HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/08/2025 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
WORK SESSION
April 8, 2025 Tuesday 3:30 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
3:30 PM Work Session
Or immediately following the 2:00 PM
Community Reinvestment Agency Meeting
Limited Formal Meeting
Room 315 (See separate agenda)
Please note: A general public comment period will not be held this day.
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: 10:06:24
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 ~ 3:30 p.m.
45 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 and Tuesday, April 8, 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.Ordinance: Alley Vacation Near 2680 South Chadwick ~ 4:15 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal to vacate a City-owned alley between
approximately 2615 South and 2700 South, and between Beverly Street and Chadwick
Streets. If approved, the alley would be divided and given to the property owners that
abut the alley.The applicant has requested the vacation due to various structures and
vegetation in the alley, as well as an overall lack of use. The request is supported by the
Sugar House Master Plan. Located within Council District 7. Petitioner: Taylor Thomas,
owner of 2680 South Chadwick.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, April 8, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 15, 2025
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 6, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 20, 2025
3.Informational: Sister Cities Annual Report 2024 ~ 4:35 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about the Sister Cities Annual Report. The report
includes a summary of the accomplishments achieved in 2024 and an outline of goals
and priorities for the future.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, April 8, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
4.Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.5 for Fiscal Year 2024-25
Follow-up ~ 4:55 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 and Tuesday, April 8, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 1, 2025
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 15, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 6, 2025
5.Fiscal Year 2025-26 Funding Allocations One-year Action Plan
for Community Development Block Grant & Other Federal
Grants Follow-up
~ 5:15 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a follow-up briefing on recommendations for allocating grant
funding provided through four federal Housing and Urban Development Department
(HUD) programs. For fiscal year 2025-26, approximately $7.7 million dollars is expected
to flow through the Division of Housing Stability to community service providers selected
by the Council. The HUD programs that provide this funding and oversee activities of
grant recipients are: Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), the HOME
Investment Partnership Program, Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG), and Housing
Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA). The resolution under consideration
would also approve an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City and the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), as well as the new fiscal
year 2025-29 Consolidated Plan.
For more information visit www.tinyurl.com/annualhudgrants.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, March 18, 2025; Tuesday, March 25, 2025; Tuesday, April 1, 2025;
and Tuesday, April 8, 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
Standing Items
6.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair -
-
Report of Chair and Vice Chair.
7.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:
•Legislative Action; and
•Scheduling Items.
8.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, April 3, 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 8, 2025
RE:Mixed-Use Zoning Consolidation
PLNPCM2024-00707
PROJECT TIMELINE:
Briefing 1: February 4, 2025
Briefing 2: April 8, 2025
Set Date: April 1, 2025
Public Hearing: May 6, 2025
Potential Action: TBD
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
1. Allow drive through facilities for financial intuitions in Sugar House districts.
2. Allow up to 150’ in Sugar House area (south of 2100 south, 1300 E McClelland to freeway).
MU11 type height
3. Change max height for row house in MU-5 and above to 45 feet.
Page | 3
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…
5. Remove language that requires roof pitch / height be similar to adjacent properties in MU-3.
Proposed removing this in MU-3
o Staff proposes removing this in MU-2 and MU-3
6. Standardizing setback for similar zones Proposed Changes
a. A. Urban House/Two-Family/Cottage Open Space: Revise all to 10% open space with
20% vegetation
b. 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
c. 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.
Page | 4
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.
6. Staff recommends removing “Richard Street, from Harvard Avenue to Kelsey Avenue”
as an area requiring an “Enhanced Active Ground Floor Use.”
7. 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
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
Page | 5
impacting the neighborhoods where they are located. Planning staff provided the following
options for the Council to consider that could address those concerns.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
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
Page | 6
18. Legislative Actions pertaining to zoning
d. 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.
e. 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.
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).”
Page | 7
Pages 6-11 of the Transmittal Letter include a summary of each zone, Their purpose, and general zoning
regulations. Below is a general outline of the key changes. See the Transmittal Letter and attachments for
more in-depth information on the various zones.
1. Land Use Tables
Several amendments will be made to the Land Use tables. Many of the minor amendments
to the existing tables include consolidated definitions, the removal of zoning districts being
consolidated into the new land use table, and the removal of some land uses.
2. Creates 6 new zoning districts and rezones properties to the new zoning districts.
Attachment A is a fact sheet outlining the zoning standards for each new district, such as height,
setbacks, building size, and design standards. The interactive map also shows the new MU zones'
locations throughout the city.
MU-2 MU-3 MU-5
Consolidated Zones
o Residential Business (RB),
o Small Neighborhood
Business (SNB)
o Neighborhood Commercial
(CN)
Consolidated Zones
o Community Business (CB)
o R-MU-35 (Residential
Mixed Use - 35)
Consolidated Zones
o Form-Based Urban
Neighborhood 2 (FB-UN2),
o Corridor Commercial (CC),
o Community Shopping (CS),
o Form-Based Special
Purpose Corridor Edge (FB-
SE),
o Residential Mixed Use 45
(R-MU-45)
o Transit Station Area
Transitional (TSA-UN-T)
o Mixed Use (MU)
o South State Street Corridor
Overlay (SSSC)
MU-6 MU-8 MU-11
Page | 7
Consolidated Zones
o Form-Based Urban
Neighborhood 2 (FB-UN2)
o Form Based Special
Purpose Corridor (FB-SE)
o Sugar House Business
District 2 (CSHBD-2)
o Residential Office (RO)
o Transit Station Area -
Urban Core Transition
(TSA-UC-T)
o Special Purpose Transition
(TSA-SP-T)
o Mixed Use Employment
Center Transition (TSA-
MUEC-T)
Consolidated Zones
o Residential Mixed Use
(RMU)
o Transit Station Area -
Mixed Use Employment
Center Core (TSA-MUEC-C)
o Special Purpose Core (TSA-
SP-C)
o Urban Neighborhood Core
(TSA-UN-C)
Consolidated Zones
o CG (General Commercial),
o FBMU-11 (Form-Based
Mixed-Use 11)
o TSAUC- C (Transit Station
Area Urban Center Core)
o CSHBD-1 (Sugar House
Business District)
1.Establishes the general provisions that apply to all MU zones
See Attachment A
MU Building Types
Cottage, Urban House, Two-Family
Row House
Storefront, Vertical Mixed-Use, Multi Family Residential
Heights
The number in the title of each district generally identifies the number of building
stories allowed by that zone. (some flexibility is granted for enhanced ground
floor uses)
Setbacks
Make consistent across the various zoning designations,
Require larger buffers and setbacks when next to a low-scale single-family/two-
family
Landscape buffers
A 10-foot landscape buffer is required when any of the MU zones abut single-
family, two-family zones, and multifamily zones
step-back requirements between higher-scale MU zones and zones under 35 feet
in height, including MU-2 and MU-3 zones,
Lots/Buildings Without Public Street Frontage
Allow lots without public street frontage. Helps with deep lot configuration
Open Space
In addition to the basic yard setback requirement, a general standard of 10% of
the lot area will be required for open space
Minimum dimension of 15’ x 15’ to ensure useability
Mid-block Walkways
All zones are proposed to require the implementation of a mid-block walkway on
a property if one has been identified in an adopted City plan.
2.Create a Transitional Overlay for M-1 and CG properties
Page | 8
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:
f. Modify the land use table language to allow for financial institutions to have drive-
throughs in the MU11 zone.
g. Allow the drive-through use at that location as approved through a development
agreement
1. It would have to go to the Planning Commission and the City Council for
approval.
The Council may wish to discuss these options with Planning staff and, if
either option is supported, request that staff make the change in the final
ordinance.
3. Post Planning Commission updates.
After the planning commission forwarded a positive recommendation, staff noted some
technical and substantive changes that needed to be made to the draft ordinance. The planning
staff is seeking Council direction on the following items, outlined on pages 15- 16 of the
Transmittal Letter. The Council will be asked to conduct straw polls to determine if these
changes are included in the final ordinance.
a. Add “Contractor’s Yard/Office (Indoor)” use to the Transitional Overlay as a
Conditional Use.
i. Staff recommends including this use.
b. Richard Street was unintentionally included as an area requiring a high activity use due
to a code provision in the recently adopted MU-8 code.
i. Staff recommends removing “Richard Street, from Harvard Avenue to Kelsey
Avenue” as an area requiring an “Enhanced Active Ground Floor Use.”
c. Delete the requirement for a 6' walkway between multiple buildings that are over 75' in
façade length.
Page | 10
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
1. Pages 20-23 of the Transmittal Letter outlines the public process. Starting in April 2024, the public
outreach included eight walking tours in various neighborhoods around the city, open houses,
various community events such as town halls, presentations to recognized community
organizations, and 10 briefings before the planning commission, along with 2 public hearings.
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Brian Fullmer, Policy Analyst
DATE:April 8, 2025
RE: Alley Vacation Near 2680 South Chadwick Street
(PLNPCM2024-00973)
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will be briefed about a proposal to vacate an approximately 810-foot by 12-foot alley between
Beverly and Chadwick Streets (~1400 East). The alley runs between 2700 South and about 2615 South,
south of Stratford Avenue in City Council District Seven as shown in the image below.
The subject alley is blocked at several points by utility poles, garages and sheds, walls and fences, and
vegetation. All Chadwick Street properties abutting this alley have open enforcement cases for
encroachment. It is worth noting that the applicant's garage encroaching into the alley was permitted by
the City in error. Another garage encroaching into the alley was issued a permit in 2005, but it is unknown
if the approved plans followed the property line.
If approved by the City Council, the alley property would be divided in half and given to the abutting
property owners.
Planning staff recommended the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City
Council. The Commission reviewed this petition at its January 8, 2025 meeting and held a public hearing
at which no one spoke. The Commission voted 5-2 to forward a positive recommendation to the
City Council for the proposed alley vacation. One Commissioner who was opposed to the vacation
cited concerns with closing an alley that could be used to access properties in the future. She also feels
encroachments creating a lack of use are not a satisfactory reason to use that factor. The other
Commissioner opposed to the vacation did not indicate why.
Goal of the briefing: Review the alley closure and determine if the Council supports moving forward
with the proposal.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: April 8, 2025
Set Date: April 15, 2025
Public Hearing: May 6, 2025
Potential Action: May 20, 2025
Page | 2
Aerial image showing properties abutting the subject alley.
Owners of properties outlined in red signed a petition supportive of the alley vacation.
Note-A separate alley behind homes at 1382, 1398, 1402, and 1408 East Stratford Avenue
at the top of the image are not included in the proposed alley vacation.
Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division
POLICY QUESTION
1. The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration options for resolving City enforcement on
a structure encroaching into the alley that was approved by the City.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
In March 2023 the applicant submitted plans for a garage to be constructed at the rear of his property. The
plans incorrectly included a portion of the alley as part of the applicant’s property. As discussed above, the
Page | 3
plans were mistakenly approved by the City, a permit was issued, and the garage was built. In May 2024 a
civil enforcement case was initiated against the applicant’s property for encroachment into the alley and a
warning letter was sent.
Planning staff noted that if the alley is vacated and the property is divided equally between property owners
on both sides of the alley, it might not bring all properties into compliance. Further discussions about
potentially adjusting property lines would be private matters and not involve the City.
City Department Review
Attachment I, pages 40-41 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.
The Engineering Division discussed structures encroaching into the alley built without proper notice but
did not express opposition to the alley vacation. An existing Rocky Mountain Power easement was also
mentioned 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 four key considerations during analysis of these proposals which are found on
pages 4-5 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. There are 32 property owners abutting the alley and 27 (84%) signed the
petition. Three additional property owners were not available to sign the petition but verbally expressed
support.
Consideration 2 – Policy Considerations
Planning staff found that with obstructions from utility poles, structures, vegetation, and its current
condition, the proposed alley vacation satisfies the Lack of Use policy consideration included in the table
below.
Consideration 3 – Community Plan Considerations
Planning staff reviewed how the proposed alley vacation aligns with the Sugar House Plan and Plan Salt
Lake. Both plans support connectivity and circulation within neighborhoods, and alleys can help provide
these connections. However, Planning staff noted the alley has been unusable for many years and does not
provide access for any abutting properties. It is Planning’s opinion that closing the alley will not impact
community access to public spaces.
Consideration 4 – Current Condition of the Alley
As discussed above, numerous obstructions from utility poles, fences, structures, and vegetation make the
alley inaccessible. It appears the alley only exists on paper and there is no evidence indicating it was ever
paved.
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
Page | 5
14.52.020 - The City will not consider disposing of its
interest in an alley, in whole or in part, unless it
receives a petition in writing which demonstrates that
the disposition satisfies at least one of the following
policy considerations:
A - Lack of Use- The City’s legal interest in the
property appears of record or is reflected on an
applicable plat; however, it is evident from an on-site
inspection that the alley does not physically exist or
has been materially blocked in a way that renders it
unusable as a public right-of-way.
B - Public Safety- The existence of the alley is
substantially contributing to crime, unlawful activity
or unsafe conditions, public health problems, or
blight in the surrounding area.
C - Urban Design- The continuation of the alley does
not serve as a positive urban design element.
D - Community Purpose- The petitioners are
proposing to restrict the general public from use of
the alley in favor of a community use, such as a
neighborhood play area or garden.
Complies
Planning staff found the alley vacation
request is consistent with policy
consideration A – Lack of Use.
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 reasonable
objection to the proposed disposition of the property.
Complies
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
Complies
The alley is optional for actual or potential rear access
to residences or for accessory uses.
Complies
Page | 6
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
August 28, 2024 – Petition submitted to Salt Lake City Planning Division.
September 27, 2024 – Petition deemed complete.
October 1, 2024 – Petition assigned to Ben Buckley, Principle Planner.
October 16, 2024 –
o Notice sent to Sugar House Community Council and Sugar House Chamber of Commerce.
o 45-day input period begins. The community council sent an email expressing support for
the alley vacation. No other comments were received by Planning or Council staff as of the
date this report was written.
o Early notification letter sent to abutting property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the
alley requested to be vacated.
December 19, 2024 – Public hearing notice signs posted on the property.
December 24, 2024 – Public hearing notices mailed.
December 26, 2024 – Public hearing notices posted on City and State websites, and posted on the
Planning Division listserv.
January 8, 2025 – Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 5-2 to forward a
recommendation of approval to the City Council.
January 9, 2025 – Ordinance requested from Attorney’s Office
March 5, 2025 – Ordinance received from Attorney’s Office.
March 19, 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;
Page | 7
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;
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)
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Austin Kimmel
Public Policy Analyst
DATE:April 8, 2025
RE: INFORMATIONAL: SISTER CITIES ANNUAL REPORT 2024
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will receive an annual report from the Department of Economic Development and the Sister City
Board. The report contains an overview of the program's goals and priorities, a look back at its 2024
accomplishments, and updates about each of Salt Lake City's six sister cities.
This annual report highlights last year’s visit to Matsumoto, Japan, the first and oldest sister city of Salt Lake
City, a relationship that began in 1958. It also highlights a new process for the program to evaluate potential new
sister cities and a process to evaluate existing cities.
Goal of the briefing: Review the information the Administration and the Sister City Board provided about
Salt Lake City's Sister City program. Formal action is not required for this informational update.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. The Council may wish to inquire whether the Administration plans to establish relationships with new
sister cities and may ask for details about its recent process for evaluating potential Sister City
candidates.
2. The Council may wish to ask the department if it requires additional budget or resources to support the
program in Fiscal Year 25-26.
3. The Council could ask the department to expand its communications and public engagement efforts to
inform the public about the program and opportunities for participation.
ADDITIONAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A.Sister Cities Program Background: Salt Lake City has six active sister city relationships: Matsumoto,
Japan; Keelung, Taiwan; Chernivtsi, Ukraine; Torino, Italy; Izhevsk, Russia; and Trujillo, Peru. The primary
goal of Salt Lake City's relationships with these cities is to foster peace through mutual respect and
Item Schedule:
Briefing: April 8, 2025
Public Hearing: N/A
Potential Action: N/A
Page | 2
cooperation. The program accomplishes this through activities such as student exchanges, arts and cultural
events, partnerships, and, at times, delegation visits.
The Sister Cities Board consists of seven to nine voting members, six non-voting members, and up to two
youth members from ages 15 to 18. The board's responsibilities include advising the administration and the
Council on the Sister Cities program and its budget, implementing the program's goals, providing annual
reports such as this one, and reviewing new requests for Sister City partnerships. In 2023, the Council
approved an ordinance to re-establish the Sister Cities Board and oversee the program's operations.
B.Program Goals: The annual report provides the following completed goals in 2024, as well as the
following goals currently in progress or ongoing. The list below has been copied from page 7 of the
Administrative transmittal.
Completed goals:
o Filling of board member seats in Districts 2 and 7
o Matsumoto, Japan Delegation visit a success
o Student visit to Salt Lake City from Japan Matsumoto
o Secure more funding- exceeded goal
o Reconnected with Chernivtsi, Ukraine through August Mission (local non-profit)
o City Staff went to San Antonio for Sister Cities International Summit
o Sister Cities application process reviewed and updated
o Involved local Salt Lake artists for gifts exchanged with Sister Cities
o Example: Out of the Blue (The Whale) statue gifted to Matsumoto, Japan.
Goals in progress or ongoing:
o Finding youth representation for advisory board
o Fill board openings in districts 1 and voting member-at-large*
o Digitizing of past Sister City documents and images
o Meeting with community members with past knowledge of city relationships
o Annual Planning involving subcommittees
o Organization of previous delegation gifts
*The original document lists the incorrect board opening but has been corrected to list “voting
member-at-large.”
C.Matsumoto Trip. A notable achievement in 2024 was City’s delegation visit to Matsumoto, Japan. The
delegation comprised 22 members from Salt Lake City, including Mayor Mendenhall, Council Member
Mano, community leaders, and city staff. The formal visits with Matsumoto spanned about three and a half
days. Highlights included gift exchanges, such as a miniature replica of the 9th & 9th whale and tours of
local landmarks and businesses.
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 8, 2025
RE: Budget Amendment Number 5 of Fiscal Year (FY) 2025
New information
Item I-1 – Council Added Item – Advantage Services Increase - $320,000 – Source: vacancy savings
The adopted FY 25 budget for Advantage Servies 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.
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.
Project Timeline:
Consent: April 1, 2025
1st Briefing: April 1, 2025
2nd Briefing (if needed) & Public Hearing: April 15, 2025
Potential Adoption Vote: May 6, 2025
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.
As mentioned earlier, with the complete adoption of Budget Amendment #5, the available fund balance will increase to
20.81 percent of the FY 2025 Adopted Budget. If all the items are adopted as proposed, then Fund Balance would be
$37,533,578 above the 13% minimum target.
A summary spreadsheet outlining proposed budget changes is attached, which can be modified as determined
by the Council.
Impact Fee Unallocated “Available to Spend” Balances and Refund Tracking
The table below is current as of February 28, 2025. Impact fees must be encumbered or spent within six years
of the City receiving them. Expired impact fees must be returned to the entity who paid them with interest
over the intervening six years.
Type
Unallocated
Cash
“Available to
Spend”
Next Refund Trigger
Date
$ Expiring
in FY2027
Fire $750,546 More than two years away -
Parks $8,807,661 More than two years away -
Police $1,625,193 More than two years away -
Transportation $3,682,347 More than two years away -
Note: Encumbrances are an administrative function when impact fees are held under a contract
PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing
Section A: Grants Requiring No Staff Resources
A-1: 400 South Bridge Reconstruction over Jordan River – ($3,5000,000 – one-time from the County
Quarter Cent Fund Balance)
The Administration is requesting $3.5 million from the County quarter cent sales tax fund balance to fully fund
the 400 South bridge over the Jordan river. $4 million was allocated in FY 25, bringing the total to $7.5
million. Based on structural analysis, the bridge is at risk of being further downgraded, meaning emergency
vehicles and UTA buses may not be allowed on it until it is fixed. Funding it now would enable sooner
construction. The remaining fund balance in that account would be approximately $2 million if this item is
approved.
For more background on the inspection of the bridge and other funding for the project please refer to the
Administration’s transmittal.
A-2: Withdrawn prior to transmittal
A-3: Community Land Trust Program Funds Allocation – ($310,000 – one-time from Community Land
Trust)
The Administration is requesting funding from dormant program income fund dollars to repair various homes
in the Community Land Trust program. In previous discussions the Council indicated a willingness to allocate
funding within the program, acknowledging that the Administration was working on a more comprehensive
policy for the CLT. The administration indicates they expect to transmit that in April.
Policy question – the Council may wish to schedule a more in depth discussion on the Community
Land Trust when that policy is received from the Administration, particularly if there are budget
adjustments that could/should be made for the FY 26 budget.
A-4: Hive Pass Funding for Passes and Continuing Greenbike Membership – ($135,000 – one-time from
the General Fund
Due to increased usage of the HIVE pass, the administration is requesting $114,000 to help keep up with
demand. The budget was reduced a few years ago to align with usage, but between FY 24 and FY 25, usage
increased. This will bring the total general fund amount to $464,000, which is based on projected usage. The
Administration indicates it will include this increased cost in the upcoming budget year.
The Administration is also requesting $8,500 to cover related GreenBike memberships for HIVE pass users.
For the last seven years UTA has been paying for these memberships. However, current UTA leadership is not
interested in continuing the investment. The Administration is planning to include this in the budget for the
next three years.
Policy question – The Council may wish to discuss whether it is interested in the City providing the
GreenBike memberships, and if the Council is interested in funding this service long-term. Council
may wish to ask the Administration if UTA was approached to identify additional funds.
A-5: Expanding Scope of FY25 Funded Restroom Study to Include Assessment of All Public Restrooms –
($75,000 one-time from the General Fund)
Note: Public Lands coordinated with CAN on Items A-5&6. The Administration is proposing to allocate
$75,000 of the $500,000 set aside by the Council for “Public Hygiene Pilot program” to expand the scope of
the Fairmont Park Restroom Study. $100,000 was allocated in FY 25, and the additional $75,000 will enable
the study to be City-wide.
Policy question – the Council may wish to ask the administration for more information about
what is expected to be included in the scope and if there are any specific policy goals they wish to
achieve with this study?
A-6: Public Hygiene Pilot Program – ($425,000 – one-time from the General Fund)
Note: Public Lands coordinated with CAN on Items A-5&6. The Administration is requesting the Council
release funding for the Public Hygiene pilot program, originally allocated in FY 2025. The new amount would
be $425,000. The Administration is working on releasing an RFP for proposals. The Administration’s
transmittal indicates that the RFP would ask for providing “new and/or increased hygiene and outreach
services for unsheltered individuals experiencing homelessness in SLC. Proposals can include mobile services
or improving/expanding existing stationary facilities.”
Policy question – the Council may wish to evaluate whether reducing the funding from the
original $500k allocated would potentially reduce the scope of impact of this pilot project. The
Council could elect to make up the funding from fund balance.
A-7: Additional Funding for Construction Mitigation – ($270,000 – one-time from the General Fund)
Due to high demand, the Administration is requesting $270,000 from general fund balance to add to the
construction mitigation grants administered by Economic Development. When the Council increased this
funding in the FY 25 budget, several Council Members expressed an interest in fully funding requests, given the
increased construction activity in the City. In FY 25 the Council allocated $600,000. Economic Development
anticipates $270,000 in additional funding will fully address requests for the remainder of the fiscal year.
Additionally Economic Development indicates that they will make these funds available to businesses that have
been awarded funds in previous rounds. This funding would allow an additional 90 small businesses to receive
grants. Staff asked the Administration if the new amount of $870,000 should be included in the FY 26 budget.
The Administration indicates that they expect most major street construction projects to be wrapped up by the
next fiscal year.
Policy question – the Council may wish to have further discussion about other anticipated
construction projects that may have business impact, to inform the FY 26 budget.
A-8: Animal Services Contract Increase True-Up – ($398,281 – one-time from the General Fund)
The Administration is requesting additional funding for the contract with Salt Lake County for animal services.
The Contract was finalized after the FY 25 budget was adopted, which is why it wasn’t included. The new
contract pricing is $398,281 more than the current budget, and is due largely to inflationary increases, and
does not include any service level increases.
The Council may wish to ask the Administration if there is a way to adjust the timing of contract
negotiations so they can be included in the timing of the annual budget process.
A-9: FY25 Water Stabilization Monthly Fixed Fee (Water for $281,965); FY25 Water Stabilization
Monthly Fixed Fee (Sewer for $65,495); FY25 Water Stabilization Monthly Fixed Fee (Franchise Fee Tax
$72,752) for a total of $420,212 one-time funds from the General Fund
The Administration is requesting $420,212 of funding from general fund balance to cover the cost of the water
stabilization fee charged to the City as a water user (water, sewer, and stormwater) – calculated based on each
meter, and the size of each meter. The Public Lands department was not aware of this fee proposal at the time
of the FY 25 budget. Public Utilities will likely have a new rate structure in time for the FY 26 budget request, at
which time Public Lands will evaluate the budget need.
A-10: Storm Water Impact Fees ($36,091 one-time from the General Fund; $269,654 one-time from the
General Fund and $269,654 from the CIP Fund)
The Administration is requesting one-time funds to cover $305, 745 in stormwater impact fees relating to
Parks/CIP projects that were not included in those original project budgets – including Sugar House Park
Pavilion and several other CIP projects funded in FY 25. The Administration is evaluating how to
operationalize including these fees in project budgets in the future.
For background information on the City’s stormwater fee and fun, please refer to the Administration’s
transmittal.
A-11: Public Safety Plan – Westside Parks Security Guards – ($59,430 one-time from the General Fund)
The Public Lands department is requesting $59,430 to add additional security detail in westside parks, as
contemplated in the Public Safety plan proposed by the Mayor in January 2025. This funding would provide
funding for services from April-June.
Policy question – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration whether funding for
security services will be included in the FY 26 budget, and if so, the duration of those services.
A-12: Updating Four Sections of the Impact Fees Facilities Plan – ($80,000 one-time from the CIP Fund)
The Administration is requesting $80,000 from the various impact fee accounts to update all sections of the
Impact Fee Facility Plan – Fire, Police, Parks and Transportation. The Council previously approved an update
to the transportation in FY 24. This would enable all sections to be updated. The last comprehensive update
was in 2016. Updated plans ensure that impact fees are set based on realistic/current cost estimates for
improvements relating to growth, and that growth estimates are based on current data. State code governs the
impact fee facility plan process, including allowable uses for impact fees. The analysis must be completed by a
consultant approved in the impact fee analysis field.
A-13: Mayor’s Office Transfer of 2 FTE’s to Two Departments – (Budget Neutral)
The Administration is proposing to shift two FTEs out of the Mayor’s office into other City departments:
-One is a Constituent Services and Office Coordinator (N19), which is currently occupied, to
support the administrative functions of the Public Lands Department, in a project coordinator
role.
-One is a vacant Community Liaison position (E26), currently focused on language access, that
would move to IMS and reclassified as a Communication Specialist I (E27). Due to the
reclassification, the position would cost more annually, but for FY 25 would be absorbed by IMS.
This is a budget amendment request because the dollar amounts would need to be moved from the Mayor’s
office to Public Lands and IMS.
Policy question – The Council may wish to ask the Administration for an update on City-wide
communication strategy, including any relevant metrics.
A-14: Ranked Choice Voting Education and Outreach – ($50,000 one-time from the General Fund)
As discussed during the Council’s December discussion on Ranked Choice Voting, the Administration is
proposing to add $50,000 in one time money from the general fund balance to support outreach efforts
relating to this voting process. This is in addition to funds that are anticipated to be included in the FY 26
budget. Adding funds in this budget amendment would enable efforts to get underway immediately rather than
waiting for July 1 to begin. The Council straw polled support of this approach for the 2025 election cycle.
A-15: Additional Funding for City Hall Security Guards – ($700,000 ongoing from the General Fund)
The Administration is proposing to add $700,000 in funding from general fund balance to account for
increased security needs at the City and County building and overall Civic Campus (Washington Square,
Library, Public Safety Building). This would be in addition to the $916,000 approved in FY 26, for a total of
$1.616 million. The Administration indicated this likely reflects the actual ongoing need, and will plan to
include it in the FY 26 budget.
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources
(None)
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources
(None)
Section D: Housekeeping (write-ups from Administration’s transmittal)
D-1: Engineering Reappropriation for Fencing – ($63,953 one-time from the General Fund to the CIP
Fund)
One-time funding was provided to Public Service's Engineering Division in FY 2024 in a late-fiscal year budget
amendment for fencing adjacent to the North Temple bridge over the Jordan River, Archuleta Bridge, and Folsom Trail.
This funding was to be used for temporary fencing associated with a CIP project but could not be transferred to CIP
because it didn’t meet certain CIP criteria requirements. Instead of going to CIP, the budget was loaded into
Engineering Operations. However, because Engineering was not fully aware of the circumstances associated with the
appropriation, the funds were not encumbered and subsequently were not rolled over to the FY 2025 budget. This
housekeeping initiative is to reappropriate the $63,953.04 in funds that lapsed to the Fund Balance so the invoice from
Mountain States Fence can be paid.
D-2: Streets Mini Planer Replacement – ($394,000 one-time from the General Fund)
Earlier this year a planer used for the Roadway Preservation Program was damaged in an at-fault accident. A repair
estimate was obtained by Fleet, however, it was predicted to exceed the value of the asset. After discussion with the
manufacturer, leadership at Fleet and Streets determined it made fiscal sense to send the damaged planer out to an
auction, with the hope of finding an interested buyer who may want it for spare parts.
Given the robust demands of the Roadway Preservation Program, it is essential for the Streets Division to replace the
planer, which is used in removing and replacing old asphalt. The Roadway Preservation Program is an umbrella title
that includes among other sub-programs Asphalt Mill & Overlay. This would enable each asphalt team to have access to
a dedicated planer, eliminating the need to rely on the availability of another team's equipment, which significantly
limits productivity and operational efficiency. Replacing the planer will ensure the Streets Division can operate at full
capacity.
Since the City is self-insured, Streets must cover the cost of the replacement equipment. Public Services proposes using
$394,000 in end-of-year savings be transferred from its division budget to the Fleet Division to cover the replacement
cost. This end-of-year savings exists largely due to the mild winter that occurred this season, which resulted in lower
weather-related expenses including the salt budget, equipment rentals, and fleet fuel.
D-3: Fire Wildland/Hurricane Deployment Reimbursements – ($1,013,067 one-time reimbursement to
the General Fund and $38,558 one-time reimbursement to the Fleet Fund)
The Fire Department has been deployed several times this fiscal year to three wildland fires and two hurricanes. The
department expects to receive a full reimbursement of costs to the General Fund and a portion to Fleet. The costs are
itemized below:
• California Wildland Park Fire (August 2024) - $195,075
• California Wildland Line Fire (September 2024) - $165,412
• Utah Task Force 1/USAR Hurricane Helene (September 2024) - $121,861
• Utah Task Force 1/USAR Hurricane Milton (October 2024) - $148,926
• California Wildland Palisades Fire (January 2024) - $420,351
Total Reimbursement - $1,051,625
Staff inquired about federal funding uncertainties and the Fire Department indicates their counterparts have promised
a 75% advance on reimbursements. They will continue to monitor the situation.
D-4: Cultural Core Funding – ($241,000 one-time from the General Fund)
This funding is being requested to replace funding that fell to fund balance at the end of fiscal year 2024. The amount
was housed in Non-Departmental and was meant to be expended in the amount of $50,000 annually to supplement the
existing $250,000 annual funding level for the Cultural Core contract. The new total amount the City has committed to
pay Cultural Core annually is $300,000. If the reappropriation is approved, then the funds would be encumbered
through a purchase order process.
In FY 2023, the City Council approved the Cultural Core Surplus Funds be added to the city’s $250,000 annual
contribution. The $291,000 surplus would be divided, adding $50,000 to the city’s contribution which would then total
$300,000 for five years. In the sixth year $41,000 would be added to the city’s contribution.
D-5: Cultural Core Funding Move – ($250,000 – ongoing from General Fund)
In Budget Amendment #3 of FY 2024, Cultural Core funding in the amount of $250,000 was moved from the
Department of Economic Development to Non-Departmental. When the budget for FY 2025 was being developed, this
budget was initially captured in the Economic Development Department. However, it should have been captured in the
Economic Development Non Departmental Cost Center. This amendment formally corrects that discrepancy.
Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
E-1: BEMS – Bureau of Emergency Medical Services – ($6,003 – Misc. Grant Fund)
This amendment is to recognize the City's funding availability for an increase in an existing grant award of
$6,003. In August of 2024, the Salt Lake City Fire Department was awarded $9,642 through the Bureau of Emergency
Medical Services. In February of 2025 that award was increased by $6,003 which gave SLC a total award of $15,645.
Original Public Hearing was held March 5, 2024.
Section F: Donations
(None)
Section G: Consent Agenda
G-1: Utah State University Wildlife Foundation – ($85,356 – Misc. Grant Fund)
Utah State University has been awarded a grant by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation as part of their pollinator
program. Part of this grant has been awarded to the Trails and Natural Lands division of the Public Lands Department
of Salt Lake City as a subaward. Salt Lake City will use the grant to accomplish three main objectives: 1) Species
Development. 2) Seedling Production and 3) Native Seed Farm. The goal of these objectives is to supply the Utah
Pollinator Habitat Program and the city’s Trails projects with seedlings which will be used to enhance and restore public
lands along trails with pollinator habitat to the benefit of the urban population. The Public Hearing was held Feb. 4, 2025.
G-2: Utah Department of Natural Resources/Forestry, Fire, and State Lands – ($63,255 – Misc. Grant
Fund)
The Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands (FFSL) has received funds from the Utah State Legislature to be
administered for vegetation improvement projects on sovereign lands of Utah. The proposed uses of the funds were
brought before a grant selection committee and approved. The FFSL has awarded Salt Lake City Corporation for the
implementation of a Jordan River invasive species control and restoration project. The Public Hearing was held Feb. 4,
2025.
G-3: State of Utah: Department of Environmental Quality Drinking Water Board – 4th Avenue Well –
($800,000 – Misc. Grant Fund)
Public Utilities applied for and was awarded a planning loan through the Drinking Water Board. The loan amount is up
to $800,000 for planning and design costs to address PFAS contamination in the 4th Avenue Well. In addition to
awarding the loan, the State will also forgive 100% of the principal cost of the loan to pay for an engineering study to
address the contamination issue. While this is a loan and not a grant, the mechanism for receiving the money is similar
to a grant. Typically, when receiving a loan, the loan recipient receives all the money at once and thus can spend funds
once the money is received. In this instance, the funder (lender) is requiring Salt Lake City to initially incur the expenses
and then submit reimbursement requests to receive the money. The agreement for this loan is that 100% of the
principal will be forgiven and there will be no expectation of repayment. Due to the unique requirements of this loan,
the management of funds will follow grant approval and reimbursement processes. The Public Hearing was held Feb. 4,
2025.
G-4: Salt Lake City Bike Share Expansion – ($121,236 – Misc. Grant Fund)
Transportation Division received a grant from the Utah Department of Transportation for $614,790 in August of 2022.
In October of 2024, UDOT increased that amount by $121,236 for a new total of $735,026. This item is to obtain
approval for the additional $121,236. This grant was awarded to Salt Lake City to expand the Bike Share program in
collaboration with Green Bike. The original public hearing for the grant was March 22, 2022.
ATTACHMENTS
Ongoing Costs to the General Fund (See chart below)
ACRONYMS
CAFR – Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
CIP – Capital Improvement Program
CDBG – Community Development Block Grant Program
CLTPF – Community Land Trust Program Funds
FFSL – Forestry, Fire and State Lands
FOF – Funding Our Future
FTE – Full time Employee / Equivalent
FY – Fiscal Year
GF – General Fund
HUD – Housing and Urban Development
IMS – Information Management Services
PFAS – Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
UDOT – Utah Department of Transportation
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Request: Tracking New Ongoing Costs to the General Fund
Council staff has provided the following list of potential new ongoing costs to the General Fund. Many of these are new
FTE’s approved during this fiscal year’s budget amendments, noting that each new FTE increases the City’s annual budget
costs if positions are added to the staffing document. Note that some items in the table below are partially or fully funded
by grants. If a grant continues to be awarded to the City in future years, then there may not be a cost to the General Fund
but grant funding is not guaranteed year-over-year.
Budget
Amendment Item
Potential Cost
to FY2026
Annual Budget
Full Time Employee
(FTEs)Notes
#1
Item A-1 Attorney’s Office
Organizational Structure
Change
$722,888
3 FTEs:
1 City Prosecutor
1 Senior City Attorney
1 Deputy Director of
Administration
City Prosecutor $178,278 for 9 months/$237,704
annually
Senior City Attorney Class 39 - $157,635.74 for 8
months/$236,454 annually
Deputy Director of Administration Class 40 -
$186,547 for 9 months or $248,730 annually.
At the time of publishing this staff report, the cost to
lease office space is unknown. The cost could be more or
less than the current budget under the soon-to-be
terminated interlocal agreement with the District
Attorney’s Office.
#1
Item D-8
$171,910
1 FTE:
Capital Asset Planning
Financial Analyst IV
position
Inadvertently left out of the Mayor’s Recommended
FY2025 Budget. Position would be dedicated to impact
fees compliance tracking and reporting for new state
requirements. Impact fees fully reimburse the General
Fund for the position’s cost.
$2,945,957 grant
funding*
4 FTEs:
3 Officer positions
1 Sergeant position
*Amount of grant funding needed in order to fully cover
the ongoing costs including the new FTEs.
#1
Item E-1 Homeless
Shelter Cities Mitigation
Grant FY25
Costs currently paid for
by the Homeless Shelter
Cities Mitigation Grant in
FY2024 that might be
shifting to the General
Fund in FY2025 $662,760
For ongoing costs related
to 15 existing FTEs; the
grant funds a total of 23
FTEs
$662,760 is needed for ongoing equipment for all 15
officers. The Administration is checking whether existing
budgets could absorb some of these costs.
#2
Item A-2 Enhanced
Security at Justice Court
$200,000
A security report identified an issue needing to be
addressed immediately.
Budget
Amendment Item
Potential Cost
to FY2026
Annual Budget
Full Time Employee
(FTEs)Notes
#2
Item A-3 Community
Oriented Policing Svcs or
COPS Hiring Grant from
U.S. Dept. of Justice for 2
new Sergeants & 10 new
Officers FY 24-25
$1,285,642
in FY2026
For ongoing costs related
to hiring 2 new Sergeant
FTEs and 10 new Officers
in the Police Dept.
Ongoing costs include grant salary match plus vehicles,
supplies & equipment. After the 48 month grant period
ends, the estimated annual cost to retain the 12 police
officers is $2,071,325.
#2
Item A-4 Vehicles, Equip-
ment & Related Police
Officer costs not covered
by the Homeless Shelter
Cities State Mitigation
Grant FY24-25
$498,692 is
ongoing
For ongoing costs related
to the hiring of new
officers
Ongoing costs include ongoing salary increases, supplies,
body cameras, vehicles, and computers.
#1 & #2
D-7 Prosecutor’s Office
Changes since Budget
Amendment #1
(-$280,279)
back to General
Fund Balance
1 FTE Removed
City Prosecutor FTE
removed
Reverses a portion of budgetary impacts & actions
outlined in BAM#1, Item A-1.
#3
A-2 IMS – Add 1 full-time
Cybersecurity Engineer
and convert 1 part-time
Graphic Designer into
full-time using funds
from the elimination of
additional part-time
positions.
$173,484
ongoing for
Cybersecurity
Engineer
position
Adds 1 Cybersecurity
Engineer Position
.50 Graphic Design
position was requested
but NOT approved by the
Council.
#5
A-4: Hive Pass Funding
Additional Passes and
Continuing Greenbike
Membership
$135,000 for
additional Hive
passes
($114,000) and
continuing
Greenbike
membership
($8,500)
None
#5
A-8: Animal Services
Contract Increase True-
Up
$398,281
ongoing
Price increase of old contract plus increase of new
contract.
Budget
Amendment Item
Potential Cost
to FY2026
Annual Budget
Full Time Employee
(FTEs)Notes
#5
A-15: Additional Funding
for City Hall Security
Guards
$700,000
ongoing for City
Hall Security
Guards
None
TOTAL $7,216,054 39 total FTEs of which
16 are New FTEs
Note that of the total cost, $4.1 million would be needed
if the Homeless Shelter Cities State Mitigation grant is
not available for FY2026
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.
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Allison Rowland, Senior Policy Analyst
DATE:March 18, 2025
RE: Fiscal Year 2025-26 Funding Allocations and One-year Action Plan for U.S. Housing
and Urban Development Department Grants, including Community Development
Block Grants & Others
UPDATES FOR APRIL 1 BRIEFING
On April 1, the Council approved the funding for HOME and HOPWA allocations as proposed by the CDCIP
Board and the Mayor. In addition, the Council made changes to the CDBG Housing category, which resulted in
$200,000 being allocated to NeighborWorks for their Home Repair Program by shifting funding for several
other programs, as shown below.
RECOMMENDATIONS
APPLICANT PROJECT/
PROGRAM SCORE
CDCIP
BOARD MAYOR
COUNCIL
FUNDING
ALLOCATIONS
2 ASSIST Inc.
Emergency
Home Repair &
Accessibility
86 $731,250 $731,250 $700,000
3 Odyssey House Replace HVAC
System 78 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000
4 First Step House Building
Renovations 77 $280,000 $280,000 $280,000
5 Housing Authority
of Salt Lake City
Revitalizing
Riverside
Apartments
76 $146,625 $146,625 $140,000
6
Habitat for
Humanity Greater
Salt Lake City
Critical Home
Repair
Program
75 $600,000 $500,000 $450,000
7 Salt Lake City NIS
Team
Home Repair
Program and
Fix the Bricks
Program
72 $745,381 $845,381 $733,256
8 NeighborWorks
Salt Lake
Home Repair
Program 71 $0 $0 $200,000
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 Council plans to consider an additional shift in funding allocations on April 8, in the CDBG Public Services
category. The proposal is to move $33,366 from #21 Odyssey House Bus Passes to #25 Wasatch Community
Gardens Green Team Program. In response to Council Members’ questions about the two programs during the
Work Session on April 1, the Housing Stability Division provided responses, which are listed as questions 1 and
2 on Attachment C6 (provided separately from this staff report).
The Council also expressed interest in several broader topics which were relayed to Housing Stability in the
form of questions. The responses are listed in Attachment C6, numbers 3 to 6. The questions also are listed
below.
a.To what extent is Housing Stability and the CDCIP able to assess the quality and impact of individual
programs offered by the community organizations?
b.Is there a quarterly report template for funded programs which Council Members could review? Or
copies of reports filled out by a few of the organizations for FY24?
c. Does the Division provide any way for clients of the HUD Grant programs to make complaints
(anonymous or not) directly to the City?
d.If needed, would the Division be able to gather information on the overall impacts of the HUD
Grants on the City and its residents?
e.Does the Division track whether there is duplication of services among funded programs, including
those that the City provides directly?
The following supplementary documents provided by Housing Stability for the Council’s information and are
also included in the packet.
a.Admin Review Example
b.Risk Assessment Example
c. Eligibility Review Example
d.CDCIP Board Application Scoring Example
e.Salt Lake City 2015-2024 Outcomes 2
f. CDBG Reporting Template (Quarterly)
g.CDBG Application Example
Given the large volume of new information provided, the Council may wish to schedule a
separate briefing to review Housing Stability’s processes for the HUD grant applications.
UPDATES FOR APRIL 1 BRIEFING
On March 25, the Council strawpolled and approved of proposed funding for CBDG categories Neighborhood
Improvements and Public Services (after shifting $30,000 from #24 South Valley Services to #32 YWCA), as
well as Emergency Solutions Grants Parts 1 and 2. Strawpolls are still needed for the CBDG category Housing,
plus the proposed HOME and HOPWA allocations.
Responses to Council Member Questions:
-CDBG #6 Habitat for Humanity. The organization provided a detailed response to questions about the
minimum funding level for their proposal and a potential change in the proposed number of projects:
“We [have] outlined the following outputs for a $500,000 (down from $600,000) allocation:
40 homes repaired with critical improvements that directly enhance health and safety.
Of those, 4 homes will receive accessibility modifications, allowing older adults and residents
with disabilities to age in place safely. (Currently, 12% of our applicants are homeowners living
with a disability.)
25 of the 40 homes will also receive energy-efficiency upgrades in addition to the critical
repairs—lowering utility bills and reducing environmental impact.
That said, we could immediately and effectively invest the full $600,000 if awarded. However, we
could also work with a minimum of $450,000 to ensure we can continue partnering with Salt Lake City
to meet the growing demand for essential home repairs among low-income homeowners. We would
continue our part to invest and fundraise to supplement the CDBG funding provided through Salt Lake
City.
We do understand the difficult task of allocating limited funds to many valuable requests. We deeply
value our partnership with the City and share your commitment to creating safe, healthy, and stable
homes for all Salt Lake residents. Thank you for your consideration and for the opportunity to keep
building a stronger, healthier community—together.”
-CDBG #7 Salt Lake City NIS Team.
a. The Housing Stability Division provided the following response to how funding would be split
among the three programs in their proposed project:
45% – Home Repair Program
32% – Fix the Bricks
20% – Operations & Staffing
3% – Minor Repair/Handyman Program
The Division also notes: “These allocations are based on average project costs. Home Repair is the
most expensive, with projects costing up to $50,000, as they often involve comprehensive home
rehabilitation. Fix the Bricks has a more consistent average cost of $25,000 per project since it
focuses specifically on seismic retrofitting, including strengthening roof/wall connections and
bracing chimneys. Minor Repair/Handyman grants are capped at $1,500, requiring less funding.”
b. The Housing Stability Division clarified the use of CDBG funds for Fix the Bricks efforts:
There are no specific priority areas or neighborhoods for the Fix the Bricks program;
It is available citywide and operates on a first-come, first-eligible basis.
However, the City Council could designate priority areas if desired.
To qualify for CDBG funding, homes must be owner-occupied, and the household must
earn 80% or below the Area Median Income (AMI) to receive full retrofit funding.
FTB projects funded through FEMA have no income limit, but homeowners must cover
25% of the costs. In addition, to assist those at or below 100% AMI, $84K in general funds
is allocated annually to help cover their 25% share. If a home is in severe disrepair, the
Home Repair Program may assist with rehabilitation before a Fix the Bricks project can
proceed. Since Fix the Bricks only funds seismic retrofits, any additional repairs must be
completed separately.”
UPDATES FOR MARCH 25 BRIEFING
Responses to Council Member Questions:
- CDBG #2 ASSIST, Inc., and CBDG #6 Habitat for Humanity: Funding received through Salt Lake City
must be used within the entitlement jurisdiction or to directly benefit its residents.
- CBDG #7 Home Repair: SLC Neighborhood Improvement & Stabilization Team ($845,381 request) is
recommended for funding, but CBDG #8 NeighborWorks ($400,000 request) is not. This is because
the Board made their decisions based on the application scores. NeighborWorks just missed the cutoff.
Additional details on CBDG #5,6,7,8:
o #5 Housing Authority of Salt Lake (Revitalize the Riverside Apartments): 41 units within the
apartment complex.
o #6 Habitat for Humanity (Critical Home Repair): Urgent home rehabilitation for an estimated
41 homes.
o #7 Salt Lake City Housing Stability Division (Home Repair Program): Various levels of home
rehabilitation and "Fix the Bricks" seismic retrofits for an estimated 33 homes.
o #8 NeighborWorks (Rehab Program): Estimated 14 homes. Not recommended for funding;
estimate based on their application request.
- Legally, funding could be shifted to CBDG #32 YWCA (Meals for Survivors) from CBDG #24 South
Valley Services (DV Shelter Services), which is also recommended for $178,431 for HOME Tenant
Based Rental Assistance. Pending Council support.
Note for Council – an Excel version of the full funding log has been sent in email, and Attachment 5 has been
updated.
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
Each year the Council is responsible for allocating millions of dollars in grants from the U.S. Housing and
Urban Development Department (HUD) among local organizations that serve Salt Lake City residents. The
organizations are primarily non-profits that specialize in providing services to the most economically
vulnerable people in the City. For Fiscal Year 2025-26 (FY26), over $7.7 million dollars is expected to flow
through the Division of Housing Stability to organizations selected by the Council. The HUD programs that
provide this funding and define the eligible activities for grant recipients are: Community Development Block
Grants (CDBG); the HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME); Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG);
and, Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA). Details on the proposed grants that make up
these totals can be found in Attachment C1.
FY26 Funding (Estimated) by Grant Category and
Source
Grant Source Amount Total
HUD Award $3,335,779
Recaptured
Funding $650,000CDBG
Program
Income $900,000
$4,885,779
HUD Award $298,628
ESG Recaptured
Funding $0 $298,628
HUD Award $823,258
Recaptured
Funding $122,000 HOME
Program
Income $700,000
$1,645,258
HUD Award $945,200
HOPWA Recaptured
Funding $0 $945,200
The City’s longer-run funding goals and strategies for using HUD funds are guided by a five-year Consolidated
Plan. The updated Plan, which was drafted by the Division of Housing Stability for the period FY2025 to 2029,
is also under Council consideration (See Attachment C2). Along with the local goals and strategies that the
successful applications must support to access annual grant funding, the draft Plan also proposes slight
modifications to the geographical area that must be defined for targeted CDBG spending on public
infrastructure and economic development. A map of the proposed target area appears in Attachment C3.
Goal of the briefing: Discuss the Council’s federal grant priorities, ask questions about applications, and
ultimately, award funding to eligible programs and projects.
ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Grants offered through HUD provide substantial funding amounts to local organizations that serve people with
low- and moderate-income (LMI) levels; people experiencing or on the verge of homelessness; potential
homeowners; and people with AIDS/HIV who need affordable housing. Most of the funds are “passed through”
the City to specific recipients or programs, including several programs that are administered by the City
through an annual competitive grant process.
A. Sources of Annual Funds. For FY26, the Division of Housing Stability (which is part of CAN, the
Department of Communities and Neighborhoods) estimates that the total amount available in HUD
funding for use in housing and related activities is nearly $7.8 million. These grants are considered
“entitlement” funds—that is, Federal money provided on a recurring basis, with amounts linked to
formulas that consider population and other demographics variables. The amount available to the City also
varies each year because it draws from three different sources: new funding, recaptured funds, and
program income. The total estimate is the sum of the grants awarded in the previous funding year,
combined with any recaptured funds and program income (see below).
Staff note: In the past, HUD award amounts have been received sometime between March and May.
Since these funds depend on Congressional approval of an annual Federal budget and, as of this writing,
Congress is still operating under a Continuing Resolution for Federal FY25, HUD cannot yet issue its
finalized award notifications. HUD typically finalizes and announces awards within 30 days.
POLICY QUESTION: The Council may wish to discuss potential options with the
Administration, should adoption of a Federal budget be further postponed.
1.New Funding. Because the precise amount of new grants is typically not determined before the
Council discussion and allocation process, the Division of Housing Stability provides estimates based
on awards from the previous funding year. The funding amounts are updated by the Division once
final notification is received from HUD, and these are adjusted for each grantee based on
contingencies approved by the Council as part of the allocation process (see section E, below).
Approximately $6,224,865 in new funds is estimated to be available through the four HUD programs
for FY26. Specifically,
- Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), $3,335,779;
- HOME Investment Partnership Program, $1,645,258;
- Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG), $298,628; and,
- Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA), $945,200.
o 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).
o 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.
o 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.
Housing
Neighborhood Improvements: This category funds transportation and economic
development infrastructure (within the designated target area, see Attachment C3 for
map).
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.
o 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.
ESG Part 1: Street Outreach and Emergency Shelter (limited to 60% of the total annual
grant award).
ESG Part 2: Homelessness Prevention, Rapid Re-Housing, and Homeless
Management Information Systems.
o 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.
Standard HOME Funds.
Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDO). This program specifically,
15% of the annual grant award goes to certified projects for which create or develop
affordable rental or homebuyer housing. Rental assistance, homeowner rehabilitation,
and down payment assistance are not eligible expenses. For this reason, the Housing
Stability Division is working with the Community Reinvestment Agency (CRA) to
include these funds in the CRA’s annual Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA)
process for funding affordable housing development. The Community Development
Corporation of Utah is seeking certification as a CHDO in Salt Lake City, but the
Housing Stability Division states that expanding the number of CHDOs remains
challenging. Other areas of the country have similarly struggled to meet the
certification criteria.
4.Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA). The HOPWA Program is
the only Federal program dedicated to the housing needs of people living with HIV/AIDS. It
provides funding for projects that address the needs and benefit individuals living with
HIV/AIDS and their families. As noted in the chart above, approximately $945,200 is available
in FY26 for allocation to CDBG programs. The sum of local funding requests for these funds
was $812,720, or only 86% of the amount available so both the CDCIP Board and the Mayor
recommend providing amounts larger than those requested for the two applicants. The
Housing Stability Division is working with the two organizations to determine whether they
will be able to make good use of these additional funds. City administration fees are limited to
3% of the annual grant award.
C. The Funding Recommendation Process. The Council bases its selection of final HUD grant awards
on information from the Division of Housing Stability, as well as the reviews and recommendations of the
Community Development and Capital Improvement Program (CDCIP) resident advisory board, and the
Mayor. These recommendations are presented in Attachment C1. An additional source of information is
the public hearing held at a Formal Meeting early in the deliberation process.
1.A Competitive Process. Typically, the combined amount of total funding requested by applicants
significantly exceeds available funds. For FY26, requests total 185% of available funding, with
$14,406,932 requested, and only an estimated $7,774,865 available (see table below). As noted in
section A above, HUD has not yet confirmed the City’s final award amounts, so at this stage the City
works with estimates of available funding that are based on the previous year’s amounts.
Estimated FY26 Funding from All Grant Programs
Grant Available
Funds
Total
Requests
Requests
as % of
Available
Funds
CDBG $4,885,779 $9,572,869 196%
ESG $298,628 $728,481 244%
HOME $1,645,258 $3,292,861 200%
HOPWA $945,200 $812,720 86%
Total $7,774,865 $14,406,932 185%
2.Recommendations for the Council. In preparation for the Council’s decisions on grant amounts
to specific organizations, each application receives a score and a funding recommendation from the
CDCIP Advisory Board. These scores and recommendations are provided to the Mayor, who adds
funding recommendations of her own. Attachment C4 shows each FY26 application ranked by score
within each grant category. These scores are calculated by combining the advisory board's raw score
with City staff's administrative and risk assessment scores.
The resident advisory board also provides recommendations for funding contingencies, which are
applied in the event that actual funding is more or less than estimated. These recommendations are
listed in section E, below. These are also subject to Council approval.
Additional details for applications in all four annual HUD grants are provided in Attachment C1.
These details include project and program descriptions and prior-year award amounts for returning
applications.
o 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.
5.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.
o 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:
CDGB #9. International Center for Appropriate and Sustainable Technology, Electric
Vehicle Charger Installation. (Also a new application.)
CDGB #44 (Public Services). English Skills Learning Center, Increasing
Communication Capacity. (Also a new application.)
o 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.
CDGB #9. NeighborWorks Salt Lake, Home Repair Program and Fix the Bricks
Program. $400,000.
CDGB #25 (Public Services). Wasatch Community Gardens, Green Team
Program. $40,000.
CDBG #26 (Public Services). Boys and Girls Club of Salt Lake City, Childcare
Services. $85,000.
CDBG #27 (Public Services). First Step House, Employment Preparation Program.
$68,518.
CDBG #29 (Public Services). Neighborhood House. Childcare Staffing. $87,387.
CDGB #31 (Public Services). First Step House, Peer Supportive Services. $90,000.
CDGB #34 (Public Services). Community Development Corporation of Utah,
Community Navigation Program. $75,000.
CDGB #37 (Public Services). Advantage Services, Employment Services.
$100,000.
CDGB #38 (Public Services). The Road Home, Housing Staffing. $50,000.
CDGB #39 (Public Services). Shelter the Homeless, Security and Food at
Homeless Resource Centers. $50,000.
CDGB #41 (Public Services). Catholic Community Services, Chef Trainer.
$50,000.
CDGB #42 (Public Services). Catholic Community Services, Employment/Life
Skills Coordinator. $50,000.
CDGB #43 (Public Services). Utah’s Promise, Connecting with Essential
Resources. $45,000.
o 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.
CDGB #3. Odyssey House, Replace HVAC System. Recommended for $250,000.
CDGB #5. Housing Authority of Salt Lake City. Revitalizing Riverside Apartments.
Recommended for $146,625.
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.
CDGB #9. International Center for Appropriate and Sustainable Technology, Electric
Vehicle Charger Installation. Not recommended for funding.
CDGB #11. Utah Film Center, Update Film Center. Not recommended for funding.
CDGB #17 (Public Services). THRIVE Center for Survivors of Torture, Mental
Health Services for Refugees. Recommended for $30,000.
CDGB #20 (Public Services). Food Justice Coalition, Food Services.
Recommended for $30,000.
CDGB #22 (Public Services). International Rescue Committee, VESL Program.
Recommended for $40,000.
CDGB #28 (Public Services). Asian Association, Refugee Financial Education
Program. Not recommended for funding.
CDGB #30 (Public Services). Salt Lake City Public Library, Case Management.
Not recommended for funding.
CDGB #32 (Public Services). YWCA, Domestic Violence Shelter Meals. Not
recommended for funding.
CDGB #33 (Public Services). Salt Lake American, Refugee Services for Survival.
Not recommended for funding.
CDGB #35 (Public Services). Utah Community Action, Childcare Services. Not
recommended for funding.
CDGB #36 (Public Services). Big Brothers Big Sisters of Utah, Support Staffing.
Not recommended for funding.
CDGB #40 (Public Services). Odyssey House, Explorers Program. Not
recommended for funding.
ESG #5 (Part 1). YWCA, Shelter Advocacy. Not recommended for funding.
ESG #9 (Part 2). Housing Authority of Salt Lake, Homeless Prevention. Not
recommended for funding.
ESG #11 (Part 2). Asian Association, Homeless Prevention. Not recommended for
funding.
6.Projects Recommended for More Funding than was Requested. Two applications,
both in the HOPWA program, received recommendations from both the Board and the Mayor,
for more funding than they had requested. Housing Stability Division staff is checking with the
two organizations to ensure they can make use of the additional funding amount.
a.HOPWA #2. Utah Community Action, HOPWA. Requested $191,585;
recommended for $227,844.
b.HOPWA #3. Housing Connect, Housing Assistance. Requested $589,779;
recommended for $689,000.
o 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?
$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.
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.
Attachment C5. Organizations with Multiple Applications. Where funding recommendations are the same for the Board
and the Mayor, a single dollar figure appears. Exceptions are noted.
Application Funding
Requested
Recommended
for funding?
CDBG #28 (Public Services). Refugee Financial Education
Program
$114,387 No
Asian Association
ESG #11 (Part 2). Homeless Prevention $49,669 No
CDBG #41 (Public Services). Chef Trainer $50,000 NoCatholic
Community
Services
CDBG #42 (Public Services). Employment/Life Skills
Coordinator
$50,000 No
HOME #9. Down Payment Assistance $210,000 NoCommunity
Development
Corporation of
Utah
CDBG #34 (Public Services). Community Navigation Program $75,000 No
CDBG #4. Building Renovations $330,000 $280,000
CDBG #27 (Public Services). Employment Preparation and
Placement Program
$68,518 No
CDBG #31 (Public Services). Peer Supportive Services $90,000 No
ESG #4 (Part 1). Resource Center Program $60,000 $59,176 by Board;
$34,176 by Mayor
First Step House
HOME #6. Tenant-Based Rental Assistance $283,119 $283,119
ESG #9 (Part 2). Homeless Prevention $82,500 NoHousing Authority
of Salt Lake City CDBG #5. Revitalizing Riverside Apartments $189,750 $146,625
HOME #10. New City Plaza Construction $1,000,000 No
Housing Connect HOPWA #3. Housing Assistance $589,779 $689,000
HOME #8. Down Payment Assistance $200,000 NoNeighborWorks
Salt Lake CDBG #8. Home Repair Program $400,000 No
CDBG #3. Replace HVAC System $250,000 $250,000
CDBG #19 (Public Services). Treatment Support.$150,000 $75,000
CDBG #21 (Public Services). Bus Passes $90,000 $33,366Odyssey House
CDBG #40 (Public Services). Explorers Program $112,000 No
CDBG #7. Home Repair Program and Fix the Bricks Program $1,377,500 $745,381 by Board;
$845,381 by MayorSalt Lake City NIS
Team CDBG #10. Neighborhood Business Improvement Program $950,000 $650,000
CDBG #39 (Public Services). Security and Food at Housing
Resource Centers
$50,000 No
Shelter the
Homeless ESG #6 (Part 1). Shelter Operations $50,000 $0 by Board;
$30,000 by Mayor
CDBG #24 (Public Services). Domestic Violence Shelter
Services
$40,000 $30,000South Valley
Services HOME #3. Tenant-Based Rental Assistance $178,431 $178,431
continued on next page
Application Funding
Requested
Recommended
for funding?
CDBG #23 (Public Services). Resource Center Staffing $101,048 $30,000
CDBG #38 (Public Services). Housing Staffing $50,000 No
ESG #10 (Part 2). Rapid Re-Housing $91,888 $30,000The Road Home
HOME #7. Tenant-Based Rental Assistance $350,000 $340,885
CDBG #35 (Public Services). Childcare Services $240,000 No
ESG #8 (Part 2). Rapid Re-Housing $146,227 $67,054
HOME #4. Tenant-Based Rental Assistance $287,141 $287,141
Utah Community
Action
HOPWA #2. HOPWA $194,585 $227,844
ESG #2 (Part 1). Youth Resource Center $60,000 $60,000
ESG #3 (Part 1). Geraldine E King Women's Resource Center $60,000 $60,000 by Board;
$35,000 by MayorVolunteers of
America HOME #5. Tenant-Based Rental Assistance $174,867
4174,867
CDBG #32 (Public Services). Domestic Violence Shelter Meals $60,000 No
YWCA ESG #5 (Part 1). Shelter Advocacy $75,000 No
Attachment C6. Housing Stability Responses to Questions from the April 1, 2025
Work Session.
1. Could you provide additional information on CDBG applications #21 Odyssey House Bus Passes and #25
Wasatch Community Gardens Green Team? For example:
A. How many bus passes would be provided by Odyssey House, and what are the requirements to
receive one? How many bus passes were provided in past years?
In their FY26 application, Odyssey House stated that, if fully funded, they would be able to
provide 4,000 bus passes. Beth Branson, from Odyssey House, clarified in the CDCIP Board
meeting on December 2, 2024, that they anticipated distributing approximately a total of 3,000;
2,000 of which to clients in their residential and outpatient programs and the remaining 1,000
would be distributed to individuals through their outreach programming. Beth clarified today that
the monthly passes are for are given to Odyssey House clients only and the day passes are given to
those that they meet through the outreaching programming. They also have a check-in and check-
out process for using the bus passes to make sure the bus passes are used for the intended
purposes. In the application, they also stated that these bus passes are only provided to low-
income and extremely low-income individuals.
Odyssey House was first awarded funding for this program for the current fiscal year, FY25 with
similar funding and output goals, and current subrecipients have only reported on the first two
quarters. In the first two quarters of this program year, Odyssey House provided bus passes to 127
extremely low-income individuals.
B. Understanding that there may not be anything specific, can you identify any reason that #25
scored one point lower than #21 in the CDCIP Board ranking?
The CDCIP Board reviewed each application and awarded points based on several criteria, such as
how well the applicant will meet an identified community need, how effectively the project will
serve vulnerable and underserved populations, etc. Looking at the average board scores in each of
these categories, Odyssey House scored higher in six of the nine categories. However, Odyssey
House's and Wasatch Community Garden's scores are generally very close, staying within one and
half points of each other in each category. During the board's final funding night, the board did
not make any specific comments about why they wanted to award funding to Odyssey House over
Wasatch Community Gardens; however, they did briefly discuss both of those applications
separate from each other. Regarding Odyssey House's Bus Pass application, the board noticed
that the recommended amount was below the minimum ask for this project but discussed how
they were previously told that Odyssey House would be able to scale their project according to
how much funding is awarded, so the board members felt comfortable awarding an amount below
the stated minimum ask from the application. The only comment made specifically about
Wasatch Community Gardens is that they are a great fundraiser and that the board member
speaking would rather put the remaining funds toward South Valley Services.
2. To what extent is Housing Stability and the CDCIP able to assess the quality and impact of individual
programs offered by the community organizations?
A. Housing stability has a robust, publicly noticed (including the Utah Purchasing and General
Services portal), and competitive application process for these programs. Staff also provide
technical assistance and application training for the applicants. Attached is a sample blank
application for the CDBG program.
B. Housing Stability admin conducts: 1) eligibility review based on HUD requirements, 2) admin
review to comply with City and technical requirements, and 3) risk analysis based on HUD
guidance for each application. These documents are attached to this email.
C. The CDCIP board reviews the applications, invites the applicants to the board meetings to ask
direct questions and holds "nano sessions' which are short interviews with each applicant. They
then score each application with the scoring criteria attached.
3. Is there a quarterly report template for funded programs which Council Members could review? Or copies
of reports filled out by a few of the organizations for FY24?
A. Attached is a copy of the reporting template for the upcoming year. These are quarterly reports,
and reporting is strictly enforced.
4. Does the Division provide any way for clients of the HUD Grant programs to make complaints
(anonymous or not) directly to the City?
A. All programs are required to have a Grievance Policy for each program. They are required to
provide this policy to each client they are serving, along with posting this policy around their
service areas that show where and how individuals can share issues or complaints. Housing
Stability verifies compliance with these policies in our annual sub-recipient monitoring.
B. Additionally, the City has a consumer complaint portal that anyone in the City, including clients
of HUD grants, can contact about complaints. Website,
https://www.slc.gov/housingstability/consumerprotection/
5. If needed, would the Division be able to gather information on the overall impacts of the HUD Grants on
the City and its residents?
A. Attached is a flyer that Housing Stability recently shared with Utah’s Senators and
Representatives when advocating for FY26 HUD funding, which briefly highlights the impacts of
the HUD funding within the City.
B. Housing Stability maintains a public-facing dashboard,
https://www.slc.gov/housingstability/housing-stability-dashboard/ ), that tracks and
breakdowns the impacts of HUD funding in Salt Lake City over the last 10 years. The Dashboard
allows granular analysis, including information on specific grants, demographics of those who
receive services, awarded funding, and outputs for each program or project.
C. If Council is interested, Housing Stability staff would be happy to present and review this
dashboard with Council in small groups and receive their feedback.
6. Does the Division track whether there is duplication of services among funded programs, including those
that the City provides directly?
B. Under federal law, specifically the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act (Stafford Act), CDBG and other HUD funds cannot duplicate benefits received from other
sources. This is a requirement that our subrecipients are notified of during training, technical
assistance and while we monitor their programs.
C. In the application process, applicants are asked to identify unmet needs, leveraged funding, and
how applicants coordinate and partner with other community providers. Staff and the CDCIP
board, then taking this information into consideration when scoring applications and providing
recommendations.
D. If Council is interested, Housing Stability staff would be happy to present and review unmet
needs for the City and services with Council in small groups and receive their feedback.
City Council Announcements
April 8, 2025
Information Needed:
A. Legislative Action:
The Council will consider adopting a legislative action that would request the
Administration review and recommend potential changes to the definition of “family” in
City code that would increase or eliminate the maximum number of unrelated people
living together in a dwelling unit. It is a priority of this Council to utilize available tools to
facilitate affordable housing for (or reduce barriers to) those who want to live in the City.
If the Council supports this action, it may consider formally adopting the legislative action
at the April 15, 2025 formal meeting.
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
SWORN STATEMENT SUPPORTING CLOSURE OF MEETING
I, Chris Wharton, acted as the presiding member of the Salt Lake Council, which met on April 8, 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 25, 2025 16:26 MDT)Apr 25, 2025
April 8, 2025 Closed Meeting Sworn Statement
Final Audit Report 2025-04-25
Created:2025-04-24
By:DeeDee Robinson (deedee.robinson@slc.gov)
Status:Signed
Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAA6NO9Jh5tXOzk4ykHRZ3oPJTHyqlwAfX0
"April 8, 2025 Closed Meeting Sworn Statement" History
Document created by DeeDee Robinson (deedee.robinson@slc.gov)
2025-04-24 - 3:47:24 PM GMT
Document emailed to Chris Wharton (chris.wharton@slc.gov) for signature
2025-04-24 - 3:51:10 PM GMT
Email viewed by Chris Wharton (chris.wharton@slc.gov)
2025-04-24 - 5:59:17 PM GMT
Document e-signed by Chris Wharton (chris.wharton@slc.gov)
Signature Date: 2025-04-25 - 10:26:22 PM GMT - Time Source: server
Agreement completed.
2025-04-25 - 10:26:22 PM GMT