDS. It
provides funding for projects that address the needs and benefit individuals living with
HIV/AIDS and their families. As noted in the chart above, approximately $945,200 is available
in FY26 for allocation to CDBG programs. The sum of local funding requests for these funds was
$812,720, or only 86% of the amount available so both the CDCIP Board and the Mayor
recommend providing amounts larger than those requested for the two applicants. The Housing
Stability Division is working with the two organizations to determine whether they will be able
to make good use of these additional funds. City administration fees are limited to 3% of the
annual grant award.
C. The Funding Recommendation Process. The Council bases its selection of final HUD grant awards on
information from the Division of Housing Stability, as well as the reviews and recommendations of the
Community Development and Capital Improvement Program (CDCIP) resident advisory board, and the
Mayor. These recommendations are presented in Attachment C1. An additional source of information is the
public hearing held at a Formal Meeting early in the deliberation process.
1.A Competitive Process. Typically, the combined amount of total funding requested by applicants
significantly exceeds available funds. For FY26, requests total 185% of available funding, with
$14,406,932 requested, and only an estimated $7,774,865 available (see table below). As noted in
section A above, HUD has not yet confirmed the City’s final award amounts, so at this stage the City
works with estimates of available funding that are based on the previous year’s amounts.
Estimated FY26 Funding from All Grant Programs
Grant Available
Funds
Total
Requests
Requests as %
of Available
Funds
CDBG $4,885,779 $9,572,869 196%
ESG $298,628 $728,481 244%
HOME $1,645,258 $3,292,861 200%
HOPWA $945,200 $812,720 86%
Total $7,774,865 $14,406,932 185%
2.Recommendations for the Council. In preparation for the Council’s decisions on grant amounts
to specific organizations, each application receives a score and a funding recommendation from the
CDCIP Advisory Board. These scores and recommendations are provided to the Mayor, who adds
funding recommendations of her own. Attachment C4 shows each FY26 application ranked by score
within each grant category. These scores are calculated by combining the advisory board's raw score
with City staff's administrative and risk assessment scores.
The resident advisory board also provides recommendations for funding contingencies, which are
applied in the event that actual funding is more or less than estimated. These recommendations are
listed in section E, below. These are also subject to Council approval.
Additional details for applications in all four annual HUD grants are provided in Attachment C1.
These details include project and program descriptions and prior-year award amounts for returning
applications.
8.Minimum Funding Threshold. In a previous Council briefing, the Housing Stability
Division proposed to increase the minimum funding threshold for HUD Grant applicants from
$30,000 to $50,000 annually, which conforms to with best practices. This floor would be
included in the new five-year Consolidated Plan and future Annual Action Plans, but the
Housing Stability Division opted to keep the funding floor at $30,000 for FY26 since the
application process was already underway. The Division reported that applicants and past
recipients largely supported increasing the funding floor to $50,000, which is proposed to begin
in FY27 to provide sufficient notice to potential applicants.
POLICY QUESTION: Would the Council like to discuss the advantages and
drawbacks of increasing the minimum funding threshold to $50,000?
D. Overview of FY26 Funding Recommendations.
1.Mayoral versus Board Recommendations. As in most other years, the Board and the Mayor
agree on the majority of their recommendations for FY26. The two sets of recommendations differ
only for the items listed below. See Attachment C4 for the FY 2025-26 Grant Recommendations by
score.
a.CDGB #6. The board recommends fully funding the $600,000 requested for Habitat for
Humanity’s Critical Home Repair Program, while the Mayor recommends funding only
$500,000, and moving the remaining $100,000 to Salt Lake City NIS Team. (Also a new
application.)
b.CDGB #7. The Salt Lake City NIS Team requested $1,377,500 for the Home Repair
Program and the Fix the Bricks Program, but both the board and the Mayor recommend
much lower amounts, of $745,381 and $845,381, respectively.
c.ESG #2 (Part 1). The board recommends fully funding the $60,000 Volunteers of
America request for the Youth Resource Center, while the Mayor recommends funding only
$50,000, and splitting the remaining $10,000 between items f. and g. below.
d.ESG #3 (Part 1). The board recommends fully funding the $60,000 Volunteers of
America request for the Geraldine E. King Women's Resource Center, while the Mayor
recommends funding only $35,000, and splitting the remaining $25,000 between items f.
and g. below.
e.ESG #4 (Part 1). The board recommends funding $59,176 of the $60,000 First Step
House request for its Resource Center Program, while the Mayor recommends funding only
$34,176, and splitting the remaining $25,000 between items f. and g. below.
f.ESG #6 (Part 1). The board does not recommend funding the $50,000 Shelter the
Homeless request for its Shelter Operations, but the Mayor recommends funding it at
$30,000, moving the amount from items c., d., and e. above.
g.ESG #7 (Part 1). The board does not recommend funding the $30,800 Ruff Haven
request for its Street Outreach, while the Mayor recommends funding it at $30,000, moving
the amount from items c., d., and e. above.
9.Disqualified Applications. Two applications were determined to be ineligible this year
because they were not eligible uses of the CDBG program funds. The applications are:
a.CDGB #9. International Center for Appropriate and Sustainable Technology,
Electric Vehicle Charger Installation. (Also a new application.)
b.CDGB #44 (Public Services). English Skills Learning Center, Increasing
Communication Capacity. (Also a new application.)
10.Returning Project Applications Not Recommended for FY26 Funding. There are 13
returning applications that received grant awards last year but did not receive a funding
recommendation this year.
a.CDGB #9. NeighborWorks Salt Lake, Home Repair Program and Fix the Bricks
Program. $400,000.
b.CDGB #25 (Public Services). Wasatch Community Gardens, Green Team
Program. $40,000.
c.CDBG #26 (Public Services). Boys and Girls Club of Salt Lake City, Childcare
Services. $85,000.
d.CDBG #27 (Public Services). First Step House, Employment Preparation
Program. $68,518.
e.CDBG #29 (Public Services). Neighborhood House. Childcare Staffing. $87,387.
f.CDGB #31 (Public Services). First Step House, Peer Supportive Services.
$90,000.
g.CDGB #34 (Public Services). Community Development Corporation of Utah,
Community Navigation Program. $75,000.
h.CDGB #37 (Public Services). Advantage Services, Employment Services.
$100,000.
i.CDGB #38 (Public Services). The Road Home, Housing Staffing. $50,000.
j.CDGB #39 (Public Services). Shelter the Homeless, Security and Food at
Homeless Resource Centers. $50,000.
k.CDGB #41 (Public Services). Catholic Community Services, Chef Trainer.
$50,000.
l.CDGB #42 (Public Services). Catholic Community Services, Employment/Life
Skills Coordinator. $50,000.
m.CDGB #43 (Public Services). Utah’s Promise, Connecting with Essential
Resources. $45,000.
11.New Applications. This year there are 15 new applications for CDBG, which is more than
usual. There are also three new applications for ESG. Note that some of these applications are
for new programs that would be offered by returning organizations.
a.CDGB #3. Odyssey House, Replace HVAC System. Recommended for $250,000.
b.CDGB #5. Housing Authority of Salt Lake City. Revitalizing Riverside Apartments.
Recommended for $146,625.
c.CDGB #6. Habitat for Humanity, Critical Home Repair Program. The board
recommends fully funding the $600,000 requested, while the Mayor recommends
funding only $500,000, and moving the remaining $100,000 to Salt Lake City NIS
Team.
d.CDGB #9. International Center for Appropriate and Sustainable Technology,
Electric Vehicle Charger Installation. Not recommended for funding.
e.CDGB #11. Utah Film Center, Update Film Center. Not recommended for funding.
f.CDGB #17 (Public Services). THRIVE Center for Survivors of Torture, Mental
Health Services for Refugees. Recommended for $30,000.
g.CDGB #20 (Public Services). Food Justice Coalition, Food Services.
Recommended for $30,000.
h.CDGB #22 (Public Services). International Rescue Committee, VESL Program.
Recommended for $40,000.
i.CDGB #28 (Public Services). Asian Association, Refugee Financial Education
Program. Not recommended for funding.
j.CDGB #30 (Public Services). Salt Lake City Public Library, Case Management.
Not recommended for funding.
k.CDGB #32 (Public Services). YWCA, Domestic Violence Shelter Meals. Not
recommended for funding.
l.CDGB #33 (Public Services). Salt Lake American, Refugee Services for Survival.
Not recommended for funding.
m.CDGB #35 (Public Services). Utah Community Action, Childcare Services. Not
recommended for funding.
n.CDGB #36 (Public Services). Big Brothers Big Sisters of Utah, Support Staffing.
Not recommended for funding.
o.CDGB #40 (Public Services). Odyssey House, Explorers Program. Not
recommended for funding.
p.ESG #5 (Part 1). YWCA, Shelter Advocacy. Not recommended for funding.
q.ESG #9 (Part 2). Housing Authority of Salt Lake, Homeless Prevention. Not
recommended for funding.
r.ESG #11 (Part 2). Asian Association, Homeless Prevention. Not recommended for
funding.
Projects Recommended for More Funding than was Requested. Two applications,
both in the HOPWA program, received recommendations from both the Board and the Mayor,
for more funding than they had requested. Housing Stability Division staff is checking with the
two organizations to ensure they can make use of the additional funding amount.
HOPWA #2. Utah Community Action, HOPWA. Requested $191,585; recommended
for $227,844.
HOPWA #3. Housing Connect, Housing Assistance. Requested $589,779;
recommended for $689,000.
12.Organizations with Multiple Applications. Some organizations submit a single
application for a program for which they seek funding from multiple grants. Others submit
multiple applications for different programs which are narrowly tailored to each grant.
Organizations with multiple applications are listed alphabetically in Attachment C5, with total
funding requested and the recommended award amounts.
E. Funding Contingencies. Annual HUD program funding is allocated by the Council on the basis of
estimates of funding that has not yet been received. For this reason, contingencies are needed to compensate
for differences between estimates and actual grant amounts received. Each year the advisory board
recommends specific contingencies, which are summarized in the table below. The Council may wish to
review the contingencies listed below and identify any changes they wish to make in case HUD’s
confirmation of final funding amounts is not available by the scheduled vote on April 15.
FY26 Council Funding Contingencies
If MORE funding is available If LESS funding is available
CDBG
Allocate 20% of the annual CDBG award
to program administration. Allocate 15%
of the annual award and estimated 2024-
25 CDBG Program Income to Public
Services. Add additional funding to the
highest-scoring applications up to the full
ask before moving to the next highest-
scoring application. As much as
practicable, round to the nearest $1,000
or $10,000.
Allocate 20% of the annual CDBG award to program
administration. Allocate 15% of the annual award and
estimated 2024-25 CDBG Program Income to Public Services.
Remove funding from the lowest-scoring activities down to the
minimum amount required to run the program, moving up
from the lowest-scoring, funded activity. If you reach the top
of the programs and funding still needs to be decreased,
remove the lowest scoring, funded activity, and reallocate the
funding to the highest scoring activity up to the board's
recommended amounts, moving down the list. Round to the
nearest $1,000 or $10,000.
ESG
Allocate 7.5% of the annual ESG award to
program administration. Do not exceed
the 60% Part 1 funding cap. Add
additional funding to the highest-scoring
applications up to the full ask before
moving to the next highest-scoring
application. As much as practicable,
round to the nearest $1,000.
Allocate 7.5% of the annual ESG award to program
administration. Remove funding from the lowest-scoring
activities down to the minimum amount required to run the
program, moving up from the lowest-scoring, funded activity.
If you reach the top of the programs and funding still needs to
be decreased, remove the lowest scoring, funded activity, and
reallocate the funding to the highest scoring activity up to the
board's recommended amounts, moving down the list. Round
to the nearest $1,000.
HOME
Allocate 10% of the annual HOME award
to program administration. Allocate 15%
of the annual award for the CHDO Set-
Aside. Add additional funding to the
highest-scoring applications up to the full
ask before moving to the next highest-
scoring application. As much as
practicable, round to the nearest $1,000
or $10,000.
Allocate 10% of the annual HOME award to program
administration. Allocate 15% of the annual award and 15% of
the estimated 2024-25 CDBG Program Income to Public
Services. Remove funding from the lowest-scoring activities
down to the minimum amount required to run the program,
moving up from the lowest-scoring, funded activity. If you
reach the top of the programs and funding still needs to be
decreased, remove the lowest scoring, funded activity, and
reallocate the funding to the highest scoring activity up to the
board's recommended amounts, moving down the list. Round
to the nearest $1,000 or $10,000.
HOPWA
Allocate 3% of the annual HOPWA award
to program administration. Add
additional funding to the highest-scoring
applications up to the full ask before
moving to the next highest-scoring
application. As much as practicable,
round to the nearest $1,000 or $10,000.
Allocate 3% of the annual HOPWA award to program
administration. Remove funding from the lowest-scoring
activities down to the minimum amount required to run the
program, moving up from the lowest-scoring, funded activity.
If you reach the top of the programs and funding still needs to
be decreased, remove the lowest scoring, funded activity, and
reallocate the funding to the highest scoring activity up to the
board's recommended amounts, moving down the list. Round
to the nearest $1,000 or $10,000.
F. FY26 HUD Entitlement Allocations and the FY25-29 Consolidated Plan
1.The FY25-29 Consolidated Plan. Each successive five-year Consolidated Plan spells out the goals
and strategies that determine eligibility for HUD grant funding and identifies geographic target areas
for the CDBG neighborhood improvement category funding (see below). A comparison of the goals
and strategies of the current consolidated plan with the proposed FY25-29 Consolidated Plan can be
found in Attachment C2.
2.CDBG Neighborhood Improvements Category Target Area in the 2025-2029
Consolidated Plan. The target area delineates the geographic boundaries for spending CDBG
funding on economic development and public infrastructure improvements (Attachment C3).
Focusing federal grants in specific target areas is intended to maximize community impact and
stimulate investments from other entities in these neighborhoods. These applications are included in
the CDBG Neighborhood Improvements category on the funding log. Examples of these project types
include small business façade improvement grants, public transit improvements, and creation of ADA
ramps. A city which does not fund applications that advance the five-year plan could be considered by
as underperforming, which may lead to reductions in future grant awards, and audits of the program.
Policy Question: Would the Council like to discuss the proposal to shift the
current CDBG boundaries as depicted in Attachment C3?
3. Timeline for Allocations and New Consolidated Plan.
FY26 HUD Entitlement
Allocations
FY25-29 Consolidated Plan
April 15 Council adoption of FY26 HUD
entitlement allocations
Council adoption of Consolidated
Plan
April 1 Third briefing (if needed)
March 25 Second briefing
March 18 First briefing
March 4 Mayor’s funding recommendations.
Council public hearing.
Council public hearing
February 18 Set date for public hearing Set date for public hearing
February 11 Follow-up briefing for Draft 5-
year HUD Consolidated Plan
FY25-2029 (initial briefing
October 1, 2024).
G. Trends in City Housing Funding. As seen in the chart below, HUD Grant funding has remained
relatively stable throughout recent years. The largest exception is the sharp increase in HOPWA funding
over the period, which resulted from 2016 Federal legislation that adjusted the funding formula to better
reflect HIV epidemic data. Continued funding increases are not expected because the phased formula
adjustment has now been fully implemented.
POLICY QUESTION: The Council might wish to engage the Administration in a
discussion about funding shifts in the other HUD Grant programs over this period.
GENERAL POLICY QUESTIONS
1. Does the Council have any questions about the funding recommendations from the Advisory Board and the
Mayor?
2. Would Council Members like to suggest any potential funding shifts among applications?
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment C1. Recommended Uses of FY2025-26 Federal Funding.
Attachment C2. Proposed FY2025 to 2029 Consolidated Plan Goals and Strategies.
Attachment C3. Target Area Map for CDBG Neighborhood Improvements (2025-2029 Consolidated Plan).
Attachment C4. FY 2025-26 Grant Recommendations by Score.
Attachment C5. Organizations with Multiple Applications.
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
$4,000,000
FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26*
CDBG
ESG
HOME
HOPWA
Trends in Final Allocations from HUD Programs
All data provided by the Housing Stability Division.
*Allocation for FY26 is an estimate based on previous years' funding.
Attachment CXX. Organizations with Multiple Applications. Where funding recommendations are the same
for the Board and the Mayor, a single dollar figure appears. Exceptions are noted.
Application Funding
Requested
Recommended
for funding?
CDBG #28 (Public Services). Refugee Financial Education
Program
$114,387 No
Asian Association
ESG #11 (Part 2). Homeless Prevention $49,669 No
CDBG #41 (Public Services). Chef Trainer $50,000 NoCatholic
Community
Services
CDBG #42 (Public Services). Employment/Life Skills
Coordinator
$50,000 No
HOME #9. Down Payment Assistance $210,000 NoCommunity
Development
Corporation of
Utah
CDBG #34 (Public Services). Community Navigation Program $75,000 No
CDBG #4. Building Renovations $330,000 $280,000
CDBG #27 (Public Services). Employment Preparation and
Placement Program
$68,518 No
CDBG #31 (Public Services). Peer Supportive Services $90,000 No
ESG #4 (Part 1). Resource Center Program $60,000 $59,176 by Board;
$34,176 by Mayor
First Step House
HOME #6. Tenant-Based Rental Assistance $283,119 $283,119
ESG #9 (Part 2). Homeless Prevention $82,500 NoHousing Authority
of Salt Lake City CDBG #5. Revitalizing Riverside Apartments $189,750 $146,625
HOME #10. New City Plaza Construction $1,000,000 No
Housing Connect HOPWA #3. Housing Assistance $589,779 $689,000
HOME #8. Down Payment Assistance $200,000 NoNeighborWorks
Salt Lake CDBG #8. Home Repair Program $400,000 No
CDBG #3. Replace HVAC System $250,000 $250,000
CDBG #19 (Public Services). Treatment Support.$150,000 $75,000
CDBG #21 (Public Services). Bus Passes $90,000 $33,366Odyssey House
CDBG #40 (Public Services). Explorers Program $112,000 No
CDBG #7. Home Repair Program and Fix the Bricks Program $1,377,500 $745,381 by Board;
$845,381 by MayorSalt Lake City NIS
Team CDBG #10. Neighborhood Business Improvement Program $950,000 $650,000
CDBG #39 (Public Services). Security and Food at Housing
Resource Centers
$50,000 No
Shelter the
Homeless ESG #6 (Part 1). Shelter Operations $50,000 $0 by Board;
$30,000 by Mayor
CDBG #24 (Public Services). Domestic Violence Shelter
Services
$40,000 $30,000South Valley
Services HOME #3. Tenant-Based Rental Assistance $178,431 $178,431
Application Funding
Requested
Recommended
for funding?
CDBG #23 (Public Services). Resource Center Staffing $101,048 $30,000
CDBG #38 (Public Services). Housing Staffing $50,000 No
ESG #10 (Part 2). Rapid Re-Housing $91,888 $30,000The Road Home
HOME #7. Tenant-Based Rental Assistance $350,000 $340,885
CDBG #35 (Public Services). Childcare Services $240,000 No
ESG #8 (Part 2). Rapid Re-Housing $146,227 $67,054
HOME #4. Tenant-Based Rental Assistance $287,141 $287,141
Utah Community
Action
HOPWA #2. HOPWA $194,585 $227,844
ESG #2 (Part 1). Youth Resource Center $60,000 $60,000
ESG #3 (Part 1). Geraldine E King Women's Resource Center $60,000 $60,000 by Board;
$35,000 by MayorVolunteers of
America HOME #5. Tenant-Based Rental Assistance $174,867
4174,867
CDBG #32 (Public Services). Domestic Violence Shelter Meals $60,000 No
YWCA ESG #5 (Part 1). Shelter Advocacy $75,000 No
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY25
TO:Council Members
FROM: Austin Kimmel, Sylvia Richards, and
Allison Rowland
Budget and Policy Analysts
DATE: March 18, 2025
RE: Budget Amendment Number 4 of Fiscal Year (FY) 2025
Budget Amendment Number Four includes 1 proposed amendment, a grant for $3,998,800 in revenues and expenditures.
The Administration is requesting approval from the Council because the size of the grant award exceeds the amount
available through the Holding Account. As mentioned below the fund balance chart, with the adoption of Budget
Amendment #4, the available fund balance will increase to 21.38 percent of the FY 2025 Adopted Budget. If the item is
adopted as proposed, then Fund Balance would be $40,257,199 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 side 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 4 would be
$6,381,054. Note that of the total cost, $4.1
million would be needed if the Homeless
Shelter Cities State Mitigation grant is not
available for FY2026.
Project Timeline:
Consent: March 4, 2025
1st Briefing: March 18, 2025
2nd Briefing (if needed) & Public Hearing: March 25, 2025
2025 Potential Adoption Vote: April 1, 2025
UPDATED Fund Balance Chart
The table below presents updated Fund Balance numbers and percentages based on the proposed changes included in
Budget Amendment #4.
As mentioned earlier, with the complete adoption of Budget Amendment #4, the available fund balance will increase to
21.38 percent of the FY 2025 Adopted Budget. If all the items are adopted as proposed, then Fund Balance would be
$40,257,199 above the 13% minimum target. The proposal includes one initiative for Council review.
A summary spreadsheet outlining proposed budget changes is attached. The Administration requests this
document be modified based on the decisions of the Council.
PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing
Section E: Grants Requiring No Staff Resources
E-1: Lead Hazard Reduction Grant Award – ($3,998,800 – Misc. Grant Fund)
This item is to recognize a four-year grant award from Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in the amount of
$3,998,800 for lead paint mitigation in homes within the Salt Lake City boundaries. The mitigation work will include
exterior paint, windows, kitchen repairs and any other work requiring lead-based paint removal.
As this grant is too large for the grant holding account, the Administration added it to a budget amendment. The original
grant application submission memo from the Administration indicated that a new Housing Program Manager FTE would
be added as part of the grant; however, the Administration has since determined that a new FTE will not be needed. The
grant pays a portion of two existing FTE’s; one Rehabilitation Specialist II and one Rehabilitation Specialist I. The public
hearing was held on October 1, 2024.
Approximately 300 homes will benefit from this work from the Housing Stability division during the four-year grant
period in conjunction with Housing Stability’s existing Home Rehabilitation and Repair program, funded through the
CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) program. Originally, the city estimated that 120 homes would be
rehabilitated; however, HUD indicates the city’s cost estimate per home was too high. HUD estimates that 300 homes can
be abated.
There is a required grant match of $443,353 which will be funded by existing budget for the Home Rehabilitation and
Repair program, including staff costs and staff time spent on the projects. Applicants may apply through the Home
Rehabilitation and Repair program.
Additional budget detail:
CATEGORY GRANT AMOUNT MATCH AMOUNT
Salary $ 410,648.80 $ 78,150.00
Benefits $ 132,434.61 $ 25,203.00
Travel $ 21,094.96
Supplies and materials $ 22,200.00
Contracts $3,260,000.00 $340,000.00
Other direct costs $ 152,421.84
Total 3,998,800.21 $443,353.00
ATTACHMENTS
1. Ongoing Costs to the General Fund (See chart below)
2. Grant Application Submission Notification Memo
3. Lead Hazard Reduction Grant Abstract
ACRONYMS
CAFR – Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
CIP – Capital Improvement Program
CDBG – Community Development Block Grant Program
FOF – Funding Our Future
FTE – Full time Employee / Equivalent
FY – Fiscal Year
GF – General Fund
HUD – Housing and Urban Development
IMS – Information Management Services
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.
TOTAL $6,381,054 39 total FTEs of which
16 are New FTEs
Note that of the total cost, $4.1 million would be needed
if the Homeless Shelter Cities State Mitigation grant is
not available for FY2026
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
SWORN STATEMENT SUPPORTING CLOSURE OF MEETING
I, Chris Wharton, acted as the presiding member of the Salt Lake Council, which met on March 18, 2025 in a hybrid
meeting pursuant to Salt Lake City Proclamation.
Appropriate notice was given of the Council's meeting as required by §52-4-202.
A quorum of the Council was present at the meeting and voted by at least a two-thirds vote, as detailed in the minutes of
the open meeting, to close a portion of the meeting to discuss the following: §52-4-205(l)(a) discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual; §52 -4-205(1)(b) strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining; §52-4-205(l)(c) strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation; §52-4-205(l)(d) strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property, including
any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the transaction would: (i) disclose the
appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (ii) prevent the public body from
completing the transaction on the best possible terms; §52-4-205(l)(e) strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water right
or water shares if: (i) public discussion of the transaction would: (A) disclose the appraisal or estimated
value of the property under consideration; or (B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction
on the best possible terms; (ii) if the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be
offered for sale; and (iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body approves the
sale; §52-4-205(1)(f) discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and §52-4-205(1)(g) investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct. A Closed Meeting may also be held for Attorney-Client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah Code
§78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act. Other, described as follows: _____________________________________________________________
The content of the closed portion of the Council meeting was restricted to a discussion of the matter(s) for which the
meeting was closed.
With regard to the closed meeting, the following was publicly announced and recorded, and entered on the minutes of the
open meeting at which the closed meeting was approved:
(a) the reason or reasons for holding the closed meeting;
(b) the location where the closed meeting will be held; and
(c) the vote of each member of the public body either for or against the motion to hold the closed meeting.
The recording and any minutes of the closed meeting will include:
(a) the date, time, and place of the meeting;
(b) the names of members Present and Absent; and
(c) the names of all others present except where such disclosure would infringe on the confidentiality
necessary to fulfill the original purpose of closing the meeting.
Pursuant to §52-4-206(6), a sworn statement is required to close a meeting under §52-4-205(1)(a) or (f), but a record by
electronic recording or detailed minutes is not required; and Pursuant to §52-4-206(1), a record by electronic recording
and/or detailed written minutes is required for a meeting closed under §52-4-205(1)(b),(c),(d),(e),and (g): A record was not made. A record was made by: : Electronic recording Detailed written minutes
I hereby swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the above information is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge.
Presiding Member Date of Signature
Chris Wharton (Apr 1, 2025 15:52 MDT)Apr 1, 2025
March 18, 2025 Closed Meeting Sworn
Statement
Final Audit Report 2025-04-01
Created:2025-03-31
By:DeeDee Robinson (deedee.robinson@slc.gov)
Status:Signed
Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAA-B3-Et_5kUbtDkij5CjE3e-TLmGdHFK6
"March 18, 2025 Closed Meeting Sworn Statement" History
Document created by DeeDee Robinson (deedee.robinson@slc.gov)
2025-03-31 - 10:31:00 PM GMT
Document emailed to Chris Wharton (chris.wharton@slc.gov) for signature
2025-03-31 - 10:32:03 PM GMT
Email viewed by Chris Wharton (chris.wharton@slc.gov)
2025-04-01 - 5:24:16 AM GMT
Document e-signed by Chris Wharton (chris.wharton@slc.gov)
Signature Date: 2025-04-01 - 9:52:41 PM GMT - Time Source: server
Agreement completed.
2025-04-01 - 9:52:41 PM GMT