Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/02/2025 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA WORK SESSION   December 2, 2025 Tuesday 2:00 PM Council meetings are held in a hybrid meeting format. Hybrid meetings allow people to join online or in person at the City & County Building. Learn more at www.slc.gov/council/agendas. Council Work Room 451 South State Street, Room 326 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 SLCCouncil.com 7:00 pm Formal Meeting Room 315 (See separate agenda) Welcome and public meeting rules In accordance with State Statute and City Ordinance, the meeting may be held electronically. After 5:00 p.m., please enter the City & County Building through the main east entrance. The Work Session is a discussion among Council Members and select presenters. The public is welcome to listen. Items scheduled on the Work Session or Formal Meeting may be moved and / or discussed during a different portion of the Meeting based on circumstance or availability of speakers. The Website addresses listed on the agenda may not be available after the Council votes on the item. Not all agenda items will have a webpage for additional information read associated agenda paperwork. Generated: 09:35:31 Note: Dates not identified in the project timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. Item start times and durations are approximate and are subject to change. Work Session Items   1.Informational: Updates from the Administration ~ 2:00 p.m.  15 min. The Council will receive information from the Administration on major items or projects in progress. Topics may relate to major events or emergencies (if needed), services and resources related to people experiencing homelessness, active public engagement efforts, wildfire mitigation, and projects or staffing updates from City Departments, or other items as appropriate. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Recurring Briefing Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a     2.Informational: Reviewing Household Occupancy Definitions ~ 2:15 p.m.  25 min. The Council will receive a briefing and provide direction on options to update and expand the definition of family in zoning code as it relates to the number of unrelated people permitted to live in one home. The Council recently declared an intent to increase or eliminate the current maximum number as part of the City's work to improve access to affordable housing. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, December 2, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a     3.Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act Public Hearing for Sky Harbour Hangar Development ~ 2:40 p.m.  20 min. The Council will receive a briefing on the Sky Harbour hangar development on the east side of the Salt Lake City International airport that consists of the development of an aircraft storage facility situated on 8.4 acres and will include four box hangars. The project would be funded through a tax-exempt private activity bond (PAB) issued by the Public Finance Authority of Wisconsin. The development entails no financial liability for Salt Lake City, but Federal regulations for tax-exempt PABs require the Council to hold what is known as a TEFRA (Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act) public hearing on   this proposal. No other Council action is required. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, December 2, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, November 25, 2025 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, December 9, 2025 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a   4.Informational: Salt Lake Valley Landfill Proposed Budget 2026 ~ 3:00 p.m.  25 min. The Council will receive an briefing about the proposed budget for the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Facility, which is included in the annual budget process for Salt Lake County. Following their public comment period, the County Council is expected to adopt their final budget in early December. For more information visit https://www.saltlakecounty.gov/finance/budget/budget- documents/. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, December 2, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a     5.Tentative Break ~ 3:25 p.m.  20 min. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Set Public Hearing Date - Hold hearing to accept public comment - TENTATIVE Council Action -     6.Resolution: Valley Behavioral Health Public Benefit Analysis ~ 3:45 p.m.  20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a resolution authorizing the release of Salt Lake City’s reversionary interest in the property currently owned by Valley Behavioral Health at 107 South 800 West. The release would allow for the development of Saltair Lofts, a 68-unit permanent supportive housing project. It would also be executed in exchange for   a 50 year Restrictive Use Agreement preserving certain public benefits, most notably, including helping to ensure all units are affordable permanent supportive housing for formerly homeless individuals. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, December 2, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, November 25, 2025 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, December 9, 2025 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 9, 2025   7.Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.3 for Fiscal Year 2025- 26 ~ 4:05 p.m.  30 min. The Council will receive a briefing about Budget Amendment No.3 for the Fiscal Year 2025-26 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 three grants. The first grant would fund license plate reader cameras on major roads to enhance public safety and reduce crime. The second grant would fund the removal of hazardous vegetation from the Jordan River riverbed, banks, and canopy. The third grant would fund expenses relating to homeless shelters, including salary and benefits for existing police officers to maintain public safety in areas surrounding shelters. For more information visit tinyurl.com/SLCFY26. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, December 2, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, November 25, 2025 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, December 9, 2025 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 9, 2025     8.Ordinance: RMF-35 and RMF-45 Multi-Family Zoning District Text Amendment Follow-Up ~ 4:35 p.m.  20 min. The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about a proposal that would amend various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code related to RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District) to RMF-45 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District). As part of the proposal, a small number of RMF-35 properties would be changed to RMF-45. The proposal aims to remove barriers to new housing developments and facilitate compatible infill within the City’s moderate-density neighborhoods. These proposed updates introduce design standards for new development, reduce minimum lot size requirements, eliminate lot width minimums, permit multiple buildings per lot, and offer a density bonus for preserving existing   housing units. Other sections of Title 21A may also be amended as part of this petition. For more information visit https://tinyurl.com/RMFZoneUpdates. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 7, 2025 and Tuesday, December 2, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, October 21, 2025 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, November 18, 2025 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 9, 2025   9.Ordinance: Consolidated Fee Schedule Corrections – Public Utilities Follow-Up ~ 4:55 p.m.  20 min. The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about an ordinance amending the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule (CFS). During the budget process for fiscal year 2025-26, the CFS was updated with several changes. After the schedule was approved and adopted by the Council, Departments noticed errors and omissions that needed to be corrected. The changes include adding the Title "Fire Lines" and the Description "Per Inch" to one of the rate tables in the CFS for Public Utilities. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 16, 2025, Tuesday, October 14, 2025, Tuesday, November 25, 2025, and Tuesday, December 2, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 9, 2025     10.Board Appointment: Citizens Compensation Advisory Committee - David Warnock ~ 5:15 p.m.  5 min. The Council will interview David Warnock, resident of Davis County, prior to considering appointment to the Citizens Compensation Advisory Committee (CCAC) for a term ending December 2, 2029. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, December 2, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 2, 2025     11.Board Appointment: Metropolitan Water District Board – Ralph Becker ~ 5:20 p.m.  5 min. The Council will interview Ralph Becker, resident of District 2, prior to considering appointment to the Metropolitan Water District Board for a term ending December 2, 2029. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, December 2, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 2, 2025     12.Board Appointment: Metropolitan Water District Board – Daniel Salmon ~ 5:25 p.m.  5 min. The Council will interview Daniel Salmon, resident of District 1, prior to considering appointment to the Metropolitan Water District Board for a term ending December 2, 2029. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, December 2, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 2, 2025     Standing Items   13.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair -  - Report of Chair and Vice Chair.    14.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director -  - Report of the Executive Director, including a review of Council information items and announcements. The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to City Council business, including but not limited to scheduling items.    15.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. 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 Wednesday, November 26, 2025, the undersigned, duly appointed City Recorder, does hereby certify that the above notice and agenda was (1) posted on the Utah Public Notice Website created under Utah Code Section 63F-1-701, and (2) a copy of the foregoing provided to The Salt Lake Tribune and/or the Deseret News and to a local media correspondent and any others who have indicated interest. KEITH REYNOLDS SALT LAKE CITY RECORDER Final action may be taken in relation to any topic listed on the agenda, including but not limited to adoption, rejection, amendment, addition of conditions and variations of options discussed. The City & County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slc.gov, 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:December 2, 2025 RE: Reviewing Household Occupancy Definitions ISSUE AT A GLANCE The Council initiated a legislative action in April 2025 asking the Administration to review and recommend potential changes to City code as it relates to the number of unrelated people permitted to live in one home. This would potentially increase or eliminate the maximum number of unrelated people living together in a dwelling unit. Planning staff will update the Council on progress with this intent, provide options for consideration, and ask for Council direction on how to proceed. Planning will take this direction and begin the text amendment process. Goal of the briefing: Provide direction to the Administration for moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. The Council may wish to ask the Administration if changing the number of unrelated people allowed to live together could impact federal funds for affordable housing. 2. Are deed restrictions required for state or federal affordable housing funds? POTENTIAL STRAW POLLS Planning staff is looking to the Council for direction on how to proceed. They provided three options for the Council to consider. 1. Does the Council support removing the occupancy limit and not differentiating between related and unrelated people? (Option 3 below.) Item Schedule: Page | 2 2. Does the Council support maintaining the current family definition and increase the number of unrelated people living together to five? (Option 1 below.) 3. Does the Council support increasing the number of unrelated people living together and allow a combination of family types? (Option 2 below.) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The current definition of “family” in City code is separated into three parts: Related people living together as a household, Not more than three unrelated people living together as a household, and Two unrelated people and their children living together as a household. Under the current code, which has been in place since at least 1995, people who are related are not allowed to live in the same housing unit as unrelated people. The rules differ depending on the relationship of a dwelling’s residents. Planning staff provided a scenario of a married couple wanting to rent a bedroom or level of their house to another couple to whom they are not related. Another example is a family of four related people wanting to rent an unused bedroom to an unrelated individual. Neither of these would be allowed under existing City code. Since the first City code adopted in 1927, there have been several definitions of “family.” These range from any number of people living together as a household and doing their cooking on the premises, to any number of related people, to the current code that does not allow more than three unrelated people living together in a household. In the transmittal Planning staff stated “The purpose of zoning regulations defining family is primarily to regulate population density and to separate incompatible land uses. There is no data that demonstrates that these purposes are achievable by defining a family.” Enforcement When the City receives a complaint about the number of unrelated people living within a dwelling, enforcement can be difficult. The burden of proof that occupants of a dwelling are not related is on the complainant or City enforcement. When asked for evidence of a relationship amongst residents, the property may or may not provide proof. If no proof is provided, the complaint case is closed. Some cities have changed their definition of family and are now enforcing on other neighborhood impacts such as excess garbage and storage, noise, illegal parking, and yard maintenance rather than relationships of the property’s occupants. These impacts are easier to verify and enforce, and do not differentiate between owners and renters. Parking concerns such as vehicles parked illegally and limited on- or off-street parking are frequently cited in complaints about the number of people living in a home. Planning noted these are not exclusive to households with unrelated people. Families may have several vehicles and use the garage for storage, resulting in some being parked on the street. Enforcement efforts are focused on illegal parking in general and not differentiating between households of related and unrelated people. Potential Options Planning staff provided the following three options for the Council to consider. Option 1 Page | 4 Maintain the current family definition but increase the number of unrelated people living together to five. While this is the easiest option, it does not address issues with the current code. These include differentiating between enforcement of related and unrelated residents of a home and limiting enforcement on the number of unrelated people living together to cases where documentation showing residents’ relationships is provided. Option 2 Option 3 Other Considerations family for occupancy on a monthly basis and which is a self-contained unit with kitchen and bathroom facilities. The term “dwelling” excludes living space within hotels, bed and breakfast establishments, shared housing developments boarding houses and lodging houses. (Emphasis added.) Family Definitions from Other Cities City Number of Unrelated Related + Unrelated Other Bountiful Up to 4 Page | 4 Draper Any number of people living as a single housekeeping unit Logan Up to 2 Plus children Ogden Up to 3 Two people plus children Provo Up to 3 Up to 3 plus children Sandy Up to 4 Two plus children St. George Up to 4 Two plus children Related + 1 unrelated South Salt Lake Up to 4 Requires each unrelated to have off-street parking It is interesting to note that State code prohibits cities with a university from limiting occupancy of unrelated people to less than three, and cities without a university to less than four. The reason for cities with a university having a lower limit than cities without is unknown. Cities outside Utah City Number of Unrelated Related + Unrelated Other Boise Any number of people living as a single housekeeping unit. Denver Up to Five Plus children Increases for elderly people, those with a disability Phoenix Group of unrelated people living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit Portland Up to five Any number of related people plus up to five. Reno Anu number of people in a single household Sacramento Two or more people who have established ties and familiarity with one another (regardless of whether related or not by blood, marriage or adoption) that live together as a single household. Limits other types of residential land uses (fraternities, sororities, specialty housing). Seattle Up to eight unrelated people. Page | 5 Spokane Up to six unrelated people. Related households may also have up to six unrelated people. Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning City Council Work Session November 18, 2025 ZONING DEFINITION OF FAMILY Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning “I move the council adopt a legislative action asking the administration to 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 Salt Lake City.” CITY COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE INTENT Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning Essentially the same as today’s definition Any number of people living as a single household unit DEFINITION OF FAMILY OVER TIME 1927 1949 1955 1978 Any number of people living as a single household unit Collective body of people living together with some domestic bond Salt Lake City //Planning Division •Any number of related people; •Two unrelated people and their children; or •Up to three unrelated people CURRENT CODE Salt Lake City //Planning Division Hard to prove if people are related. Prohibits certain living arrangement, like shared housing and co-living. Prevents more people from sharing housing costs (if unrelated). WHY CHANGE? Salt Lake City //Planning Division UTAH CITIES City Number of Unrelated Related + unrelated Other Ogden Up to 3 Two people plus children Provo Up to 3 Up to 3 plus children Sandy Up to 4 Two plus children St. George Up to 4 Two plus children related +1 unrelated South Salt Lake Up to 4 Requires each unrelated to have off street parking Bountiful Up to 4 Logan Up to 2 Plus children Draper Any number of people living as a single housekeeping unit. Salt Lake City //Planning Division WESTERN CITIES City Number of Unrelated Related + unrelated Other Boise Any number of people living as a single housekeeping unit. Reno Any number of people in a single household Denver Up to 5 Plus children Increases for elderly people, those with disability Phoenix group of unrelated people living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit Portland Up to 5 Any # of related people plus up to 5 unrelated Sacramento two or more people who have established ties and familiarity with one another (regardless of whether related or not by blood, marriage or adoption) that live together as a single household Limits other types of residential land uses (fraternities, sororities, specialty housing) Seattle up to eight unrelated people Spokane Up to 6 unrelated people Related households may also have up to 6 unrelated people Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning 1.Increase the number of unrelated people to more than three 2.Increase the number of unrelated people and allow a mix of related and unrelated people. 3.Any number of people living together as a single household unit THREE OPTIONS Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Addressed enforcement issue related to related vs unrelated  Reduces housing costs for owner occupied housing  Reduces housing cost for renters  Treats related and unrelated households the same  Provides owners more options  Option 1: increase unrelated people from 3 to 5 Option 2: same as one, but also allows a mix of related and unrelated people Option 3: Any number of people living as a single household unit SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL To:  Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date: 10/02/2025 Date Sent to Council: 10/07/2025 From: Department * Community and Neighborhood Employee Name: Norris, Nick E-mail nick.norris@slc.gov Department Director Signature Director Signed Date 10/03/2025 Chief Administrator Officer's Signature Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date 10/07/2025 Subject: Zoning Definition of Family Text Amendment New transmittal or Revision New transmittal Revision Revision Updates: Missing page in original transmittal. Additional Staff Contact: Nick Norris nick.norris@slc.gov Presenters/Staff Table Nick Norris nick.norris@slc.gov Document Type Information Item Budget Impact? Yes No Recommendation: That the City Council provide direction on the options associated with the legislative intent to update the definition of family. Background/Discussion See first attachment for Background/Discussion Will there need to be a public hearing for this item?* Yes No Public Process Not applicable at this time. A public process will follow once the council provides direction. This page has intentionally been left blank ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Tammy Hunsaker Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: In April 2025, the City Council adopted a legislative intent to consider updating the definition of “family” in the zoning code. The council motion read “I move the council adopt a legislative action asking the administration to 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 Salt Lake City.” The intent of this transmittal is to provide the City Council with options on how to proceed with this legislative intent and provide direction on which option the Planning Division should proceed. After directions are provided, the Planning Division will begin processing a text amendment. Zoning Definition of Family The term “family” is an integral part of the housing definitions and determines the type of housing and the occupancy of a dwelling. The current definition has three parts: a definition for related people living as a single household, a definition of unrelated people living as a single household, and a definition of two unrelated people and their children living as a single household. All households must fit one of the definitions to occupy a dwelling in Salt Lake City. Current Definition: FAMILY: A. One or more persons related by blood, marriage, adoption, or legal guardianship, including foster children, living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit; or B. A group of not more than three (3) persons not related by blood, marriage, adoption, or legal guardianship living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit; or C. Two (2) unrelated persons and their children living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit. The term "family" shall not be construed to mean a club, group home, residential support dwelling, a lodge or a fraternity/sorority house. The definition creates different rules based on the relationship of the occupants of a dwelling. It also prohibits the mixing of unrelated and related individuals except for the children of two unrelated people. The current definition limits living arrangements within a single dwelling and limits housing options, including shared housing and co-living. HISTORY The term family has been a defined term since the first zoning code was adopted in 1927. Since that time, the definition has changed several times. • 1927: “Any number of individuals living together as a single housekeeping unit, and doing their cooking on the premises.” • 1949: Any number of individuals living together as a single housekeeping unit, and doing their cooking on the premises, independent of and separated from any other group or family.” • 1955: An individual ,doing his own cooking, and living upon the premises as a separate housekeeping unit, or a collective body of persons doing, their own cooking and living together upon the premises as a separate housekeeping unit in a domestic bond based upon birth, marriage, or other domestic bond, as distinguished from a group occupying a boarding house1 lodging house, club, fraternity or hotel. • 1978: shall mean one (1) person living alone or two (2) or more persons related by blood, marriage or adoption, according to the laws of the State of Utah; or a group not to exceed three (3) unrelated persons living together as a single housekeeping unit for which a lawfully located off-street parking space is provided for each such person; such group to be distinguished from a group occupying a boarding house, lodging house, club, fraternity or hotel. The current definition of family has been in the zoning code since at least 1995. It is a typical definition of family found in zoning codes throughout the country. Over time, the concept of what constitutes a family has changed. Some cities are also considering whether zoning should be used to differentiate between dwellings occupied by owners versus those occupied by renters. For example, any number of related people may occupy a single dwelling, regardless of the number of bedrooms, off-street parking spaces, or overall size of the dwelling. Renters are limited; in Salt Lake City up to three unrelated people may occupy a single dwelling. There is no known basis for why this number is set at three people, however Utah Code does require cities with universities within their boundaries to allow at least three unrelated people to occupy a dwelling. PURPOSE The purpose of zoning regulations defining family is primarily to regulate population density and to separate incompatible land uses. There is no data that demonstrates that these purposes are achievable by defining a family. The Salt Lake City zoning code’s history of defining family demonstrates that while the city was growing through the 1940s, the definition did not separate related and unrelated people. However, when the city’s population was shrinking after 1950, the definition did regulate related and unrelated people differently. While there is no clear reason for this change, it likely was due to demographic change as households moved to the growing suburbs. The intent was likely to limit the number of unrelated individuals that occupy a single dwelling. ENFORCEMENT Enforcing the definition of family is challenging due to the challenges with collecting evidence regarding the relationship of people living in a dwelling. The city does receive complaints about the number of unrelated people living in a dwelling. The burden of proof falls on the complainant or the city to prove that people are unrelated. This means that the city often must ask for proof of relationships. That information is sometimes provided by the property owner. Other times, the city is unable to obtain evidence to verify that the complaint is a violation of city code and the complaint is closed. A fundamental question related to enforcing this ordinance is if the city should be asking for documentation of people’s relationships when enforcing this ordinance? Cities, and some states, are starting to change how zoning defines family for the following reasons: • Difficulty in obtaining evidence to enforce the regulations. • Rapid increases in housing costs are limiting housing that people can afford. • Differing regulations for renters vs. owners and related households vs. unrelated households. • The differences in social norms between a “functioning family” vs the cultural context of “nuclear family.” Cities that have modified the definition are focusing on other impacts. Instead of focusing on trying to prove the relationship of building occupants, emphasis is put on enforcing nuisance related impacts that are often associated with overcrowding of housing such as: • Excess garbage/storage • Noise • Illegal Parking (including on landscaping) • Yard Maintenance These impacts are easier to document and verify and can occur whether a dwelling is occupied by owners or renters. It is a common perception that renters create more impact than owners, but there have been no studies of violations in Salt Lake City that validate the perception. Parking is often included with complaints about the number of people occupying a dwelling. The complaints may include parking on landscaping, on-street parking, or lack of off-street parking. However, parking complaints are not reserved for households of unrelated people. For example, a family of five may only have two off street parking spaces, but own three vehicles, use their garage for storage, store recreational vehicles in the driveway, and park three vehicles on the street. A household of five unrelated adults may own five vehicles, and park two in a garage or driveway, and park three on the street. The impact is essentially the same and the zoning ordinance does not address street parking. The proper enforcement action is to address any illegal parking. This approach addresses the impact and treats the occupants the same. Other nuisances can be treated in the same manner: address the actual impact while treating the occupancy of the building the same. When these impacts are not present, some cities have decided that six or seven people living in a home, regardless of relationship, are not impactful to neighbors or do not create health or safety issues, which are generally the basis for zoning regulations. Cities are also considering the impact to housing costs that impact renters. For example, if a single-family dwelling has four bedrooms, but the home can only be rented to three people, it leaves one bedroom unoccupied. If the impacts to neighbors can be addressed, that unused bedroom could possibly be rented to a fourth occupant. Splitting the rent between four people will cost less than splitting the rent between three people. Housing occupancy is also changing as costs have increased, with co-housing and shared living increasing in occupancy. Cities are updating zoning codes to provide more flexibility regarding housing occupancy to help reduce housing costs. These types of living arrangements may include a married couple renting out a bedroom or a level of the home to another couple, a related household of four people renting out an unused bedroom to an unrelated individual, and other similar arrangements. The existing definition of the Salt Lake City zoning code prohibits this from happening because it does not allow related people to occupy the same dwelling as unrelated people. Modifying the regulation is very low cost (basically a portion of staff costs for processing the application) but has the potential to improve housing costs without any additional subsidy. This benefits those demographics who may be more comfortable with having roommates, which tends to also be those with the lowest incomes such as adult college students, young professionals, individuals working in various service and hospitality industries, those on fixed incomes, and those who work in small, local businesses. OPTIONS Below are several options that the city could consider for changing the definition of family. Following the options are a list of examples from other cities. The examples focus on how other zoning codes consider unrelated people who occupy a dwelling. The City Council has already adopted a legislative intent to modify the definition, so maintaining the existing definition is not listed as an option. However, the City Council has the authority to not adopt a proposal after one of the below options goes through the required process for a zoning text amendment. Option 1: Maintain the existing definition but increase the number of unrelated people to five. This option is technically the easiest option but does not address the issues associated with the current definition, including putting Civil Enforcement in the position of only being able to enforce the code if the occupants or owner is willing to provide evidence. It also does not address the issue of the zoning code treating related and unrelated individuals differently. This option does not allow a household that consists of related individuals to include unrelated individuals; in other words, a married couple with one child and two different unrelated individuals could not live in the same dwelling. Essentially, enforcement remains the same, but the number of unrelated occupants increases by two people. This would make housing cheaper by dividing rent by more people. Some property owners could see that as an opportunity to increase rent if more people could occupy the dwelling. Example(s): • The household could include a married couple and any number of related family members but could not include additional unrelated people. • The household could include two unrelated people and their children but could not include additional unrelated people. • The household could have up to five unrelated people, such as two unrelated couples and one additional person. Option 2: Increase the number of unrelated people to 5 and allow households to include a combination of family types FAMILY: A family includes any combination of people who function as a single household that may include people who are legally related, two unrelated people and their children, and up to five unrelated people and the children of any of the individuals. This definition only applies to the Dwelling, Single Family; Dwelling, Two Family; Dwelling, Twin Home; and Dwelling, Multi-Family. This option is like option 1 but intends to clarify the existing definition by allowing a combination of related and unrelated individuals to occupy a dwelling in some instances and increasing the number of unrelated people to five. This option would enable related individuals to rent multiple unused bedrooms within their dwelling if they chose something that the existing definition prohibits. This option would not address the issue of determining if the occupants of a dwelling are related. Example: A household could include: • a related couple, • any number of their children, parents or other related persons, and • up to five additional unrelated people and their children. Option 3: Simplify the definition by removing the occupant limits and treat occupants the same, regardless of the relationship. FAMILY: Any number of people living together as a single household in the same dwelling. This definition only applies to the Dwelling, Single Family; Dwelling, Two Family; Dwelling, Twin Home; and Dwelling, Multi-Family land uses. This change would remove the issue of the city having to ask for proof of relationship or the number of people living in a dwelling. Instead, enforcement would have to focus on impacts that can be documented without relying on the occupants or the owner. There is a risk of overcrowding due to multiple people occupying each bedroom in a dwelling. This approach would essentially go back to the definition the city used before 1950. The term household may also need to be defined, unless the city is comfortable relying on the definition that is in Webster’s dictionary, which includes this as one of the definitions: a social unit composed of those living together in the same dwelling. There are multiple definitions of the term as a noun in Webster’s Dictionary so it might make interpreting the code easier by adding this definition. In addition, this definition may want to include more information about the physical or functional aspects of a family to improve clarity when enforcing the code. For example, adding wording such as “…as a single household where all occupants have access to a kitchen and bathroom.” This could also be addressed by updating the definition of the various dwelling types so the terms focus on the physical aspects or function of the land use, not as much on the occupants. This type of fine tuning of the option will occur if this option is selected to proceed. Example: Under this definition there are countless options that would likely be dictated by the size of the dwelling. Other Considerations There are several definitions that could also be impacted by changing the definition of family, regardless of the options above. Consideration should be given to ensure that changing the definition doesn’t impact other land uses. • Shared Housing: this is a defined use that does not use the term family but is related. This land use essentially authorizes dormitory and single room occupancies. Shared housing has specific provisions that apply that other housing types do not have. Changing the definition of family essentially authorizes any housing to function this way: renting out a single bedroom while sharing common areas, like a kitchen and bathroom. This is basically what occurs now when a single-family dwelling is rented to unrelated individuals. • Dwelling, Rooming (Boarding) House: This is a type of dwelling that allows more than three unrelated individuals to occupy a building (or multiple buildings) in any arrangement provided the stay is for at least one month. This land use is commonly found near the University of Utah and Westminster College. It is typically only allowed in multi-family and mixed-use zoning districts but may not be required if the definition of family is changed. • Dwelling: The definition of dwelling includes the term family, but other housing types that use the word “dwelling” in the name do not fit the definition of family (such as Dwelling, Group Home). The term is also an integral part of classifying different housing types. Consideration should be given to fixing this so that there is no confusion on how the definition of family impacts other definitions of dwelling. o Current Definition: DWELLING: A building or portion thereof, which is designated for residential purposes of a family for occupancy on a monthly basis and which is a self- contained unit with kitchen and bathroom facilities. The term "dwelling" excludes living space within hotels, bed and breakfast establishments, shared housing developments boarding houses and lodging houses. o Possible Definition: DWELLING: a building or portion thereof, allocated for residential use where each unit contains at a minimum, sleeping facilities, a kitchen, and bathroom intended for occupancies greater than 30 consecutive days. Examples Below are examples from cities within Utah and from other western states that are larger than other cities in Utah. In Utah, state code prohibits cities from having a family definition that limits occupancy of unrelated people to no less than three if the city has a university within its boundaries and no less than four otherwise. It is unknown why cities that have a university and therefore a higher likelihood of having a higher number of college aged individuals would have a lower requirement than cities that may have fewer college aged individuals. The typical college aged individual may be more likely to have roommates and allowing more than three unrelated people could lower the monthly housing costs because it could be split between more people. Family Definition Number of people (Cities in Utah) as a single housekeeping Family Definition Number of people (Cities outside of Utah) Major cities in the western United States tend to allow more than three unrelated people in a dwelling. Colorado recently passed statewide legislation that prohibited cities from treating related and unrelated people differently in terms of housing occupancy, but the Denver code online shows a cap of up to five people. Other cities considered allowing a maximum of five, with Bosie, Reno, and Sacramento not having a maximum. Boise, Portland, Sacramento, and Spokane recently made major zoning reforms to address housing issues and have included modifying the definition of family as part of those zoning reforms. There are likely cities in the western United States that have definitions like Salt Lake City’s. Below is a summary of select cities and how the definition of family is addressed. City Number of Unrelated Related + unrelated Other Boise Any number of people living as a single housekeeping living together as a single housekeeping unit in a have established ties and familiarity with one another (regardless of whether related or not by blood, marriage or adoption) that live together as a single residential land uses (fraternities, sororities, specialty housing) may also have up to PUBLIC PROCESS: Not Applicable This page has intentionally been left blank SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL To:  Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date: 09/24/2025 Date Sent to Council: 09/30/2025 From: Department * Community and Neighborhood Employee Name: Norris, Nick E-mail nick.norris@slc.gov Department Director Signature Director Signed Date 09/29/2025 Chief Administrator Officer's Signature Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date 09/29/2025 Subject: Zoning Definition of Family Text Amendment Additional Staff Contact:Presenters/Staff Table Document Type Information Item Budget Impact? Yes No Recommendation: That the City Council provide direction on the options associated with the legislative intent to update the definition of family. Background/Discussion See first attachment for Background/Discussion Will there need to be a public hearing for this item?* Yes No Public Process Not applicable at this time. A public process will follow once the council provides direction. This page has intentionally been left blank ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Tammy Hunsaker Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: In April 2025, the City Council adopted a legislative intent to consider updating the definition of “family” in the zoning code. The council motion read “I move the council adopt a legislative action asking the administration to 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 Salt Lake City.” The intent of this transmittal is to provide the City Council with options on how to proceed with this legislative intent and provide direction on which option the Planning Division should proceed. After directions are provided, the Planning Division will begin processing a text amendment. Zoning Definition of Family The term “family” is an integral part of the housing definitions and determines the type of housing and the occupancy of a dwelling. The current definition has three parts: a definition for related people living as a single household, a definition of unrelated people living as a single household, and a definition of two unrelated people and their children living as a single household. All households must fit one of the definitions to occupy a dwelling in Salt Lake City. Current Definition: FAMILY: A. One or more persons related by blood, marriage, adoption, or legal guardianship, including foster children, living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit; or B. A group of not more than three (3) persons not related by blood, marriage, adoption, or legal guardianship living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit; or C. Two (2) unrelated persons and their children living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit. The term "family" shall not be construed to mean a club, group home, residential support dwelling, a lodge or a fraternity/sorority house. The definition creates different rules based on the relationship of the occupants of a dwelling. It also prohibits the mixing of unrelated and related individuals except for the children of two unrelated people. The current definition limits living arrangements within a single dwelling and limits housing options, including shared housing and co-living. HISTORY The term family has been a defined term since the first zoning code was adopted in 1927. Since that time, the definition has changed several times. • 1927: “Any number of individuals living together as a single housekeeping unit, and doing their cooking on the premises.” • 1949: Any number of individuals living together as a single housekeeping unit, and doing their cooking on the premises, independent of and separated from any other group or family.” • 1955: An individual ,doing his own cooking, and living upon the premises as a separate housekeeping unit, or a collective body of persons doing, their own cooking and living together upon the premises as a separate housekeeping unit in a domestic bond based upon birth, marriage, or other domestic bond, as distinguished from a group occupying a boarding house1 lodging house, club, fraternity or hotel. • 1978: shall mean one (1) person living alone or two (2) or more persons related by blood, marriage or adoption, according to the laws of the State of Utah; or a group not to exceed three (3) unrelated persons living together as a single housekeeping unit for which a lawfully located off-street parking space is provided for each such person; such group to be distinguished from a group occupying a boarding house, lodging house, club, fraternity or hotel. The current definition of family has been in the zoning code since at least 1995. It is a typical definition of family found in zoning codes throughout the country. Over time, the concept of what constitutes a family has changed. Some cities are also considering whether zoning should be used to differentiate between dwellings occupied by owners versus those occupied by renters. For example, any number of related people may occupy a single dwelling, regardless of the number of bedrooms, off-street parking spaces, or overall size of the dwelling. Renters are limited; in Salt Lake City up to three unrelated people may occupy a single dwelling. There is no known basis for why this number is set at three people, however Utah Code does require cities with universities within their boundaries to allow at least three unrelated people to occupy a dwelling. PURPOSE The purpose of zoning regulations defining family is primarily to regulate population density and to separate incompatible land uses. There is no data that demonstrates that these purposes are achievable by defining a family. The Salt Lake City zoning code’s history of defining family demonstrates that while the city was growing through the 1940s, the definition did not separate related and unrelated people. However, when the city’s population was shrinking after 1950, the definition did regulate related and unrelated people differently. While there is no clear reason for this change, it likely was due to demographic change as households moved to the growing suburbs. The intent was likely to limit the number of unrelated individuals that occupy a single dwelling. ENFORCEMENT Enforcing the definition of family is challenging due to the challenges with collecting evidence regarding the relationship of people living in a dwelling. The city does receive complaints about the number of unrelated people living in a dwelling. The burden of proof falls on the complainant or the city to prove that people are unrelated. This means that the city often must ask for proof of relationships. That information is sometimes provided by the property owner. Other times, the city is unable to obtain evidence to verify that the complaint is a violation of city code and the complaint is closed. A fundamental question related to enforcing this ordinance is if the city should be asking for documentation of people’s relationships when enforcing this ordinance? Cities, and some states, are starting to change how zoning defines family for the following reasons: • Difficulty in obtaining evidence to enforce the regulations. • Rapid increases in housing costs are limiting housing that people can afford. • Differing regulations for renters vs. owners and related households vs. unrelated households. • The differences in social norms between a “functioning family” vs the cultural context of “nuclear family.” Cities that have modified the definition are focusing on other impacts. Instead of focusing on trying to prove the relationship of building occupants, emphasis is put on enforcing nuisance related impacts that are often associated with overcrowding of housing such as: • Excess garbage/storage • Noise • Illegal Parking (including on landscaping) • Yard Maintenance These impacts are easier to document and verify and can occur whether a dwelling is occupied by owners or renters. It is a common perception that renters create more impact than owners, but there have been no studies of violations in Salt Lake City that validate the perception. Parking is often included with complaints about the number of people occupying a dwelling. The complaints may include parking on landscaping, on-street parking, or lack of off-street parking. However, parking complaints are not reserved for households of unrelated people. For example, a family of five may only have two off street parking spaces, but own three vehicles, use their garage for storage, store recreational vehicles in the driveway, and park three vehicles on the street. A household of five unrelated adults may own five vehicles, and park two in a garage or driveway, and park three on the street. The impact is essentially the same and the zoning ordinance does not address street parking. The proper enforcement action is to address any illegal parking. This approach addresses the impact and treats the occupants the same. Other nuisances can be treated in the same manner: address the actual impact while treating the occupancy of the building the same. When these impacts are not present, some cities have decided that six or seven people living in a home, regardless of relationship, are not impactful to neighbors or do not create health or safety issues, which are generally the basis for zoning regulations. Cities are also considering the impact to housing costs that impact renters. For example, if a single-family dwelling has four bedrooms, but the home can only be rented to three people, it leaves one bedroom unoccupied. If the impacts to neighbors can be addressed, that unused bedroom could possibly be rented to a fourth occupant. Splitting the rent between four people will cost less than splitting the rent between three people. Housing occupancy is also changing as costs have increased, with co-housing and shared living increasing in occupancy. Cities are updating zoning codes to provide more flexibility regarding housing occupancy to help reduce housing costs. These types of living arrangements may include a married couple renting out a bedroom or a level of the home to another couple, a related household of four people renting out an unused bedroom to an unrelated individual, and other similar arrangements. The existing definition of the Salt Lake City zoning code prohibits this from happening because it does not allow related people to occupy the same dwelling as unrelated people. Modifying the regulation is very low cost (basically a portion of staff costs for processing the application) but has the potential to improve housing costs without any additional subsidy. This benefits those demographics who may be more comfortable with having roommates, which tends to also be those with the lowest incomes such as adult college students, young professionals, individuals working in various service and hospitality industries, those on fixed incomes, and those who work in small, local businesses. OPTIONS Below are several options that the city could consider for changing the definition of family. Following the options are a list of examples from other cities. The examples focus on how other zoning codes consider unrelated people who occupy a dwelling. The City Council has already adopted a legislative intent to modify the definition, so maintaining the existing definition is not listed as an option. However, the City Council has the authority to not adopt a proposal after one of the below options goes through the required process for a zoning text amendment. Option 1: Maintain the existing definition but increase the number of unrelated people to five. This option is technically the easiest option but does not address the issues associated with the current definition, including putting Civil Enforcement in the position of only being able to enforce the code if the occupants or owner is willing to provide evidence. It also does not address the issue of the zoning code treating related and unrelated individuals differently. This option does not allow a household that consists of related individuals to include unrelated individuals; in other words, a married couple with one child and two different unrelated individuals could not live in the same dwelling. Essentially, enforcement remains the same, but the number of unrelated occupants increases by two people. This would make housing cheaper by dividing rent by more people. Some property owners could see that as an opportunity to increase rent if more people could occupy the dwelling. Example(s): • The household could include a married couple and any number of related family members but could not include additional unrelated people. • The household could include two unrelated people and their children but could not include additional unrelated people. • The household could have up to five unrelated people, such as two unrelated couples and one additional person. Option 2: Increase the number of unrelated people to 5 and allow households to include a combination of family types FAMILY: A family includes any combination of people who function as a single household that may include people who are legally related, two unrelated people and their children, and up to five unrelated people and the children of any of the individuals. This definition only applies to the Dwelling, Single Family; Dwelling, Two Family; Dwelling, Twin Home; and Dwelling, Multi-Family. This option is like option 1 but intends to clarify the existing definition by allowing a combination of related and unrelated individuals to occupy a dwelling in some instances and increasing the number of unrelated people to five. This option would enable related individuals to rent multiple unused bedrooms within their dwelling if they chose something that the existing definition prohibits. This option would not address the issue of determining if the occupants of a dwelling are related. Example: A household could include: • a related couple, • any number of their children, parents or other related persons, and • up to five additional unrelated people and their children. Option 3: Simplify the definition by removing the occupant limits and treat occupants the same, regardless of the relationship. FAMILY: Any number of people living together as a single household in the same dwelling. This definition only applies to the Dwelling, Single Family; Dwelling, Two Family; Dwelling, Twin Home; and Dwelling, Multi-Family land uses. This change would remove the issue of the city having to ask for proof of relationship or the number of people living in a dwelling. Instead, enforcement would have to focus on impacts that can be documented without relying on the occupants or the owner. There is a risk of overcrowding due to multiple people occupying each bedroom in a dwelling. This approach would essentially go back to the definition the city used before 1950. The term household may also need to be defined, unless the city is comfortable relying on the definition that is in Webster’s dictionary, which includes this as one of the definitions: a social unit composed of those living together in the same dwelling. There are multiple definitions of the term as a noun in Webster’s Dictionary so it might make interpreting the code easier by adding this definition. In addition, this definition may want to include more information about the physical or functional aspects of a family to improve clarity when enforcing the code. For example, adding wording such as “…as a single household where all occupants have access to a kitchen and bathroom.” This could also be addressed by updating the definition of the various dwelling types so the terms focus on the physical aspects or function of the land use, not as much on the occupants. This type of fine tuning of the option will occur if this option is selected to proceed. Example: Under this definition there are countless options that would likely be dictated by the size of the dwelling. Other Considerations There are several definitions that could also be impacted by changing the definition of family, regardless of the options above. Consideration should be given to ensure that changing the definition doesn’t impact other land uses. • Shared Housing: this is a defined use that does not use the term family but is related. This land use essentially authorizes dormitory and single room occupancies. Shared housing has specific provisions that apply that other housing types do not have. Changing the definition of family essentially authorizes any housing to function this way: renting out a single bedroom while sharing common areas, like a kitchen and bathroom. This is basically what occurs now when a single-family dwelling is rented to unrelated individuals. • Dwelling, Rooming (Boarding) House: This is a type of dwelling that allows more than three unrelated individuals to occupy a building (or multiple buildings) in any arrangement provided the stay is for at least one month. This land use is commonly found near the University of Utah and Westminster College. It is typically only allowed in multi-family and mixed-use zoning districts but may not be required if the definition of family is changed. • Dwelling: The definition of dwelling includes the term family, but other housing types that use the word “dwelling” in the name do not fit the definition of family (such as Dwelling, Group Home). The term is also an integral part of classifying different housing types. Consideration should be given to fixing this so that there is no confusion on how the definition of family impacts other definitions of dwelling. o Current Definition: DWELLING: A building or portion thereof, which is designated for residential purposes of a family for occupancy on a monthly basis and which is a self- contained unit with kitchen and bathroom facilities. The term "dwelling" excludes living space within hotels, bed and breakfast establishments, shared housing developments boarding houses and lodging houses. o Possible Definition: DWELLING: a building or portion thereof, allocated for residential use where each unit contains at a minimum, sleeping facilities, a kitchen, and bathroom intended for occupancies greater than 30 consecutive days. Examples Below are examples from cities within Utah and from other western states that are larger than other cities in Utah. In Utah, state code prohibits cities from having a family definition that limits occupancy of unrelated people to no less than three if the city has a university within its boundaries and no less than four otherwise. It is unknown why cities that have a university and therefore a higher likelihood of having a higher number of college aged individuals would have a lower requirement than cities that may have fewer college aged individuals. The typical college aged individual may be more likely to have roommates and allowing more than three unrelated people could lower the monthly housing costs because it could be split between more people. Family Definition Number of people (Cities in Utah) as a single housekeeping Family Definition Number of people (Cities outside of Utah) Major cities in the western United States tend to allow more than three unrelated people in a dwelling. Colorado recently passed statewide legislation that prohibited cities from treating related and unrelated people differently in terms of housing occupancy, but the Denver code online shows a cap of up to five people. Other cities considered allowing a maximum of five, with Bosie, Reno, and Sacramento not having a maximum. Boise, Portland, Sacramento, and Spokane recently made major zoning reforms to address housing issues and have included modifying the definition of family as part of those zoning reforms. There are likely cities in the western United States that have definitions like Salt Lake City’s. Below is a summary of select cities and how the definition of family is addressed. PUBLIC PROCESS: Not Applicable This page has intentionally been left blank Page | 1 2 5 8 7 6 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Nick Tarbet, Policy Analyst DATE:December 2, 2025 RE:Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act Public Hearing for Sky Harbour Hangar Development ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will receive a briefing on the Sky Harbour hangar development on the east side of the Salt Lake City International airport that consists of the development of an aircraft storage facility situated on 8.4 acres and will include 4 box hangers, approximately 160,000 square feet. The project would be funded through a tax-exempt private activity bond (PAB) issued by the Public Finance Authority of Wisconsin, in an amount not to exceed $95,000,000. Federal regulations for tax- exempt PABs require the Council to hold what is known as a TEFRA (Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act) public hearing on this proposal. No other Council action is required. After the public hearing the mayor may sign a public approval certificate for SLC Development LLC to receive bond proceeds on a tax- exempt basis to finance the project. The development entails no financial liability for Salt Lake City. The City will not issue the bonds or assume any financial liability. The public hearing for these types of bonds is required by Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. The hangars would be available to any tenant who wants to lease hangar space at the airport. The transmittal letter notes the development will increase revenue to the airport in the form of ground rent, fuel flowage fees in addition to increased property taxes, aircraft ad valorem, county fuel taxes and new air sales and use taxes. The Council will hold a briefing on December 2 and the public hearing on December 9. Item Schedule: Page | 3 2 5 8 7 6 POLICY QUESTIONS The Council has previously held a TEFRA public hearing for the Paxton Ave affordable Housing project on October 7, 2025. At that briefing the Administration noted they are in the process of developing parameters for TEFRA proposals because there is a substantial amount of uncompensated administrative effort associated with them. For example, there is a substantial amount of coordination between the City’s Finance Department, bond counsel and the requestor’s bond counsel on the proposed changes to the documents as well as timing of the hearing. o The Council may wish to ask the Administration for an update on the creation of that policy. ©2025 Sky Harbour Proprietary SKYHNYSE Investor PresentationSummer 2025 Salt Lake City International Airport Community BenefitsWinter 2025 SKYHNYSE •Sky Harbour (NYSE: SKYH) develops and manages modern aviation infrastructure at airports across the U.S. •Sky Harbour’ home base campus offers four primary benefits to airport sponsors and communities 1.Meaningful economic development through direct payments and associated tax revenues 2.Significant private capital investment in an asset that reverts to the City with decades of remaining useful life 3.Community benefits through high-paying jobs and internships, preparation for the future of air mobility, and environmentally focused construction 4.No disruption to other airport businesses •Sky Harbour’s 11.3-acre Home Base campus at SLC consists of 1.Four SH-37 hangars (i.e., 170K SF of hangar, office, lounge, storage) 2.200K SF of apron 3.~70K SF of vehicle drive and parking 1 Executive Summary SLC Development LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and subsidiary of Sky Harbour Group Corporation, is requesting that the City hold a public hearing so that the Mayor may sign a public approval certificate for SLC Development LLC to receive bond proceeds to (a) finance the costs of the development, construction and/or equipping of a 11.279 acre Business Aviation hangar development located at Salt Lake City International Airport (SLC). The City will not issue the bonds or assume any financial liability; rather, the bonds will be issued by the Public Finance Authority, a commission organized under and pursuant to the provisions of Sections 66.0301, 66.0303 and 66.0304 of the Wisconsin Statutes in one or more series, in an amount not to exceed $95,000,000. The public hearing for this types of bonds is required by Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. The request for the public hearing is a requirement of private activity bonds and is a procedural action that must be taken by the developer/issuer to comply with IRS regulations. A TEFRA (Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act) hearing allows interested members of the public to express their views regarding the issuance of the bonds for a certain project. 2 Background Description & Financing Requirements Re-Introducing Sky Harbour 3 The Best Home Basing Solution in aviation – Bar None Not an FBO – rather a completely new operating concept with unique benefits to airports Built to Last / Here to Stay •Publicly Traded (NYSE: SKYH) •Well-Capitalized Active Issuer of Public Bonds Our Product Our Team Culturally and Professionally Diverse •Experienced Airport Operators (30+ airport projects) •Military Aviators •Top Real Estate Professionals •Finance Industry Veterans Sky Harbour Home Basing Operator •Direct Revenues via Ground Rent, Fuel Flowage, and Concession fees •Indirect Revenues v ia Aircraft Ad Valorem, Fuel & A/C Sales tax, and Leasehold Improvement Taxes •Significant Capital Investment in airport infrastructure that reverts to the airport w/ over half its useful life remaining •Hundreds of jobs estimated to be created or preserved •State of the Art Construction, LEED design •Building for the future of air travel and mobility Note:Additionally, a Sky Harbour campus wouldhave limited impacton airport traffic –applies to landsidevehicular andtaxiway congestion. 4 Benefit Overview Sky Harbour is a proven developer delivering economic value to airport sponsors ©2021 Sky Harbour Confidential and Proprietary SLC Development Site Plan 5 Key Details •~11.3 acre plot •Four 43K sqft SH-37 Hangars •Office/lounge, storage, and indoor vehicle parking •+200k sqft of apron and managed ramp •+70k sqft parking stalls •~3K sqft of GSE and support facilities ©2021 Sky Harbour Confidential and Proprietary Economic Development: Direct & Indirect Revenues Economic Impact Drivers Direct Payments to SLC •Ground Rent •Aviation Fuel Flowage •Concession Fee Other Tax Revenues and Fees •Property Tax, Aircraft Ad Valorem •County Fuel Sales Tax •Property Taxes: Possessory & Leasehold Interest •New Aircraft Sales and Use Taxes 6 Significant expected total direct revenues to the citizens of Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County ©2021 Sky Harbour Confidential and Proprietary Economic Development: Jobs Sky Harbour preserves or create hundreds of jobs in the local communities Typical Sky Harbour Employment EMPLOYMENT IN DEVELOPMENT •Construction (e.g., GCs, Trades) •Construction Support (e.g., Architects, Engineers) •Associated Development (e.g., Finance, Legal) IN OPERATION •Sky Harbour Employees •Tenant Direct Employment •Aircraft Business Services •Non-Aviation Business Services SKY HARBOUR ACADEMY •Ground Handler, Fueler, and other aviation jobs Hundreds of local jobs on avg. ©2021 Sky Harbour Confidential and Proprietary 7 ©2021 Sky Harbour Confidential and Proprietary Noise Reduction Typical Sky Harbour tenants operate late model business jets that emit less noise than other based aircraft Category Aircraft Year db Midsize Citation XLS 1996 82.9 Super Midsize Citation XLS 1996 72.3 Large Falcon 2000S/EX 2003 79.4 Large Long Range Gulfstream G550 2003 80.3 Super Midsize Citation Sovereign 2004 72.4 Large Long Range Falcon 7x 2005 79.8 Midsize Gulfstream 150 2006 81.4 Large Embraer Legacy 650 2011 77.9 Large Long Range Global 6000 2012 82.7 Super Midsize Challenger 350 2013 75.3 Large Falcon 2000LXS/EX 2014 79.4 Large Gulfstream 500 2014 80.3 Sky Harbour Campus Average 78.68 Illustrative Based Tenant Average 80.56 - 82.68 Source: OEM & FAA Noise Certifications on Take-Off/ Lateral and JETNET data for Base Tenants Illustrative Sky Harbour Campus The average noise footprint of a Sky Harbour campus is 2 to 4 db lower than that of the total based fleet All based-tenant campuses affords the opportunity to encourage our tenants to adhere to airport noise abatement regulations: Quieter Nights Programs Quiet Jet Departure Programs Full Runway Length Departures Maintenance Runup Hours Adherence Limited Use of Reverse Thrust (when safely able) Preferential runway usage (when applicable) 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 ©2021 Sky Harbour Confidential and Proprietary Corporate Social Responsibility Each Sky Harbour campus features the Sky Harbour Academy training program Paid training for a lifelong career in the high-paying aviation industry; Hundreds of jobs for the local community 9 •Sky Harbour Academy recruits members of disadvantaged and underrepresented communities with an interest in aviation. •Sky Harbour provides full training and certification as line service technicians and CSRs. •All expenses are paid, including certification fees and personal study stipends. •Assistance with placement in high-paying aviation jobs, including with Sky Harbour at an average salary rate of ~$50K-$65K ~300-500 trained individuals ready for a career in aviation industry Potential Partner Organizations Ground Operator Training at SGR airport … Plus Community Colleges and Technical Schools that with Aviation programs ©2021 Sky Harbour Confidential and Proprietary 10 Benefits for Many Stakeholders Salt Lake City International Airport •Private investment in airfield infrastructure •Optimized airport bandwidth for other initiatives •Direct and indirect revenues •New state-of-the-art aviation assets Citizens of Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County •Significant Private investment in airport infrastructure •100-year asset that reverts to the City with plenty of useful life •Strong Economic growth •Hundreds of high-paying jobs created or preserved Airport Tenants •Efficient land planning and availability for multiple tenant types (e.g., Corporate Hangar, MRO) •Delivery of underserved business aviation infrastructure to contribute to regional economic growth 1 2 3 SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL To:  Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date: 11/12/2025 Date Sent to Council: 11/13/2025 From: Department * Airport Employee Name: Butler, Brian E-mail Brian.Butler@slc.gov Department Director Signature Director Signed Date 11/13/2025 Chief Administrator Officer's Signature Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date 11/13/2025 Subject: TEFRA (Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act) public hearing for Sky Harbour Hanger Development at SLC Additional Staff Contact: bill.wyatt@slc.gov Presenters/Staff Table Eric Stolpman estolpman@skyharbour.group Document Type Information Item Budget Impact? Yes No Recommendation: That the City Council hold a public hearing on December 9th, 2025 Background/Discussion See first attachment for Background/Discussion Will there need to be a public hearing for this item?* Yes No Public Process The TEFRA hearing allows for public comment This page has intentionally been left blank Background: SLC Development LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and subsidiary of Sky Harbour is requesting that the City hold a public hearing so that the Mayor may sign a public approval certificate for SLC Development LLC to receive bond proceeds on a tax exempt basis to (a) finance the costs of an 8.4 acre lot to build four 43k sq ft hangers, office, lounge, parking, apron, ground support equipment, as well as fueling facilities. The City will not issue the bonds or assume any financial liability; rather, the bonds will be issued by the Public Finance Authority, a commission organized under and pursuant to the provisions of Sections 66.0301, 66.0303 and 66.0304 of the Wisconsin Statutes in one or more series, in an amount not to exceed $95,000,000. The public hearing for this types of bonds is required by Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. The request for the public hearing is a requirement of private activity bonds and is a procedural action that must be taken by the developer/issuer to comply with IRS regulations. A TEFRA (Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act) hearing allows interested members of the public to express their views regarding the issuance of the bonds for a certain project. Project Overview: The Sky Harbour development on the east side of Salt Lake City International Airport will consist of a development situated on 8.4 acres and will include 4 box hangers including lounge and office space that will be 172k sq ft, 70k sq ft of vehicle driving and parking, 3k sq ft of ground support equipment and support facilities, as well as fueling operations that will all be Leed certified. Sky Harbour will construct all the facilities on a 50 year lease and pay to the airport directly ground lease payments as well as fuel flowage fees. The total cost of the development is for up to $95 million dollars. At the conclusion of the lease term, the facilities will revert to the Salt Lake City International Airport which can be used to lease to hanger tenants. Community Benefits: Sky Harbour is looking to construct and build four large hangers that can be used by any tenant wishing to lease hanger space at the Salt Lake City International Airport. These will be state of the air facilities that will attract tenants of all sizes. In addition, the company will make direct payments to the Salt Lake City International Airport in the form of ground rent as well as fuel flowage fees. It will generate property taxes, aircraft ad valorem, county fuel taxes, and new air sales and use taxes. In addition, Sky Harbour offers four primary benefits to the SLC International Airport and the local community. 1. Significant economic development through direct payments, associated tax revenues and job growth 2. Reduced congestion, noise and environmental impact. The average noise footprint of a Sky Harbour Campus is 2 to 4 db lower than that of a total based fleet 3. Focused environmental, social, and governance and diversity equity and inclusion through direct employment opportunities and vendor relationships. Hundreds of new jobs will be created. 4. No disruption to other airport businesses This page has intentionally been left blank This page has intentionally been left blank 239 61 41 0 0 0 140 140 140 178 178 178 167 191 219 222 222 222 ©2025 Sky Harbour Proprietary SKYH NYSE Investor Presentation Summer 2025 Salt Lake City International Airport Community Benefits November 2025 SKYH NYSE 239 61 41 0 0 0 140 140 140 178 178 178 167 191 219 222 222 222 •Sky Harbour (NYSE: SKYH) develops and manages modern aviation infrastructure at airports across the U.S. •A Sky Harbour campus offers four primary benefits to airport sponsors and communities 1.Significant economic development through direct payments, associated tax revenues, and job growth 2.Reduced congestion, noise, and environmental impact 3.Focused ESG and DE&I contribution through direct employment opportunities and vendor relationships 4.No disruption to other airport businesses •Sky Harbour ’s development at SLC consists of 1.(~8.4 acres, incl. 4 box hangars): 172K SF of hangar, office, lounge; 207K SF of apron; ~70K SF of vehicle drive and parking 1 Executive Summary 239 61 41 0 0 0 140 140 140 178 178 178 167 191 219 222 222 222 SLC Development LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and subsidiary of Sky Harbour Group Corporation, is requesting that the City hold a public hearing so that the Mayor may sign a public approval certificate for SLC Development LLC to receive bond proceeds to (a) finance the costs of the development, construction and/or equipping of an 8.4 acre Business Aviation hangar development located at Salt Lake City International Airport (SLC). The City will not issue the bonds or assume any financial liability; rather, the bonds will be issued by the Public Finance Authority, a commission organized under and pursuant to the provisions of Sections 66.0301, 66.0303 and 66.0304 of the Wisconsin Statutes in one or more series, in an amount not to exceed $95,000,000. The public hearing for this types of bonds is required by Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. The request for the public hearing is a requirement of private activity bonds and is a procedural action that must be taken by the developer/issuer to comply with IRS regulations. A TEFRA (Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act) hearing allows interested members of the public to express their views regarding the issuance of the bonds for a certain project. 2 Background Description & Financing Requirements 239 61 41 0 0 0 140 140 140 178 178 178 167 191 219 222 222 222 Re-Introducing Sky Harbour 3 The Best Home Basing Solution in aviation – Bar None Not an FBO – rather a completely new operating concept with unique benefits to airports Built to Last / Here to Stay •Publicly Traded (NYSE: SKYH) •Well-Capitalized Active Issuer of Public Bonds Our Product Our Team Culturally and Professionally Diverse •Experienced Airport Operators (30+ airport projects) •Military Aviators •Top Real Estate Professionals •Finance Industry Veterans 239 61 41 0 0 0 140 140 140 178 178 178 167 191 219 222 222 222 Sky Harbour Home Basing Operator •Direct Revenues via Ground Rent and Fuel Flowage •Indirect Revenues via Aircraft Ad Valorem, Fuel & A/C Sales tax, and Leasehold Improvement Taxes •Significant Capital Investment in airport infrastructure (hangar, apron, vehicle) •Estimated hundreds of jobs created or preserved •State of the Art Product, LEED design •Positioning for EVTOL pioneering •Robust ESG and DE&I initiatives Note:Additionally, a Sky Harbour campus would have limited impact on airport traffic –applies to landside vehicular and taxiway congestion. 4 Benefit Overview of Sky Harbour Sky Harbour is a proven developer delivering economic value to airport sponsors 239 61 41 0 0 0 140 140 140 178 178 178 167 191 219 222 222 222 ©2021 Sky Harbour Confidential and Proprietary SLC Development Site Plan 5 Key Details •~8.4 acre plot •4, 43K sqft Private SH-37 Hangars •Office/lounge, storage, and indoor vehicle parking •+200k sqft of apron and managed ramp •+70k sqft parking stalls •~3K sqft of GSE and support facilities •Fuel farm 239 61 41 0 0 0 140 140 140 178 178 178 167 191 219 222 222 222 ©2021 Sky Harbour Confidential and Proprietary Economic Development: Direct & Indirect Revenues Economic Impact Drivers Direct Payments to SLC •Ground Rent •Aviation Fuel Flowage Other Tax Revenues and Fees •Property Tax, Aircraft Ad Valorem •County Fuel Sales Tax •Property Taxes: Possessory & Leasehold Interest •New Aircraft Sales and Use Taxes 6 Significant expected total direct revenues to the citizens of Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County 239 61 41 0 0 0 140 140 140 178 178 178 167 191 219 222 222 222 ©2021 Sky Harbour Confidential and Proprietary Economic Development: Jobs Sky Harbour preserves or create hundreds of jobs in the local communities Typical Sky Harbour Employment EMPLOYMENT IN DEVELOPMENT •Construction (e.g., GCs, Trades) •Construction Support (e.g., Architects, Engineers) •Associated Development (e.g., Finance, Legal) IN OPERATION •Sky Harbour Employees •Tenant Direct Employment •Aircraft Business Services •Non-Aviation Business Services SKY HARBOUR ACADEMY •Ground Handler, Fueler, and other aviation jobs Hundreds of local jobs on avg. ©2021 Sky Harbour Confidential and Proprietary 7 239 61 41 0 0 0 140 140 140 178 178 178 167 191 219 222 222 222 ©2021 Sky Harbour Confidential and Proprietary Noise Reduction Typical Sky Harbour tenants operate late model business jets that emit less noise than other based aircraft Category Aircraft Year db Midsize Citation XLS 1996 82.9 Super Midsize Citation XLS 1996 72.3 Large Falcon 2000S/EX 2003 79.4 Large Long Range Gulfstream G550 2003 80.3 Super Midsize Citation Sovereign 2004 72.4 Large Long Range Falcon 7x 2005 79.8 Midsize Gulfstream 150 2006 81.4 Large Embraer Legacy 650 2011 77.9 Large Long Range Global 6000 2012 82.7 Super Midsize Challenger 350 2013 75.3 Large Falcon 2000LXS/EX 2014 79.4 Large Gulfstream 500 2014 80.3 Sky Harbour Campus Average 78.68 Illustrative Based Tenant Average 80.56 - 82.68 Source: OEM & FAA Noise Certifications on Take-Off/ Lateral and JETNET data for Base Tenants Illustrative Sky Harbour Campus The average noise footprint of a Sky Harbour campus is 2 to 4 db lower than that of the total based fleet All based-tenant campuses affords the opportunity to encourage our tenants to adhere to airport noise abatement regulations: Quieter Nights Programs Quiet Jet Departure Programs Full Runway Length Departures Maintenance Runup Hours Adherence Limited Use of Reverse Thrust (when safely able) Preferential runway usage (when applicable) 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 239 61 41 0 0 0 140 140 140 178 178 178 167 191 219 222 222 222 ESG & DEI Sky Harbour is preparing to lead infrastructure development alongside emerging Electric Aircraft and Air Mobility operators… 9 Sustainable power generation1 Scalable power storage2 Efficient power transmission3 Sky Harbour EVTOL Charging Model …and is compatible with emerging electric aviation leaders 239 61 41 0 0 0 140 140 140 178 178 178 167 191 219 222 222 222 ©2021 Sky Harbour Confidential and Proprietary Corporate Social Responsibility Each Sky Harbour campus features the Sky Harbour Academy training program Paid training for a lifelong career in the high-paying aviation industry; Hundreds of jobs for the local community 10 •Sky Harbour Academy recruits members of disadvantaged and underrepresented communities with an interest in aviation. •Sky Harbour provides full training and certification as line service technicians and CSRs. •All expenses are paid, including certification fees and personal study stipends. •Assistance with placement in high-paying aviation jobs, including with Sky Harbour at an average salary rate of ~$50K-$65K ©2021 Sky Harbour Confidential and Proprietary ~300-500 trained individuals ready for a career in aviation industry Potential Partner Organizations Ground Operator Training at SGR airport … Plus Community Colleges and Technical Schools that with Aviation programs 239 61 41 0 0 0 140 140 140 178 178 178 167 191 219 222 222 222 ©2021 Sky Harbour Confidential and Proprietary 11 Benefits for Many Stakeholders Salt Lake City International Airport •Accelerated and coordinated airfield infrastructure development •Optimize bandwidth for other initiatives •Direct and indirect revenue •New State-of-the-Art Aviation Assets Citizens of Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County •Significant Private investment in airport infrastructure •Strong Economic growth •Hundreds of jobs created or preserved Airport Tenants •Efficient land planning and availability for multiple tenant types (e.g., Corporate Hangar, MRO) •Increased Business Aviation footprint 1 2 3 This page has intentionally been left blank 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 www.slc.gov/council/ TO:City Council Members FROM: Michael Sanders Budget & Policy Analyst DATE:December 02, 2025 RE:SALT LAKE VALLEY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY PROPOSED BUDGET 2026 ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Facility (Facility) is jointly owned by Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County. The County both operates the Facility and approves its budget. The Facility’s FY2026 budget has been submitted to the County Council and is expected to be considered by the County Council in early December. The City has no role in the approval of the budget for the facility or day to day management. The Salt Lake City Waste and Recycling Director is the Administration’s representative on the Facility’s Council which makes recommendations to the County. Overall, the facility is projecting a 7% increase in revenues, by increasing fees to customers and users of the Landfill. The total revenue budget would be approximately $22.17 million. Expenses are projected to rise by about 8%, reaching $19.91 million, largely due to minor changes across various line items. As a result, net income is expected to decrease slightly by $119,392 but will remain above $2.2 million. Staffing levels at the facility will remain unchanged at 52 FTEs. Goal of the briefing: This briefing is information only. The Council will not be considering any ordinances or resolutions in relation to this item. ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION Expenses Expenses are budgeted for $19,906,809 of spending. Five line-items together account for a little over 59% of all projected spending: Line Item Cost Percent of Budget Permanent & Provisional Staffing $3,328,669 16.72% Depreciation $2,929,108 14.71% Fleet Maintenance – Autos & Equipment $2,200,000 11.05% Contract Hauling $2,137,150 10.74% Household Hazardous Waste & Cleanup $1,215,634 6.11% Page | 2 Revenues FY2026 revenues are projected to be $22,166,500. Landfill charges are the primary source of income and account for 86% of total revenue, or roughly $19.16 million. In accordance with City Code 9.08.040, Salt Lake City will receive $480,000—or $40,000 per month—for the Refuse Fund. The proposed budget does not affect the City’s adopted FY2026 Waste & Recycling Division budget. The City’s tipping fees will remain unchanged this year because of a newly negotiated owner’s rate. All other governmental and commercial customers will see a price increase of $2/ton at both the landfill and transfer station. Additionally, the flat fee charged to SLC residents for small self-haul loads (cars, small pickups, or small trailers) is proposed to increase by $1, moving from $16 to $17 per load. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL To:  Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date: 11/07/2025 Date Sent to Council: 11/13/2025 From: Department * Sustainability Employee Name: O'Malley, Monica E-mail monica.omalley@slc.gov Department Director Signature Director Signed Date 11/10/2025 Chief Administrator Officer's Signature Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date 11/13/2025 Subject: Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Facility (SLVSWMF) Proposed Budget 2026 Additional Staff Contact: Chris Bell, Waste and Recycling DirectorChristopher.bell@slc.gov801-535-6952 Presenters/Staff Table Document Type Information Item (Information Item) Budget Impact? Yes No Recommendation: There is no expected impact to the Waste & Recycling Division’s adopted FY26 budget. Further discussion regarding changes to fees charged at the landfill is provided in the background/discussion. Background/Discussion See first attachment for Background/Discussion Will there need to be a public hearing for this item?* Yes No Public Process This proposed budget for the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Facility is included in the annual budget process for Salt Lake County. Following their public comment period, the County Council is expected to adopt their final budget in early December. The entire proposed SL County 2026 budget can be found here: https://www.saltlakecounty.gov/finance/budget/budget-documents/ This page has intentionally been left blank Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Facility (SLVSWMF) Proposed Budget 2026 Background/Discussion: The SLVSWMF is jointly owned by Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County. The SLVSWMF is operated by Salt Lake County, and their budget is approved by the Salt Lake County Council. Chris Bell, Waste and Recycling Director for Salt Lake City, serves as the Mayor’s representative on the SLVSWMF Council. The Salt Lake County Mayor’s proposed budget for the SLVSWMF Enterprise Fund was presented to the Salt Lake County Council on October 21, 2025 and is attached. The proposed budget is being provided to the Salt Lake City Council for informational purposes, before final adoption by the Salt Lake County Council, scheduled in early December. The Sustainability Department will then transmit the final adopted budget to the Salt Lake City Council, as we have done in past years. Below is a summary of the revenue and expense changes from the SLVSWMF 2025 Adopted Budget to the 2026 Proposed Budget. 2025 SLVSWMF Adopted 2026 SLVSWMF Total Revenues* to proposed price Expenses Minor changes to . Income/(Loss) decrease in net *The Revenue budget includes all categories used to calculate the owners’ distributions and the expense budget includes the calculated owner distributions. Impact on Refuse Fund Revenue: An ongoing owners’ distribution from the Landfill is paid to the County and the City on a monthly schedule. Distributions are calculated according to five categories: 1) methane gas sales; 2) metal recycling revenue; 3) soil regeneration royalties; 4) time deposit interest earnings; and 5) investment interest earnings. The Salt Lake County Fiscal Year 2026 budget includes owners’ distributions of $960,000, divided equally between the partners. This amount remains unchanged from their FY 2025 budget. The City’s allocation is received as revenue to the Refuse Fund Class, Energy and Environmental (E&E) Fund (“Refuse Fund”), and is used towards Sustainability staffing and operational expenses in the E&E Fund, in accordance with Salt Lake City Code 9.08.040. Expense: The proposed 2026 budget will not have any impact on our Waste & Recycling Division adopted FY26 budget. We successfully negotiated a new “Owners Rate” for Municipal Solid Waste (“MSW”) at our Transfer Station that keeps the same tipping fees for Salt Lake City as Calendar Year 2025. All other governmental and commercial customers will see a price increase of $2/ton at both the landfill and transfer station. In addition, residential customers who self-haul to the landfill will see a $1/load increase on the flat fee charged for small loads transported in cars and small pickup trucks & trailers. This page has intentionally been left blank Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Mgt Facility 2026 Expenditures Budget Fund / Org / Account 2026 Adjusted Base Budget Total Budget at Request Stage Total Budget at Review Stage Total Budget at Technical Stage Total Budget at Proposed Stage Total Budget at Council Stage Total Budget at Veto Stage 2026 Adopted Budget Variance $ 730 - Solid Waste Managemnt Facility 47500000 - Solid Waste Managemnt Facility 601005 - Elected And Exempt Salary 153,556 153,556 153,556 153,556 158,585 158,585 0 0 (153,556) 601020 - Lump Sum Vacation Pay 17,624 17,624 17,624 17,624 17,624 17,624 17,624 17,624 0 601025 - Lump Sum Sick Pay 12,341 12,341 12,341 12,341 12,341 12,341 12,341 12,341 0 601030 - Permanent And Provisional 3,232,728 3,232,728 3,232,728 3,232,728 3,328,669 3,328,669 0 0 (3,232,728) 601045 - Compensated Absence 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 0 601050 - Temporary,Seasonal,Emergency 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 0 601065 - Overtime 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 0 601095 - Personnel Underexpend (174,893)(174,893)(174,893)(174,893)(174,893)(174,893)(174,893)(174,893)0 603005 - Social Security Taxes 254,080 254,080 254,080 254,080 266,769 266,769 0 0 (254,080) 603023 - Pension Expense Adj GASB 68 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 0 603025 - Retirement Or Pension Contrib 450,902 450,902 450,902 450,902 471,456 471,456 0 0 (450,902) 603040 - Ltd Contributions 13,788 13,788 13,788 13,788 14,193 14,193 0 0 (13,788) 603045 - Supplemental Retirement (401K)31,510 31,510 31,510 31,510 32,541 32,541 0 0 (31,510) 603050 - Health Insurance Premiums 846,194 846,194 846,194 846,194 873,025 873,025 0 0 (846,194) 603055 - Employee Serv Res Fund Charges 72,156 72,156 72,156 72,156 72,156 72,156 72,156 72,156 0 603056 - OPEB- Current Year 76,776 76,776 76,776 76,776 76,776 76,776 76,776 76,776 0 603075 - OPEB-GASB 74/75 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 0 605025 - Employee Awards-Service Pins 48,000 48,000 48,000 48,000 48,000 48,000 48,000 48,000 0 607005 - Janitorial Supplies & Service 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 0 607010 - Maintenance - Grounds 205,500 455,500 455,500 455,500 455,500 455,500 455,500 455,500 250,000 607015 - Maintenance - Buildings 503,000 503,000 503,000 503,000 503,000 503,000 503,000 503,000 0 607030 - Maintenance - Other 7,100 7,100 7,100 7,100 7,100 7,100 7,100 7,100 0 607040 - Facilities Management Charges 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 0 10-30-2025 01:57 PM 1.05.01F - Expenditures/Revenues Budget at all Stages | Tab: Fund, Org, Account Page 1 of 4 Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Mgt Facility Expenditures Budget 2026 Final Adopted Budget Fund / Org / Account 2026 Adjusted Base Budget Total Budget at Request Stage Total Budget at Review Stage Total Budget at Technical Stage Total Budget at Proposed Stage Total Budget at Council Stage Total Budget at Veto Stage 2026 Adopted Budget Variance $ 609005 - Food Provisions 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 0 609010 - Clothing Provisions 17,500 17,500 17,500 17,500 17,500 17,500 17,500 17,500 0 609030 - Medical Supplies 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 0 609035 - Safety Supplies 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 0 609040 - Laundry Supplies And Services 5,300 5,300 5,300 5,300 5,300 5,300 5,300 5,300 0 611005 - Subscriptions & Memberships 4,215 4,215 4,215 4,215 4,215 4,215 4,215 4,215 0 611015 - Education & Training Serv/ Supp 3,100 3,100 3,100 3,100 3,100 3,100 3,100 3,100 0 613005 - Printing Charges 6,300 6,300 6,300 6,300 6,300 6,300 6,300 6,300 0 613015 - Printing Supplies 5,500 5,500 5,500 5,500 5,500 5,500 5,500 5,500 0 615005 - Office Supplies 6,200 6,200 6,200 6,200 6,200 6,200 6,200 6,200 0 615015 - Computer Supplies 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 0 615016 - Computer Software Subscription 6,714 6,714 6,714 6,714 6,714 6,714 6,714 6,714 0 615020 - Computer Software <$5,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 0 615025 - Computers & Components < $5000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 0 615030 - Communication Equip- Noncapital 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 0 615035 - Small Equipment (Non- Computer)5,500 5,500 5,500 5,500 5,500 5,500 5,500 5,500 0 615040 - Postage 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 0 615050 - Meals & Refreshments 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 0 615055 - Volunteer Awards 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 0 615065 - Credit Card Charges 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 0 617005 - Maintenance - Office Equip 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 0 617010 - Maint - Machinery And Equip 167,000 167,000 167,000 167,000 167,000 167,000 167,000 167,000 0 617015 - Maintenance - Software 8,150 8,150 8,150 8,150 8,150 8,150 8,150 8,150 0 617025 - Parts Purchases 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 0 617035 - Maint - Autos & Equip-Fleet 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 0 10-30-2025 01:57 PM 1.05.01F - Expenditures/Revenues Budget at all Stages | Tab: Fund, Org, Account Page 2 of 4 Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Mgt Facility Expenditures Budget 2026 Final Adopted Budget Fund / Org / Account 2026 Adjusted Base Budget Total Budget at Request Stage Total Budget at Review Stage Total Budget at Technical Stage Total Budget at Proposed Stage Total Budget at Council Stage Total Budget at Veto Stage 2026 Adopted Budget Variance $ 619005 - Gasoline, Diesel, Oil & Grease 917,000 817,000 817,000 817,000 817,000 817,000 817,000 817,000 (100,000) 619015 - Mileage Allowance 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0 619025 - Travel & Transprtatn- Employees 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 0 619035 - Vehicle Rental Charges 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 0 619045 - Vehicle Replacement Charges 80,671 88,149 88,149 88,149 88,149 88,149 88,149 88,149 7,478 621005 - Heat And Fuel 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 0 621010 - Light And Power 61,100 61,100 61,100 61,100 61,100 61,100 61,100 61,100 0 621015 - Water And Sewer 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 0 621020 - Telephone 40,700 45,400 45,400 45,400 45,400 45,400 45,400 45,400 4,700 621025 - Mobile Telephone 6,736 6,736 6,736 6,736 6,736 6,736 6,736 6,736 0 623005 - Non-Cap Improv Othr Than Build 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 0 625005 - Non-Capital Buildings 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 0 629020 - Maintenance - Roads & Streets 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 0 633010 - Rent - Buildings 7,752 7,752 7,752 7,752 7,752 7,752 7,752 7,752 0 633015 - Rent - Equipment 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 0 639020 - Laboratory Fees 2,265 2,265 2,265 2,265 2,265 2,265 2,265 2,265 0 639025 - Other Professional Fees 553,500 553,500 553,500 553,500 553,500 553,500 553,500 553,500 0 639045 - Contracted Services 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 0 641005 - Shop,Crew,&Deputy Small Tools 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200 0 641015 - Refuse Bags 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 0 641025 - Insecticides,Herbicides&Pesti 7,400 7,400 7,400 7,400 7,400 7,400 7,400 7,400 0 643010 - Road Base And Chips 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 0 643030 - Traffic Control Supplies 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 0 645005 - Contract Hauling 2,127,773 2,137,150 2,137,150 2,137,150 2,137,150 2,137,150 2,137,150 2,137,150 9,377 645015 - Recycling Activities 418,000 512,000 512,000 512,000 512,000 512,000 512,000 512,000 94,000 645020 - Landfill Cover Material 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 0 10-30-2025 01:57 PM 1.05.01F - Expenditures/Revenues Budget at all Stages | Tab: Fund, Org, Account Page 3 of 4 Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Mgt Facility Expenditures Budget 2026 Final Adopted Budget Fund / Org / Account 2026 Adjusted Base Budget Total Budget at Request Stage Total Budget at Review Stage Total Budget at Technical Stage Total Budget at Proposed Stage Total Budget at Council Stage Total Budget at Veto Stage 2026 Adopted Budget Variance $ 645025 - Landfill Regulatory Fees 168,141 179,743 179,743 179,743 179,743 179,743 179,743 179,743 11,602 645030 - Household Hazard Waste&Cleanup 1,194,995 1,215,634 1,215,634 1,215,634 1,215,634 1,215,634 1,215,634 1,215,634 20,639 647005 - Security & Law Enforcment Svcs 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 0 659005 - Costs In Handling Collections 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 0 663010 - Council Overhead Cost 55,137 55,137 55,137 55,137 55,137 55,137 55,137 55,137 0 663015 - Mayor Overhead Cost 9,427 9,427 9,427 9,427 9,427 9,427 9,427 9,427 0 663025 - Auditor Overhead Cost 40,451 40,451 40,451 40,451 40,451 40,451 40,451 40,451 0 663030 - District Attorney Overhead Cos 26,757 26,757 26,757 26,757 26,757 26,757 26,757 26,757 0 663040 - Info Services Overhead Cost 125,185 125,185 125,185 125,185 125,185 125,185 125,185 125,185 0 663045 - Purchasing Overhead Cost 17,964 17,964 17,964 17,964 17,964 17,964 17,964 17,964 0 663050 - Human Resources Overhead Cost 65,840 65,840 65,840 65,840 65,840 65,840 65,840 65,840 0 663055 - Gov'T Immunity Overhead Cost 31,726 31,726 31,726 31,726 31,726 31,726 31,726 31,726 0 663070 - Mayor Finance Overhead Cost 105,514 105,514 105,514 105,514 105,514 105,514 105,514 105,514 0 667010 - Special Claims 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 0 667035 - Landfill Closure & Postclosure 1,002,000 1,002,000 1,002,000 1,002,000 1,002,000 1,002,000 1,002,000 1,002,000 0 669010 - Depreciation 3,159,999 2,929,108 2,929,108 2,929,108 2,929,108 2,929,108 2,929,108 2,929,108 (230,891) 671005 - Loss On Sale Of Asset 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 0 693020 - Interfund Charges 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 0 Total Solid Waste Managemnt Facility 19,677,424 19,744,329 19,744,329 19,744,329 19,906,809 19,906,809 14,761,571 14,761,571 (4,915,853) Grand Total 19,677,424 19,744,329 19,744,329 19,744,329 19,906,809 19,906,809 14,761,571 14,761,571 (4,915,853) 10-30-2025 01:57 PM 1.05.01F - Expenditures/Revenues Budget at all Stages | Tab: Fund, Org, Account Page 4 of 4 This page has intentionally been left blank Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Mgt Facility 2026 Revenue Budget Fund / Org / Account 2026 Adjusted Base Budget Total Budget at Request Stage Total Budget at Review Stage Total Budget at Technical Stage Total Budget at Proposed Stage Total Budget at Council Stage Total Budget at Veto Stage 2026 Adopted Budget Variance $ 730 - Solid Waste Managemnt Facility 47500000 - Solid Waste Managemnt Facility 421220 - Methane Gas Sales 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 0 421270 - Compost Sales 261,500 261,500 261,500 261,500 261,500 261,500 261,500 261,500 0 421290 - Landfill Charge 18,793,500 19,155,000 19,155,000 19,155,000 19,155,000 19,155,000 19,155,000 19,155,000 361,500 421296 - Metal Recycling Revenue 275,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 (25,000) 421335 - Incoming Green Waste 380,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 20,000 427055 - Soil Regeneration Royalties 300,000 375,000 375,000 375,000 375,000 375,000 375,000 375,000 75,000 429005 - Interest - Time Deposits 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 (200,000) 429015 - Interest-Miscellaneous 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 0 Total Solid Waste Managemnt Facility 21,935,000 22,166,500 22,166,500 22,166,500 22,166,500 22,166,500 22,166,500 22,166,500 231,500 Grand Total 21,935,000 22,166,500 22,166,500 22,166,500 22,166,500 22,166,500 22,166,500 22,166,500 231,500 10-30-2025 02:10 PM 1.05.01F - Expenditures/Revenues Budget at all Stages | Tab: Fund, Org, Account Page 1 of 1 This page has intentionally been left blank Fund Summary - Proprietary 2026 Mayor Proposed Budget Fund Type / Fund Beginning Cash Balance Unrestrict/ (Restrict) Other Revenue Transfers In / Other Sources Total Available Budget Depreciation Balance Sheet Transfers Out /Other Uses Ending Cash Balance Enterprise Funds 6,247,000 -22,166,500 -28,413,500 19,906,809 3,129,108 5,771,690 960,000 4,904,109 730 - Solid Waste Managemnt Facility 6,247,000 -22,166,500 -28,413,500 19,906,809 3,129,108 5,771,690 960,000 4,904,109 Total Proprietary 6,247,000 -22,166,500 -28,413,500 19,906,809 3,129,108 5,771,690 960,000 4,904,109 Footnote: Note for Fund 726: The County is a 25% partner and Salt Lake City/Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City is a 75% partner in the Utah Performing Arts Center Agency (UPACA), a joint venture. The purpose of this joint venture is to provide for the acquisition, construction, ownership, operation, maintenance, and improvement of the Eccles Theater in downtown Salt Lake City. The County provides operational, accounting, and other services for UPACA. Note for Fund 730: The County is an equal partner with Salt Lake City in the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Facility (the City/County Landfill), a joint venture. The purpose of this joint venture is to provide solid waste management and disposal services. The County provides operational, accounting, and other services for the City/County Landfill. 10-28-2025 11:33 AM 1.02.02F - Fund Summary - Proprietary | Tab: Proprietary Page 1 of 1 Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Mgt Facility Revenue Budget 2026 Proposed Budget Fund / Organization 2022 Actuals 2023 Actuals 2024 Actuals 2025 Adopted Budget 2025 June Adjusted Budget 2026 Mayor Proposed Variance $Variance % 730 - Solid Waste Managemnt Facility 18,991,939 21,243,971 22,296,678 20,810,000 21,935,000 22,166,500 231,500 1.06% 47500000 - Solid Waste Managemnt Facility 18,991,939 21,243,971 22,296,678 20,810,000 21,935,000 22,166,500 231,500 1.06% Grand Total Revenues 18,991,939 21,243,971 22,296,678 20,810,000 21,935,000 22,166,500 231,500 1.06% Footnote: In an effort to improve clarity and comparability the revenue figures in this report exclude prior year fund balances that are considered available sources of revenue because they can be found in other sections of this budget document. This report also excludes Other Financing Sources, Transfers In, and recategorizing fund balances from restricted/committed/assigned to unassigned. Within this budget document, please see the Fund Summary report for prior year fund balances, fund unrestrictions, and the Other Financing Sources and Transfers reports for additional information. Please note that prior budget documents included beginning fund balances and unrestrictions in the budget columns of the revenue report. Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Mgt Facility Expenditures Budget 2026 Proposed Budget Fund / Organization 2022 Actuals 2023 Actuals 2024 Actuals 2025 Adopted Budget 2025 June Adjusted Budget 2026 Mayor Proposed Variance $Variance % 730 - Solid Waste Managemnt Facility 15,270,982 16,205,661 17,442,097 18,430,917 19,177,545 19,906,809 729,264 3.80% 47500000 - Solid Waste Managemnt Facility 15,269,486 16,205,381 17,442,097 18,430,917 19,177,545 19,906,809 729,264 3.80% 47509900 - Solid Waste Capital Projects 1,496 280 -----0.00% Grand Total Expenditures 15,270,982 16,205,661 17,442,097 18,430,917 19,177,545 19,906,809 729,264 3.80% Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Mgt Facility Other Financing Uses 2026 Proposed Budget Fund / Account 2022 Actuals 2023 Actuals 2024 Actuals 2025 Adopted Budget 2025 June Adjusted Budget 2026 Mayor Proposed Variance $Variance % 730 - Solid Waste Managemnt Facility 920,000 960,000 960,000 960,000 960,000 960,000 -0.00% 781005 - Distributions to Owners 920,000 960,000 960,000 960,000 960,000 960,000 -0.00% Grand Total Other Financing Uses 920,000 960,000 960,000 960,000 960,000 960,000 -0.00% Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Mgt Facility Full Time Equivalent Budget 2026 Mayor Proposed Budget Fund / Organization 2025 June Adjusted Budget 2025 Year- End Adjustments 2025 Current Adjusted Budget 2026 Adjusted Base Budget Request and Review Stage Changes Technical Stage Changes Proposed Stage Changes 2026 Mayor Proposed FTE Variance (Prop - Adj Base) 730 - Solid Waste Managemnt Facility 52.00 -52.00 52.00 ---52.00 - 47500000 - Solid Waste Managemnt Facility 52.00 -52.00 52.00 ---52.00 - Grand Total FTEs 52.00 0.00 52.00 52.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 52.00 0.00 Capital Projects 2026 Mayor Proposed Budget New Addition / Reduction Re-budget Transfer TOTAL EXPENSE Revenue / Balance Sheet NET Fund: 730 - Solid Waste Managemnt Facility --3,000,000 -3,000,000 -3,000,000 Department ID: 4750990000 - Solid Waste Capital Projects --3,000,000 -3,000,000 -3,000,000 Project: 2019_METHANE - 2019_METHANE - METHANE LINES --3,000,000 -3,000,000 -3,000,000 Grand Total - Capital Projects --3,000,000 -3,000,000 -3,000,000 This page has intentionally been left blank 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 www.slc.gov/council/ TO:City Council Members FROM: Michael Sanders Budget & Policy Analyst DATE:December 02, 2025 RE:PUBLIC BENEFITS ANALYSIS – VALLEY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Administration is proposing a resolution to authorize the release of Salt Lake City’s reversionary interest in Valley Behavioral Health’s property located at 107 South 800 West, Salt Lake City. The project site is half an acre in size, is zoned TSA-UN-T, and is located approximately 0.4 miles from a TRAX station. The proposal includes the city releasing the reversionary interest in the property currently valued at approximately $2.4 Million. This would allow the property to be redeveloped from an eight unit building to a 68-unit permanent supportive housing project. Additionally, the proposal includes adopting a new restrictive use agreement with Saltair Lofts LLC and adopts and incorporates the findings of the public benefits analysis. Goal of the briefing: Prepare to consider the resolution at the December 9th Formal Meeting. A public hearing is required for this item and is scheduled for December 9th. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. The Council may wish to ask for additional clarification on what recourse the City has if the restrictive use agreement is violated. 2. The Council may wish to ask the Administration what housing and supportive resources will be provided to current residents during redevelopment. 3. The Council may wish to discuss whether a 50-year guarantee is a long enough or if they would like to contemplate a longer period. ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION The property was previously owned by the City and was conveyed to Valley Behavioral Health in 1992 through a quit claim deed with a revisionary interest which required Valley to pay to the City the appraised value of the property in the event Valley failed to continue the operation of permanent housing for unsheltered people with handicaps or Valley sold the property with the City’s approval. To be able to redevelop the property from 8 units to 68 units, Valley is planning to apply for Low-Income Housing Tax Credits. To be eligible for these credits, Valley must transfer ownership of the property to Saltair Page | 2 Lofts LLC. This transfer would trigger the reversionary interest unless council takes action as proposed by the Administration. Valley is the managing partner of Saltair Lofts LLC. Restrictive Use Agreement The project must include a minimum of 68 affordable units serving individuals experiencing chronic homelessness Income eligibility requirements: o 5 units restricted to households at or below 30% AMI o 63 units restricted to households at or below 40% AMI Maximum rent calculations will be based on the following AMI levels: o 5 units at 25% AMI o 63 units at 35% AMI At least 9 units must be designated and fully accessible for individuals with mobility impairments. Supportive services and amenities will include: o On-site case management o Clinical services o Resident support programming o Community kitchen o Fitness area o Computer room o Outdoor courtyard The project must be all-electric and will meet Energy Star MFNC and Enterprise Green Communities certification standards. The City will retain the ability to monitor compliance, including inspections and review of affordability documentation. The agreement will remain in effect for 50 years. In the event of foreclosure, the only surviving restriction will require all units to remain available to households with incomes at or below 60% AMI. According to the Administration, the restrictive use agreement allows the City to sue for performance to require the owner to follow the terms of our agreement. In addition, since this is a LIHTC project, Utah Housing Corporation and the project’s tax credit investors also have agreements that Valley provide permanent supportive housing and services that they have committed to. For information regarding current AMI numbers, see Attachment 1. Public Benefit Analysis In accordance with Utah Code §10-8-2(3)(e), a public benefits analysis was conducted for this project. The following public benefits have been identified as part of this project: 1. Permanent supportive housing creation 2. Behavioral health and support services 3. Sustainability and design excellence 4. Transit-oriented development 5. Economic and social value The following quality of life improvements have been identified as part of this project: 1. Provides a supportive, service rich environment enabling residents to stabilize their lives 2. Integrates behavioral health care and housing, reducing the strain on public safety and healthcare systems 3. Reduces nuisance activity and blight in the area 4. Promotes community cohesion 5. Enhances the comfort and convenience of residents citywide The Administration has found that this proposal aligns with the following City Plans Page | 4 Housing SLC (2023-2027) Thriving in Place Climate Positive 2040 ATTACHMENTS 1. 2025 HUD Area Median Income (AMI) Levels ATTACHMENT 1 2025 HUD Area Median Income (AMI) Levels Page | 5 SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL To:  Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date: 11/21/2025 Date Sent to Council: 11/24/2025 From: Department * Community and Neighborhood Employee Name: Logan Hunt E-mail Logan.Hunt@slc.gov Department Director Signature Director Signed Date 11/21/2025 Chief Administrator Officer's Signature Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date 11/24/2025 Subject: Valley Behavioral Health PBA Additional Staff Contact:Presenters/Staff Table Document Type Resolution Budget Impact? Yes No Recommendation: See attached PDF. Background/Discussion See attached PDF. Will there need to be a public hearing for this item?* Yes No Public Process This page has intentionally been left blank ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Tammy Hunsaker Director CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Date Received: Date Sent to Council: Jill Love, Chief Administrative Officer TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 11/18/25 Chris Wharton, Chair FROM: Tammy Hunsaker, Director, Department of Community and Neighborhoods (CAN) SUBJECT: Public Benefits Analysis for the release of Salt Lake City’s reversionary interest on a property currently owned by Valley Behavioral Health located at 107 South 800 West (“Property”) in exchange for a Restrictive Use Agreement recorded on the Property preserving certain public benefits detailed in the attached Term Sheet, including helping ensure all 68 units are affordable permanent supportive housing for formerly homeless individuals. STAFF CONTACT: Mike Akerlow, Deputy Director 801-244-1070 Mike.akerlow@slc.gov Logan Hunt, Real Estate Services Director, 801-634-9054 logan.hunt@slc.gov DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of the attached resolution authorizing the release of the Salt Lake City’s reversionary interest in the Property as established in the 1992 Quit Claim Deed to allow for the development of Saltair Lofts, a 68-unit permanent supportive housing project. The release will be executed in exchange for a Restrictive Use Agreement preserving certain public benefits detailed in the attached Term Sheet, including helping ensure all 68 units are affordable permanent supportive housing for formerly homeless individuals. BUDGET IMPACT: No change to the adopted budget. The City will forgo $2,400,000 in revenue associated with the reversionary interest in exchange for the long-term public benefits secured through the Restrictive Use Agreement. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Property, located at 107 South 800 West, was originally conveyed by Salt Lake City to Valley Behavioral Health (“Valley”) through a Quit Claim Deed in 1992 containing a reversionary interest in favor of the City. Valley subsequently developed the site as an eight-unit affordable housing project that has been in continuous use since construction in 1993. The reversionary interest reserved by the City through this deed would require Valley to pay to City the appraised value of the property in the event Valley fails to continue the operation of permanent housing for “handicapped homeless” or Valley sells the Property with the City’s approval. Valley now intends to redevelop the site into a 68-unit permanent supportive housing development for formerly homeless individuals, including those with disabilities. For the purposes of acquiring Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (“LIHTC”) Valley must transfer ownership of the property to Saltair Lofts, LLC (“Saltair”), of which Valley is the managing partner. This conveyance to Saltair triggers the City’s reversionary interest and would require Valley to pay the City appraised value of the Property. Valley will be the lead service provider for the residents, with Housing Connect providing operating support and property management through project-based vouchers. This includes on- site case management. The new development will incorporate all-electric building systems and will comply with the ENERGY STAR Multifamily New Construction (MFNC) and Enterprise Green Communities energy efficiency standards. The project will include amenities such as a community courtyard, clinic, case management offices, community kitchen, exercise room, and computer lab. The City’s participation through the release of its reversionary interest in exchange for a recorded Restrictive Use Agreement ensures that the new Saltair Lofts project will preserve affordability, specifically for disabled residents, and supportive services long-term. The Restrictive Use Agreement will be recorded on title and will run with the land for the duration of the affordability term, ensuring compliance and annual reporting to the City. This action aligns with the City’s Housing SLC (2023–2027) plan and the Thriving in Place strategy, both of which prioritize the use of City resources to preserve and expand deeply affordable and supportive housing. The project will replace eight older units with 68 new, high- quality supportive homes while maintaining long-term affordability and on-site behavioral health services. PUBLIC PROCESS: Any adjustment to the purchase price or lease rate from fair market value will be subject to approval by the City Council pursuant to §10-8-2 and City Code 2.58. Accordingly, the City has completed a public benefits analysis that includes the: A. Specific benefits the City will receive in return for discounting the property or lease; B. The City’s purpose for the discount, including an analysis of the way the appropriation will be used to enhance the safety, health, prosperity, moral well-being, peace, order, comfort, or convenience of the inhabitants of the City; and C. Whether the discount is necessary and appropriate to accomplish the reasonable goals and objectives of the City in the area of economic development, job creation, affordable housing, elimination of a development impediment, job preservation, the preservation of historic structures and property, and any other public purpose. The managing member of Saltair Lofts is Valley, a Utah nonprofit organization. However, the majority partner, Richman Group is a for-profit organization, and, as such, a formal public benefit analysis is required under Utah Code. EXHIBITS: A. Site Map B. Quit Claim Deed C. Resolution D. Term Sheet E. Public Benefits Analysis EXHIBIT A: SITE MAP EXHIBIT B: RESOLUTION RESOLUTION NO. OF 2025 (Authorizing the release of Salt Lake City’s reversionary interest in a property located at 107 South 800 West, Salt Lake City) WHEREAS, Salt Lake City Corporation (the “City”) previously conveyed certain real property located at 107 South 800 West, Salt Lake City, Utah (the “Property”), to Valley Behavioral Health, Incorporated, a Utah nonprofit corporation (“Valley”), through a Quit Claim Deed recorded in 1992 that reserved a reversionary interest to the City; and WHEREAS, Valley now intends to convey the Property to a new entity, Saltair Lofts, LLC, to demolish the existing eight-unit structure and develop a new 68-unit permanent supportive housing project known as “Saltair Lofts” to serve formerly homeless individuals, including those with disabilities; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that releasing the reversionary interest in the Property to help enable the development of Saltair Lofts in exchange for a Restrictive Use Agreement recorded on the Property preserving all 68 units as affordable permanent supportive housing is necessary and appropriate to achieve the City’s housing and community development objectives; and WHEREAS, the City has conducted a Public Benefits Analysis pursuant to Utah Code Section 10-8-2 and Salt Lake City Code Section 2.58, which demonstrates that the release of the reversionary interest provides substantial public benefit through the creation of deeply affordable housing, housing for individuals with disabilities, on-site behavioral health services, and sustainable design practices; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that such release is consistent with the City’s Housing SLC (2023–2027) Plan and Thriving in Place anti-displacement strategy, and that it will enhance the safety, health, and prosperity of City residents; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: 1. The City Council hereby approves the release of the City’s reversionary interest as set forth in the 1992 Quit Claim Deed for the Property located at 107 South 800 West on the condition that a Restrictive Use Agreement be recorded on the Property memorializing the public benefits to be received by the City. 2. The City Council further authorizes the Mayor, or her designee, to execute the Release of Reversionary Interest and the Restrictive Use Agreement consistent with the term sheet attached hereto as Exhibit C. 3. The City Council hereby adopts and incorporates the findings of the Public Benefits Analysis attached hereto as Exhibit D. [Remainder of page intentionally left blank] Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, on TBD, 2025. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By: CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM: Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office /s/ Allison Parks Allison Parks, Deputy City Attorney EXHIBIT C TERM SHEET At the time the Release of the Revisionary Interest is recorded, the Restrictive Use Agreement shall be recorded against the Property and contain, at minimum, the following key terms and obligations: AFFORDABLE HOUSING 1. Unit Requirements: Saltair Lofts, LLC (“Saltair”) shall develop and maintain a minimum of 68 units. The units shall be made available and affordable to individuals meeting the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) adopted definition of chronically homeless. 2. Income Restrictions: Units shall be made available only to households that have an aggregate annual income for all qualifying occupants that is at or below the following area median income (“AMI”) for Salt Lake City Utah, Metro Fair Market Rent Area as annually determined by HUD and adjusted for household size. The income restrictions shall be: a. 5 studio units at 30% AMI b. 63 studio units at 40% AMI 3. Maximum Rents: The annualized rent (which includes all required housing costs such as utilities and other charges uniformly assessed to all apartment units, other than charges for optional services) per affordable unit shall be set forth in a written lease and shall not exceed, for the term of the lease, the maximum monthly gross rental rate utilized by IRC Section 42(g)(2) of the low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) program for the applicable AMI and unit type and as updated annually. Specifically: a. 5 studio units at 25% AMI b. 63 studio units at 35% AMI HOUSING FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES: Within the Project’s 68 units, a minimum of nine units shall be made available to individuals with mobility impairments. Such units shall be designed to ensure full usability by persons with mobility limitations. SUPPORTIVE SERVICES: Saltair shall ensure the following supportive services are provided to the residents: on-site case management, clinical services, and resident support programming consistent with best practices for permanent supportive housing. The building will also include resident amenities including a community kitchen, fitness area, computer room, and outdoor courtyard. SUSTAINABILITY: The Project shall be all-electric and certified under Energy Star MFNC and Enterprise Green Communities standards. MONITORING 1. Saltair will permit annual inspections at reasonable times by City or its designee to determine compliance with these conditions and covenants. 2. Saltair will provide an initial report demonstrating compliance with the public benefits, including the affordability requirements at full occupancy and, if requested by City, provide annual compliance and affordability documentation each year, no later than thirty (30) days after December 31. 3. If requested by the City, Saltair will recertify income annually with source documents or written statements from the household indicating household size and annual income. TERM: The term of this agreement shall extend until 50 consecutive years from the date the agreement is executed. FORECLOSURE: In the event of a foreclosure, the only restriction that would remain on the Property would be for the units to be made available only to households that have an aggregate annual income for all qualifying occupants that is at or below 60% of the “AMI” for Salt Lake City Utah, Metro FMR Fair Market Rent Area as annually determined by HUD and adjusted for household size. EXHIBIT D: PUBLIC BENEFIT ANALYSIS MEMORANDUM TO: City Council Members SUBJECT: Public Benefits Analysis for the release of Salt Lake City’s reversionary interest on a property owned by Valley Behavioral Health located at 107 South 800 West in exchange for a restrictive use agreement recorded on the Property preserving public benefits. INTRODUCTION Salt Lake City (“City”) has a reversionary interest in property located at 107 South 800 West (“Property”). The Property was originally conveyed by the City to Valley Behavioral Health (“Valley”) in 1992. Valley proposes to redevelop the Property into a 68-unit permanent supportive housing project serving formerly homeless individuals, including those with disabilities. For the purposes of acquiring Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (“LIHTC”) Valley must transfer ownership of the Property to a separate legal entity, Saltair Lofts, LLC (“Saltair”), of which Valley is the managing partner. In exchange for the City’s release of its reversionary interest, Saltair will record a Restrictive Use Agreement preserving certain public benefits, including 68 units as affordable, supportive housing for 50 years. The release of the City’s reversionary interest serves a significant public purpose by enabling construction of a new deeply affordable housing development that addresses homelessness and behavioral health challenges through the inclusion of supportive services. Saltair will replace an aging eight-unit structure with a modern, sustainable building that will create 68 homes that will allow residents to access on-site case management, behavioral health services, and community amenities that promote housing stability and well-being. This action directly advances Salt Lake City’s Housing SLC (2023–2027) plan and the Thriving in Place anti-displacement strategy by utilizing City resources to expand permanent supportive housing, improve neighborhood stability, and reduce homelessness. The project’s all-electric design aligns with the City’s Climate Positive 2040 goals, while its proximity to public transit promotes accessibility and sustainability. Accordingly, the City finds that the release of its reversionary interest provides substantial and measurable public benefit consistent with Utah Code §10-8-2. The Restrictive Use Agreement that will be recorded on the Property ensures long-term affordability, supportive services, and accountability, providing lasting value to the City and its residents. LEGAL FRAMEWORK Under Utah law, after first holding a public hearing, a municipal body may appropriate funds “for any purpose that, in the judgment of the municipal legislative body, provides for the safety, health, prosperity, moral well-being, peace, order, comfort, or convenience of the inhabitants of the municipality.” The factors that must be considered by the City Council in determining the propriety of making such an appropriation or waiver to any type of entity or individual other than a nonprofit entity are set forth under Utah Code §10-8-2(3)(e). The factors include: (1) The specific benefits (including intangible benefits) to be received by the City in return for the arrangement; (2) The City’s purpose in making the appropriation, including an analysis of how the safety, health, prosperity, moral well-being, peace, order, comfort or convenience of the residents of Salt Lake City will be enhanced; and (3) Whether the appropriation is “necessary and appropriate” to accomplish the reasonable goals and objectives of the City in the areas of economic development, job creation, affordable housing, blight elimination, resource center development, job preservation, the preservation of historic structures and property, and any other public purpose. BACKGROUND OF THE PROJECT AND CITY PROPERTY The Property located at 107 South 800 West was originally conveyed by the City to Valley in 1992 for the purposes of developing and maintaining housing for homeless and disabled individuals. The Quit Claim Deed included a reversionary interest in favor of the City. Valley constructed an eight-unit affordable apartment complex on the site in 1993, which has since served low-income individuals in need of stable housing. The reversionary interest provides that in the event that Valley sells the property, upon City approval, the appraised value at the time of sale of the land shall be repaid to the City. Valley now proposes to redevelop the site into a 68-unit permanent supportive housing development that will provide deeply affordable housing for formerly homeless individuals, including people with disabilities and mobility impairments. The redevelopment will replace aging, inefficient housing with a modern, sustainable facility that provides comprehensive on-site supportive services (“Project”). Valley will convey the Property to Saltair, which triggers the reversionary interest established in the deed. The project site is half an acre in size and is zoned TSA-UN-T, located approximately .4 miles from a TRAX station. The new building will feature ground-floor clinical and community service space, including a resident clinic, case management offices, community kitchen, fitness area, computer room, and outdoor courtyard. Valley will serve as both developer and lead service provider, leveraging over three decades of experience operating supportive housing and behavioral health programs. Housing Connect will provide property management services through project-based vouchers, ensuring long-term operational stability. The City’s release of its reversionary interest is a necessary and appropriate action to enable the development of the new Project. Further, requiring Saltair to record a Restrictive Use Agreement on the Property will ensure long-term affordability, housing for individuals with mobility impairments, and supportive services. TERMS OF THE RESTRICTIVE USE AGREEMENT AND PUBLIC BENEFITS PROVIDED I. Terms of Restrictive Use Agreement; Costs to the City The City’s release of its 1992 reversionary interest will be executed concurrently with the recording of a Restrictive Use Agreement on the Property. The Restrictive Use Agreement will: • Ensure 5 studio units are preserved as permanent supportive housing for households earning at or below 30% of the area median income (“AMI”), adjusted for household size; • Ensure 63 studio units are preserved as permanent supportive housing for households earning at or below 40% of the area median income (“AMI”), adjusted for household size; • Require a minimum of nine units to be made available to individuals with mobility impairments; • Remain in effect for a minimum of 50 years, running with the land and binding all successors and assigns. • Require annual reporting to the City verifying compliance with affordability and tenant selection. • Ensure the Project is constructed as all-electric and certified under Energy Star MFNC and Enterprise Green Communities standards. Upon execution, the City’s reversionary interest will be fully released, and the Restrictive Use Agreement will be recorded to ensure long-term enforceability and monitoring by the City. II. Costs to the City The appraised value of the Property as of June 2024, is $2,240,000. In accordance with the reversionary interest, this amount would have been paid to the City upon approving the sale of the property. The release of the reversionary interest makes the Project financially feasible by offsetting the costs associated with supportive housing and on-site service space. The City’s contribution of the release of its reversionary interest in exchange for long-term affordability for homeless and disabled individuals and supportive housing commitments is necessary and appropriate to accomplish the reasonable goals and objectives of the City through the development of the public benefits in the Project. II. Public Benefits Provided by the Project. The Project delivers significant and quantifiable public benefits that justify the City’s release of its reversionary interest under Utah Code §10-8-2, including: Permanent Supportive Housing Creation: 68 new, service-enriched units targeted to formerly homeless individuals and persons with disabilities. Behavioral Health and Support Services: Comprehensive on-site services including case management, clinical treatment, and life skills programs provided by Valley Behavioral Health’s experienced team. Sustainability and Design Excellence: All-electric, high-performance building design meeting Energy Star MFNC and Enterprise Green Communities standards. Transit-Oriented Development: Located within walking distance of TRAX and bus lines, reducing car dependence and supporting the City’s goal of improving access to opportunity for likely transit users who are underserved. Economic and Social Value: Reduces City expenditures on emergency and crisis response services through stable housing solutions. III. Salt Lake City’s Purposes and Enhancing the Quality of Life for Residents. By releasing the reversionary interest, the City directly advances its purpose of improving safety, health, prosperity, and moral well-being for residents. The project converts an aging and underutilized property into a community asset that provides: • A supportive, service-rich environment enabling residents to stabilize their lives. • Integration of behavioral health care and housing, reducing strain on public safety and healthcare systems. The Project will also help reduce nuisance activity and blight in the area, promote community cohesion, and enhance the comfort and convenience of residents citywide. IV. Accomplishing Salt Lake City’s Goals. By developing 68 units of permanent supportive housing, the Project supports the City’s Housing Plan, Housing SLC (2023-2027), which outlines strategies to address Salt Lake City’s shortage of approximately 5,500 units of affordable housing. Housing SLC heavily prioritizes individuals and households who face the greatest risk of housing insecurity and displacement. To do this, the City has developed the following goals: 1) Make progress toward closing the housing gap of 5,500 units of deeply affordable housing by entitling a minimum of 2,000 deeply affordable (30% AMI or below) units and a minimum of 2,000 affordable (31%-80% AMI) units throughout the city. 2) Increasing housing stability throughout the city. The plan also provides guidance for evaluating and appropriating City funds for housing. The priorities relevant to the Project are as follows: 1) Incentivizing new residential development where it will benefit the most people. 2) Support new housing at all income levels by making it easy and attractive to build affordable housing. 3) Increase spending on rental assistance and affordable housing construction and develop new funding sources to make it possible. 4) Create rental housing opportunities in every neighborhood. Additionally, the Project helps further Strategic Priority 3e of Thriving in Place, the City’s anti- displacement strategy plan, to produce more affordable housing, prioritizing long-term affordability, supportive services, and transit access. CONCLUSION The development of the Project will provide significant benefit to residents of the City. The City’s release of its reversionary interest in exchange for the Restrictive Use Agreement for the Project represents an appropriate use of City resources to achieve the City’s reasonable goals and objectives…in the area of economic development, job creation, affordable housing, blight elimination, resource center development, job preservation, the preservation of historic structures and property. This contribution enables the creation of 68 new supportive housing units, ensures long-term affordability, and provides vital on-site behavioral health services that improve resident outcomes and reduce public costs. Accordingly, Salt Lake City finds that the release of its reversionary interest provides substantial public benefit consistent with Utah Code §10-8-2 and City Code §2.58, enhances the welfare of residents, and is in the best interest of the City and its inhabitants. This page has intentionally been left blank 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: Jennifer Bruno, Lehua Weaver, DATE: December 2, 2025 RE: FY 2026 Budget Amendment #3 PROJECT TIMELINE: ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE Budget Amendment #3 includes three proposed amendments (grants) , including $4,139,705 in revenues. The amendment proposes changes in one fund. No General Fund expenses are proposed in Budget Amendment No. 3; therefore, if the three grants are adopted, the available fund balance will remain 12.71 percent of the FY 2026 Adopted Budget, or $1,498,933 below the 13% minimum target. The Administration indicates that an update on impact fees will be provided with the next budget amendment transmittal. Page | 3 Revenue Update The Administration provided the following revenue numbers (see below), and indicated the Sales, Use & Excise decrease is due to natural gas revenue from Enbridge (municipal energy tax). The revenues are trending lower, and staff will continue to monitor this revenue line item and are looking into final rates that were adopted across the last few years. Page | 4 Fund Balance Chart No General Fund expenses are proposed in Budget Amendment No. 3; therefore, the available fund balance will remain at 12.71 percent of the FY26 Adopted Budget. For context, at budget adoption, fund balance was at 12.93 percent. ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION Page | 5 Section A: New Items None Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources None Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources None Section D: Housekeeping None Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources E-1: COPS Technology & Equipment Grant - Subaward from Davis County ($224,000 - Misc. Grant Fund) The Davis County Sheriff's Department applied for and received a COPS grant in the amount of $1.5 million from the Department of Justice. They are sub-awarding $659,000 to Salt Lake County, $165,000 to Tooele County and $224,000 to Salt Lake City $224,000 as reimbursement for the purchase of equipment. The grant will pay for license plate reader cameras which will be posted on traffic light poles at major intersections to and from the city, such as Beck Street. The Public Hearing for this grant was held November 18, 2025. E-2: Jordan River Water Trail River Restoration & Recreation Project Grant ($666,000 - Misc. Grant Fund) This grant helps fund the removal of hazardous vegetation from the Jordan River's riverbed, banks and canopy, ensuring a safe, navigable waterway while improving habitat quality. The first phase, completed between 2022- 2024, focused on a full sweep of the riverbed, removing decades worth of dead and downed trees. Following completion of this phase of the project, canoes and kayaks are now able to navigate the full length of Salt Lake City’s portion of the river without obstacles. The current phase will address riverbanks and tree canopy management, with the goal of reducing hazards from unstable trees and preventing organic debris from entering the river. Public Lands is using $135,000 of operational funds as a required match. These funds will be used to employ a contractor to do the required work. The Public Hearing for this grant was held October 21, 2025. E-3: FY26 Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Grant – ($3,249,704 – Misc. Grant Fund) The City was awarded funds from an annual formula driven grant which the state provides for homeless shelter mitigation. The City has received this grant each year since FY 2020. The state allocates funding each year to local governments with homeless shelters within their boundaries. The grant provides financial assistance to help cover the expenses related to providing shelter for the unhoused. The total of this award is $3,249,704.89, an amount determined by an allocation formula outlined in Utah State Code and will primarily cover the ongoing personnel costs of 15 SLCPD officers, 3 SLCPD Sergeants, and 1 SLCPD Lieutenant. In addition, the grant will cover overtime and personnel costs for winter overflow shelter response approximately 7,000 hours. In past years, the grant provided funding for the Homeless Engagement and Response Team (HEART), as well as subawards to the Downtown Alliance and Volunteers of America (VOA), in addition to Police staff and equipment. This will be the first year the grant will solely fund Police personnel. The Public Hearing for this grant was held July 8, 2025. Section F: Donations None Section G: Council Consent Agenda – Grant Awards None Page | 6 Section I: Council Added Items None 1. Ongoing Costs to the General Fund COPS – Community Oriented Policing Services CAFR – Comprehensive Annual Financial Report FTE – Full time Employee / Equivalent FY – Fiscal Year GF – General Fund HEART – Homeless Engagement and Response Team IMS – Information Management Services VOA – Volunteers of America Attachment 1: 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 Page | 7 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 Employ ee (FTEs) Notes TOTAL $209,414 Budget Amendment #3 Overview of Budget Amendment FINANCE DEPARTMENT The amendment proposes changes in the grants fund only, with a total revenue increase of $4,139,705 and a corresponding expenditure increase of $4,139,705. Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources E-1: COPS Technology and Equipment Program - $224,000 (Police) E-2: Jordan River Water Trail River Restoration & Recreation Project - $666,000 (Public Lands) E-3: Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation - $3,249,704.89 (Police) Budget Impact FINANCE DEPARTMENT No financial impact to General Fund with this Budget Amendment Fund Balance: 12.71% Revenue Update w/ Transmittal Revenue Update – Through October 2025 Revenue FY26 Annual Budget FY26 Amended Budget Projection Amended Variance Favorable/(Unfavorable) Property Taxes 148,580,334 148,580,334 148,580,334 - Sales, Use & Excise Taxes 126,026,000 126,026,000 125,326,000 (700,000) Franchise Taxes 17,220,000 17,220,000 17,220,000 - Total Taxes 291,826,334 291,826,334 291,126,334 (700,000) Charges For Services 6,821,820 6,821,820 5,650,105 (1,171,715) Fines & Forfeitures 3,085,827 3,085,827 3,064,533 (21,294) Interest Income 9,000,000 9,000,000 9,000,000 - Interfund Service Charges 34,569,169 34,569,169 34,578,896 9,727 Intergovernmental Revenue 6,205,000 6,205,000 6,157,468 (47,532) Licenses 21,847,694 21,847,694 21,890,354 42,660 Miscellaneous Revenue 3,838,663 3,838,663 4,098,992 260,329 Parking Meter Revenue 3,273,255 3,273,255 4,017,803 744,548 Parking Tickets 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 - Permits 18,981,859 18,981,859 19,407,472 425,613 Property Sale Proceeds - - 23,428 23,428 Gain on Property Dispositions - - 272 272 Rental & Other Income 1,201,460 1,201,460 1,283,011 81,551 Operating Transfers In 24,780,192 24,780,192 24,780,192 - Total W/O Special Tax 135,804,939 135,804,939 136,152,526 347,587 Sales Tax Addition 1/2%58,000,000 58,000,000 58,000,000 - Total General Fund 485,631,273 485,631,273 485,278,860 (352,413) FINANCE DEPARTMENT Revenue Update (-) Sales, Use and Excise Tax: Decrease due to natural gas tax Mild weather, subdued prices based on industry trends (-) Charges For Services: Due to reduction in Police Secondary Employment FY26 Budget was developed during contract negotiation Correlated to expenditures, Budget Neutral (+) Miscellaneous Revenue: Fire Reimbursement Palisades Fire and NM Flooding (+) Parking Meter Revenue: Increased due to increase to rates and hours (+) Permits: Increase due to building permit related activities Questions SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL To:  Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date: 11/18/2025 Date Sent to Council: 11/18/2025 From: Department * Finance Employee Name: Hillier, Randy E-mail Randy.Hillier@slc.gov Department Director Signature Director Signed Date 11/18/2025 Chief Administrator Officer's Signature Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date 11/18/2025 Subject: FY26 Budget Amendment #3 Additional Staff Contact: Greg Cleary, Mary Beth Thompson Presenters/Staff Table Greg Cleary: greg.cleary@slc.gov and Mary Beth Thompson: marybeth.thompson@slc.gov Document Type Ordinance Recommendation: The Administration recommends that subsequent to a public hearing, the City Council adopt the following amendments to the FY 2026 adopted budget Background/Discussion The Administration is requesting a budget amendment totaling $0.00 in expenses in the general fund. The amendment proposes changes in the grants fund only, with a total revenue increase of $4,139,705 and a corresponding expenditure increase of $4,139,705. A summary spreadsheet outlining proposed budget changes is attached. The Administration requests this document be modified based on the decisions of the Council. Will there need to be a public hearing for this item?* Yes No Public Process Public Hearing This page has intentionally been left blank DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE POLICY AND BUDGET DIVISION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET PO BOX 145467, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5455 ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor MARY BETH THOMPSON Chief Financial Officer CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ___________________________________ Date Received: _______________ Jill Love, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: __________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: November 18, 2025 Chris Wharton, Chair FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: FY26 Budget Amendment #3 SPONSOR: NA STAFF CONTACT: Mary Beth Thompson, Greg Cleary DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget Amendment Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that subsequent to a public hearing, the City Council adopt the following amendments to the Fiscal Year 2026 adopted budget. BUDGET IMPACT: REVENUE EXPENSE MISC GRANTS FUND $4,139,704.89 $4,139,704.89 TOTAL $4,139,704.89 $4,139,704.89 BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Revenue for FY 2026 Budget Adjustments The chart below presents General Fund Projected Revenues for FY 2026. Based on revenue data across the first part of the fiscal year, it is projected that revenues will be realized at approximately $694,500 beyond the FY 2026 Adopted Budget. Revenue FY26 Annual Budget FY26 Amended Budget Projection Amended Variance Favorable/(Unfavorable) Property Taxes 148,580,334 148,580,334 148,580,334 - Sales, Use & Excise Taxes 126,026,000 126,026,000 125,326,000 (700,000) Franchise Taxes 17,220,000 17,220,000 17,220,000 - Total Taxes 291,826,334 291,826,334 291,126,334 (700,000) Charges For Services 6,821,820 6,821,820 6,845,951 24,131 Fines & Forfeitures 3,085,827 3,085,827 3,093,198 7,371 Interest Income 9,000,000 9,000,000 9,000,000 - Interfund Service Charges 34,569,169 34,569,169 34,569,169 - Intergovernmental Revenue 6,205,000 6,205,000 6,205,000 - Licenses 21,847,694 21,847,694 21,935,228 87,534 Miscellaneous Revenue 3,838,663 3,838,663 4,542,078 703,415 Parking Meter Revenue 3,273,255 3,273,255 3,315,208 41,953 Parking Tickets 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 - Permits 18,981,859 18,981,859 19,493,610 511,751 Property Sale Proceeds - - 17,906 17,906 Gain on Property Dispositions - - 272 272 Rental & Other Income 1,201,460 1,201,460 1,201,623 163 Operating Transfers In 24,780,192 24,780,192 24,780,192 - Total W/O Special Tax 135,804,939 135,804,939 137,199,435 1,394,496 Sales Tax Addition 1/2%58,000,000 58,000,000 58,000,000 - Total General Fund 485,631,273 485,631,273 486,325,769 694,496 The table below presents updated Fund Balance numbers and percentages, based on the proposed changes included in Budget Amendment #2. No General Fund expenses have been proposed in Budget Amendment #3, so the fund balance percentage will remain the same. With the complete adoption of Budget Amendment #3, the available fund balance will remain at 12.71 percent of the FY 2026 Adopted Budget. For context, at budget adoption fund balance was at 12.93 percent. FOF GF Only TOTAL FOF GF Only TOTAL Beginning Fund Balance 27,841,978 146,448,554 174,290,532 14,931,953 78,854,192 93,786,145 Prior Year Encumbrances (3,547,119) (18,657,815) (22,204,934) - - - Estimated Beginning Fund Balance 24,294,859$ 127,790,739$ 152,085,598$ 14,931,953$ 78,854,192$ 93,786,145$ Beginning Fund Balance Percent 39.57%30.50%31.66%25.42%17.38%18.30% Year End ACFR Adjustments Revenue Changes Expense Changes (Prepaids, Receivable, Etc.) (3,188,435) (3,188,435) Fund Balance w/ ACFR Changes 24,294,859 124,602,304 148,897,163 14,931,953 78,854,192 93,786,145 Final Fund Balance Percent 39.57%29.74%30.99%25.42%17.38%18.30% Budgeted Change in Fund Balance (4,162,906) (36,664,442) (40,827,348) - (27,392,780) (27,392,780) Budget Amendment Use of Fund Balance BA#1 Revenue Adjustment 469,408 469,408 BA#1 Expense Adjustment (2,468,933) (2,468,933) (358,000) (358,000) BA#2 Revenue Adjustment 102,000 102,000 BA#2 Expense Adjustment (3,407,524) (3,407,524) (913,000) (913,000) BA#3 Revenue Adjustment 3,904,861 3,904,861 BA#3 Expense Adjustment (3,959,861) (3,959,861) - - BA#4 Revenue Adjustment - - BA#4 Expense Adjustment - - BA#5 Revenue Adjustment 1,013,067 1,013,067 BA#5 Expense Adjustment (5,200,000) (4,736,688) (9,936,688) BA#6 Revenue Adjustment - BA#6 Expense Adjustment Change in Revenue Change in Expense Fund Balance Budgeted Increase Adjusted Fund Balance 14,931,953 78,854,192 93,786,145 14,931,953 50,190,412 65,122,365 Adjusted Fund Balance Percent 24.32%18.82%19.52%25.42%11.06%12.71% Projected Revenue 61,397,384 419,006,975 480,404,359 58,749,999 453,721,525 512,471,524 FY2026 BudgetFY2025 Budget Salt Lake City General Fund TOTAL Fund Balance Projections The Administration is requesting a budget amendment totaling $0.00 in expenses in the general fund. The amendment proposes changes in one (1) fund, with a total revenue increase of $4,139,705 and a corresponding expenditure increase of $4,139,705. A summary spreadsheet outlining proposed budget changes is attached. The Administration requests this document be modified based on the decisions of the Council. The budget amendment is separated in eight different categories: A. New Budget Items B. Grants for Existing Staff Resources C. Grants for New Staff Resources D. Housekeeping Items E. Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources F. Donations G. Council Consent Agenda Grant Awards I. Council Added Items PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing This page has intentionally been left blank SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2025 (Third amendment to the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2025-2026) An Ordinance Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 32 of 2025, which adopted the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2025, and Ending June 30, 2026. In June of 2025, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the employment staffing document, effective for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2025, and ending June 30, 2026, pursuant to the requirements of Utah Code section 10-6-118. The City’s Budget Director, acting as the City’s Budget Officer, prepared and filed with the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, including the amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes specifically stated herein, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and inspection by the public. All conditions precedent to amend said budget, including the employment staffing document as provided above, have been accomplished. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the final budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, as approved, ratified and finalized by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 32 of 2025. SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments, including amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes specifically stated herein, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the amendments to the employment staffing document described above, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2025, and ending June 30, 2026, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-128 of the Utah Code. SECTION 3. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments, including amendments to the employment staffing document, in the office of said Budget Officer and in the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon adoption. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ____ day of _____, 2025. Chris Wharton, Council Chair ATTEST: Keith Reynolds, City Recorder Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor’s Action: Approved Vetoed Mayor Erin Mendenhall ATTEST: Keith Reynolds, City Recorder (SEAL) Bill No. ____ of 2025. Published Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Approved As To Form ____________________ Jaysen Oldroyd This page has intentionally been left blank Initiative Number/Name Fund Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Ongoing or One- time FTEs Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources 1 COPS Technology and Equipment Program Misc Grants 224,000.00 224,000.00 One-time - 2 Jordan River Water Trail River Restoration & Recreation Project Misc Grants 666,000.00 666,000.00 One-time - 3 Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Grant FY 2026 Misc Grants 3,249,704.89 3,249,704.89 One-time - Consent Agenda Total of Budget Amendment Items 4,139,704.89 4,139,704.89 0.00 0.00 - Initiative Number/Name Fund Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Ongoing or One- time FTEs Total by Fund, Budget Amendment #3: General Fund GF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - Misc Grants Fund Misc Grants 4,139,704.89 4,139,704.89 0.00 0.00 - Total of Budget Amendment Items 4,139,704.89 4,139,704.89 0.00 0.00 - Administration Proposed Council Approved Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget Amendment #3 Council ApprovedAdministration Proposed Section I: Council Added Items Section A: New Items Section D: Housekeeping Section F: Donations Section G: Council Consent Agenda -- Grant Awards Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources 1 Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget Amendment #3 Current Year Budget Summary, provided for information only FY 2025-26 Budget, Including Budget Amendments FY 2025-26 Adopted Budget BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total Total Revenue General Fund (FC 100)453,721,525 0.00 - 453,721,525.09 Debt Service Fund (FC 101)30,514,822 30,514,822.00 Other Improvement Fund (FC 150)3,000 3,000.00 Capital Improvement Fund (FC 300)41,675,084 12,206,670.04 53,881,754.04 Water Utility Fund (FC 400)192,010,432 51,079,400.00 243,089,832.00 Sewer Utility Fund (FC 410)357,160,859 357,160,859.00 Stormwater Utility Fund (FC 420)25,327,969 2,000,000.00 27,327,969.00 Street Lighting Utility Fund (FC 430)5,874,881 5,874,881.00 Department of Airports Fund (FC 540)606,598,500 - 606,598,500.00 Fleet Management Fund (FC 610)23,925,700 - 23,925,700.00 Risk Management Fund (FC 620)69,846,524 69,846,524.37 Governmental Immunity Fund (FC 630)4,529,865 4,529,865.00 Information Mgt Serv Fund (FC 650)43,052,934 50,000.00 43,102,934.00 Local Building Authority Fund (FC 660)1,172,525 1,172,525.00 Refuse Collection Fund (FC670)25,469,123 25,469,123.00 Golf Fund (FC 680)14,156,634 14,156,634.00 Housing and Loan Fund (FC 690)14,082,500 14,082,500.00 CDBG Fund (FC 710)4,885,779 4,885,779.00 Miscellaneous Grants Fund (FC 720)12,714,477 3,490,212.72 4,139,704.89 20,344,394.61 Demolition Weed and Forfeiture (FC 730)4,365,000 4,365,000.00 Emergency 911 Dispatch (FC 750)4,295,000 4,295,000.00 Downtown Alliance Fund (FC 760)1,700,000 2,500,000.00 4,200,000.00 Donations Fund (FC 770)500,000 500,000.00 Funding Our Future Fund (FC 780)58,749,999 58,749,999.00 Transportation Fund (FC 785)14,332,500 14,332,500.00 DEA Taskforce (FC 901)1,159,208 1,159,207.61 Community Reinvestment Agency Fund (FC 920)86,036,232 86,036,232.00 Sports Arena Fund (FC 740)79,512,660 79,512,660.00 Emergency Loan Program Fund - 273,000.00 Total of Budget Amendment Items 2,177,373,732 273,000.00 71,326,282.76 4,139,704.89 - - 2,252,839,719.72 2 Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget Amendment #3 Total Expense BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total Total Expense General Fund (FC 100)464,359,952 358,000.00 913,000.00 465,630,952.26 Debt Service Fund (FC 101)36,589,783 36,589,783.00 Other Improvement Fund (FC 150)3,000 3,000.00 Capital Improvement Fund (FC 300)48,175,084 16,339,140.04 64,514,224.04 Water Utility Fund (FC 400)216,611,815 66,849,851.00 283,461,666.00 Sewer Utility Fund (FC 410)159,022,034 12,083,142.00 171,105,176.00 Stormwater Utility Fund (FC 420)26,465,800 7,349,551.00 33,815,351.30 Street Lighting Utility Fund (FC 430)8,418,357 1,327,234.00 9,745,591.00 Department of Airports Fund (FC 540)476,954,577 100,000.00 477,054,577.00 Fleet Management Fund (FC 610)23,735,252 13,202,498.00 36,937,750.00 Risk Management Fund (FC 620)69,846,524 69,846,524.37 Governmental Immunity Fund (FC 630)4,302,013 94,791.00 4,396,804.00 Information Mgt Serv Fund (FC 650)43,052,934 2,451,295.18 45,504,229.18 Local Building Authority Fund (FC 660)1,172,525 1,172,525.00 Refuse Collection Fund (FC670)29,357,332 9,350,559.00 38,707,891.00 Golf Fund (FC 680)26,570,200 957,404.00 27,527,604.00 Housing and Loan Fund (FC 690)14,082,500 14,082,500.00 CDBG Fund (FC 710)4,885,779 4,885,779.00 Miscellaneous Grants Fund (FC 720)12,714,477 3,490,212.72 4,139,704.89 20,344,394.61 Demolition Weed and Forfeiture (FC 730)4,365,000 4,365,000.00 Emergency 911 Dispatch (FC 750)9,646,688 9,646,688.00 Downtown Alliance Fund (FC 760)1,700,000 2,500,000.00 4,200,000.00 Donations Fund (FC 770)500,000 500,000.00 Funding Our Future Fund (FC 780)48,111,572 48,111,571.83 Transportation Fund (FC 785)15,106,833 15,106,833.00 DEA Taskforce (FC 901)1,159,208 1,159,207.61 Community Reinvestment Agency Fund (FC 920)86,036,232 86,036,232.00 Sports Arena Fund (FC 740)79,512,660 79,512,660.00 - Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,912,458,131 358,000.00 137,008,677.94 4,139,704.89 - - 2,053,964,514.20 3 Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget Amendment #3 Finance Department City Council Office Contingent Appropriation / Notes 4 This page has intentionally been left blank Salt Lake City FY 2025-26 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund One-time or Ongoing Amount 1 Section A: New Items Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Section D: Housekeeping Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources E-1: COPS Technology and Equipment Program Misc Grants One-time $224,000.00 Department: Police Prepared By Amy Dorsey and Laura Nygaard For questions, please include Amy Dorsey, Laura Nygaard and Shellie Dietrich The Davis County Sheriff's Department has applied for and received a COPS grant from the Department of Justice. The department received $1.5 million of which they are sub-awarding $659,000 to Salt Lake County, $165,000 to Tooele County and $224,000 to Salt Lake City to reimburse $224,000 for the purchase of equipment. Specifically, the grant will pay for license plate reader cameras which will be posted on traffic light poles at major intersections of ingress and egress to and from the City, like Beck Street on the North side of the City. E-2: Jordan River Water Trail River Restoration & Recreation Project Misc Grants One-time $666,000.00 Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Amy Dorsey and Tyler Fonarow For questions, please include Amy Dorsey, Tyler Fonarow and Gregg Evans This grant helps fund the removal of hazardous vegetation from the Jordan River's riverbed, banks and canopy, ensuring a safe, navigable waterway while improving habitat quality. The first phase, completed between 2022 -2024, focused on a full sweep of the riverbed, removing decades worth of dead and downed trees. Following completion of this phase of the project, canoes and kayaks are now able to navigate the full length of Salt Lake City’s portion of the river without needing to navigate through obstacles. The current phase will address riverbanks and tree canopy management, with the goal of reducing hazards from unstable trees and preventing organic debris from entering the river. Public Lands is using $135,000 of operational funds as a required match. These funds will be used to employ a contractor to do the required work. E-3: Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Grant FY 2026 Misc Grants One-time $3,249,704.89 Department: Police Prepared By: Amy Dorsey and Laura Nygaard For questions, please include Amy Dorsey, Laura Nygaard and Shellie Dietrich The City was awarded funds from an annual formula driven grant which the state provides for homeless shelter mitigation. The City has received this grant each year since FY 2020. The state allocates funding each year to local governments with homeless shelters within their boundaries. The grant provides financial assistance to help cover the expenses related to providing shelter for the unhoused. The total of this award is $3,249,704.89, an amount determined by an allocation formula outlined in Utah State Code and will primarily cover the ongoing personnel costs of 15 SLCPD officers, 3 SLCPD Sergeants, and 1 SLCPD Lieutenant. In addition, the grant will cover overtime and personnel costs for winter overflow shelter response approximately 7,000 hours. In past years, the grant provided funding for the Homeless Engagement and Response Team (HEART), as well as subawards to the Downtown Alliance and Volunteers of America (VOA), in addition to Police staff and equipment. This will be the first year the grant will solely fund Police personnel. Salt Lake City FY 2025-26 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund One-time or Ongoing Amount 2 Section F: Donations Section G: Consent Agenda Section I: Council Added Items This page has intentionally been left blank Impact Fees (Page 1) Data pulled 04/30/2025 AAA BBB CCC DDD = AAA - BBB - CCC Fire Allocation Budget Amended Allocation Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining Appropriation Budget Amount Values Description Cost Center 8484002 -$ -$ -$ -$ 8419202 3,079$ 3,021$ 3,021$ (2,963)$ 8423004 9,000$ -$ 1,540$ 7,460$ FY24B4A6-3036-Fire Station 1 Fencing 130,275$ -$ -$ 130,275$ B Grand Total Parks Allocation Budget Allocation Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Remaining Description Cost Center FY24CIP-3037-337 Park Development 550,000$ -$ -$ 550,000$ FY25CIP-3037-5th West Commons Conversation Center(s)50,000$ -$ -$ 50,000$ 8416005 1,733$ 855$ 1,733$ (855)$ 8423406 287,848$ 130$ 8,420$ 279,298$ 8420136 149,953$ -$ 162,067$ (12,114)$ FY25CIP-3037-Amplifying Our Jordan River Revitalization 1,300,000$ -$ -$ 1,300,000$ 8418005 262,043$ 262,043$ -$ -$ FY24CIP-3037-Cottonwood Park Trailhead and Parklet 648,000$ -$ -$ 648,000$ 8420424 240,239$ -$ 143,325$ 96,914$ 8418002 23,262$ -$ 19,638$ 3,624$ FY25CIP-3037-Equal Grounds Project (Calisthenics-Fitness Area)86,200$ -$ -$ 86,200$ FY25CIP-3037-Fairmont Park Basketball Court 678,600$ -$ -$ 678,600$ FY24CIP-3037-Fire Station No. 7 Tennis and Pickleball Court Restoration and Amenities 416,150$ -$ -$ 416,150$ 8421401 132,208$ 1,400$ 123,813$ 6,996$ FY FY25B1D15-3037-Folsom Trail Landscaping, Irrigation & Completing the Trail 1,000,000$ -$ -$ 1,000,000$ 8420430 125,740$ 66,901$ 58,839$ -$ 8423408 499,457$ -$ 5,511$ 493,946$ FY25B1D15-3037-Glendale Park Phase 2 Design & Construction 11,350,000$ 5,609,300$ 273,777$ 5,466,922$ 8423450 4,350,000$ 1,561,800$ 2,788,200$ -$ 8422406 2,246,982$ 1,228,956$ 1,018,027$ -$ 8422408 513,788$ 24,243$ 489,546$ 0$ C 8422410 315,770$ -$ 156,146$ 159,624$ 8420406 54,808$ -$ -$ 54,808$ 8423005 9,000$ -$ 1,540$ 7,460$ 8419103 6,398$ -$ -$ 6,398$ FY24CIP-3037-Jefferson Park Improvements 530,000$ -$ -$ 530,000$ 8420134 404,139$ 1,649$ 14,304$ 388,186$ 8422414 475,079$ 6,361$ 13,693$ 455,024$ 8417018 1,570$ -$ -$ 1,570$ 8417017 2,946$ -$ -$ 2,946$ FY25B1D15-3037-Liberty Park All Abilities Play Park & Playground 2,000,000$ -$ -$ 2,000,000$ 8423409 299,269$ -$ 220,000$ 79,269$ 8417011 60,928$ -$ 60,821$ 107$ 8423451 996,905$ -$ 429,207$ 567,698$ 8423407 864,449$ -$ -$ 864,449$ 8423452 450,000$ -$ 33,140$ 416,860$ 8423453 300,000$ -$ -$ 300,000$ Parks Bilingual Signage Installation FY24CIP-3037-Parks Bilingual Signage Installation 331,200$ -$ -$ 331,200$ Park's Consultant's Contract 8419204 2,638$ 2,596$ 2,596$ (2,554)$ Parley's Trail Design & Constr 8417012 327,678$ -$ -$ 327,678$ Pioneer Park 8419150 3,052,938$ 1,050,562$ 830,103$ 1,172,273$ Playground Shade FY25CIP-3037-Playground Shade 500,000$ -$ -$ 500,000$ Pocket Park Community Space - Jake Garn WFY25CIP-3037-Pocket Park Community Space - Jake Garn Way 330,000$ -$ -$ 330,000$ Poplar Grove Park Full Court Basketball Exp FY24CIP-3037-Poplar Grove Park Full Court Basketball Expansion 253,500$ -$ 8,182$ 245,319$ RAC Playground Phase II 8423405 521,564$ -$ -$ 521,564$ RAC Playground with Shade Sails 8422415 178,298$ 11,542$ 63,456$ 103,300$ Redwood Meadows Park Dev 8417014 9,350$ -$ -$ 9,350$ Rich Park Comm Garden 8420138 12,431$ -$ -$ 12,431$ Riverside Park Pathway Loop FY25CIP-3037-Riverside Park Pathway Loop 530,000$ -$ -$ 530,000$ Rose Park Neighborhood Center 8423403 157,280$ -$ 157,280$ -$ Rosewood Dog Park 8417013 1,056$ -$ -$ 1,056$ SLC Foothills Land Acquisition 8422413 319,139$ -$ 14,175$ 304,964$ SLC Foothills Trailhead Development 8422412 1,241,318$ 127,040$ 103,060$ 1,011,218$ Street Futsal Courts 1:1 Match FY25CIP-3037-Street Futsal Courts 1:1 Match 350,000$ -$ -$ 350,000$ Three Creeks West Bank New Park 8422403 150,736$ -$ -$ 150,736$ Trailhead Prop Acquisition 8421403 21,830$ -$ -$ 21,830$ UTGov Ph2 Foothill Trails 8420420 120,893$ -$ -$ 120,893$ Warm Springs & North Gateway Park FY25B1D15-3037-Warm Springs & North Gateway Park 1,000,000$ -$ -$ 1,000,000$ Wasatch Hollow Improvements 8420142 431,860$ 22,382$ 11,481$ 397,996$ Waterpark Redevelopment Plan 8421402 1,705$ 1,705$ -$ -$ Grand Total 9,160,648$ 8484003 $777,182 8484002 Impact Fees (Page 2)CONTINUED from PG1 Data pulled 04/30/2025 AAA BBB CCC DDD = AAA - BBB - CCC Police Allocation Allocation Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining Appropriation Description Cost Center 8423003 9,000$ -$ 1,540$ 7,460$ FY24B5A6-3035-Police Impact Fee Refunds 47,592$ -$ -$ 47,592$ Grand Total Streets Allocation Budget Amended Allocation Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining Appropriation Values Description Cost Center 8422622 35,300$ -$ -$ 35,300$ 8423602 252,000$ -$ 252,000$ -$ 8422602 37,422$ -$ 37,422$ -$ FY24B3A5-3038-2100 South Reconstruction (131,247)$ -$ (131,247)$ -$ 8423606 40,000$ 40,000$ -$ -$ 8422611 90,000$ 25,000$ -$ 65,000$ 8418016 22,744$ -$ -$ 22,744$ 8412001 11,703$ 5,685$ 6,018$ -$ D FY24B3A6-3038-600/700 North Reconstruction 3,204,371$ -$ -$ 3,204,371$ 8423305 (166)$ -$ (166)$ -$ FY24CIP-3038-75-Year-Old Traffic Signal Replacement 40,000$ -$ -$ 40,000$ 8422604 28,000$ -$ 28,000$ -$ 8418003 181,303$ -$ 136,936$ 44,367$ 8420120 18,699$ -$ -$ 18,699$ 8422608 25,398$ -$ 25,398$ -$ 8423625 (224,557)$ -$ (224,557)$ -$ 8406001 15,169$ 12,925$ 585$ 1,659$ 8412002 124,593$ -$ -$ 124,593$ 8422614 104,500$ -$ -$ 104,500$ FY24CIP-3038-Safer Crossings: Main St., Glendale Park, an 90,000$ -$ 1,418$ 88,582$ 8420125 (1,359,910)$ -$ (1,359,910)$ -$ 8421501 340,236$ -$ 53,109$ 287,127$ 8419008 (108,000)$ -$ (108,000)$ -$ 8420105 (200,000)$ -$ (200,000)$ -$ 8423608 110,000$ -$ 5,205$ 100,000$ FY24CIP-3038-Transit Capital for Frequent Transit Routes / 110,000$ -$ 513$ 109,488$ 8420110 46,883$ 11,820$ 5,480$ 29,583$ 8422620 6,316$ -$ -$ 6,316$ 8421500 241,135$ 2,558$ 118,188$ 120,388$ FY24B5A7-3038-Update of the Streets IFFP - Unappropriate 30,183$ -$ -$ 30,183$ FY24B5A7-3038-Update of the Streets IFFP (Rescope 8419 29,817$ 17,442$ -$ 12,374$ 8422619 6,500$ -$ -$ 6,500$ Grand Total Total E = A + B + C + D 15,372,660$ 3,799,855$ 8484005 UnAllocated Budget Amount 1,634,974$ 8484001 This page has intentionally been left blank 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:December 2, 2025 RE: Text Amendment – RMF-35 & RMF-45 Multi Family Zoning District Update PLNPCM2024-01388 PUBLIC HEARING UPDATE Several people spoke at the November 18, 2025 public hearing, with those in support and others opposed about equally divided. Those who were supportive expressed a desire for additional housing units, the potential for housing attainable for younger people, and that new housing helps create naturally occurring affordable housing. Commenters opposed to the proposal expressed concerns with possible impact to neighborhood character in historic districts, how condominium buildings will be affected, and market rate housing is not needed in older parts of the city. Two commenters were generally supportive, but shared concerns that the proposal will require redesigning a planned project resulting in additional staffing and development costs. (Staff note: Planning staff talked with these individuals to let them know modifications to the proposed regulations may be requested through the planned development process or by utilizing affordable housing incentives, which would allow their project to proceed as planned. However, they expressed concerns that would take a long time to get approved.) Council Member Mano asked Council staff to work with Planning staff to determine if there are any potential changes that could be made to the ordinance that would address the concerns raised at the public hearing. In response to that request, planning staff provided the following options for the Council to consider and potentially include in the final ordinance. Item Schedule: Page | 2 Retain the 110-foot lot width maximum and remove the 100-foot front façade length maximum. Existing lots with widths that exceed 110 feet would be allowed to construct longer buildings. Modify the maximum number of dwelling units per building for RMF-35 and -45, or Modify the maximum number of dwelling units per building for RMF-45 only. Additionally, Council Member Mano raised the following item as an option to consider. Remove the 100-foot front façade length maximum if utilizing affordable housing incentives. The Council will hold a December 2, 2025 follow-up briefing to discuss potential changes to the proposal and may direct staff to incorporate changes to the final ordinance for adoption. The following information was provided for previous meetings. It is included again for background purposes. BRIEFING UPDATE During the October 7, 2025 briefing Council Members discussed current and proposed setbacks. Current side yard setbacks are four feet on one side and 10 feet on the other. The proposal calls for four-foot side yard setbacks on both sides (unless the property abuts single-family zoned parcels, then a 10-foot setback is proposed). Some Council Members expressed concerns with reduced setbacks in areas with small block sizes, and potential loss of trees. Areas with small block sizes have some of the densest residential development in the city. A question was raised about why the proposed changes are good for those living in these areas. Planning staff noted the large number of homes that were constructed before zoning regulations were adopted and are now nonconforming due to current setbacks. The proposal would help bring many of these into compliance. Additionally, Planning discussed the potential for more affordable housing units in these areas which could provide opportunities for younger people to live there without changing the neighborhood character. It could also provide opportunities for current residents to age in place. Council staff provided some context from when the RMF-35 and -45 zoning was created in 1995. At that time the community wanted larger setbacks which resulted in many nonconforming lots. Housing supply and costs are very different today and the pendulum has shifted to smaller setbacks. Planning staff discussed additional height up to 55 feet if utilizing affordable housing incentives that was in the original proposal. That was not supported by the community, so it was removed. ISSUE AT A GLANCE The Council will be briefed about proposed amendments to the RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multifamily Residential) and RMF-45 (Moderate/High Density Multifamily Residential) zoning ordinance and map. Development of medium- to high-density housing types within the zoning districts has not happened since their creation due to a variety of barriers and limitations. The proposed changes are intended to remove those. Several briefings for both the Historic Landmark and Planning Commission were held on the proposal between February and May 2025, and the Planning Commission held two public hearings. (Planning’s staff reports for the Planning Commission meetings that include changes to the proposal as it progressed can be found at the following links: February 12, 2025, March 12, 2025, and May 14, 2025.) Numerous people spoke at the hearings and were about equally divided in support and opposition to the proposal. Those who spoke in favor noted the ineffectiveness of current regulations, concerns about school Page | 4 closures, low-quality housing, and the need for additional housing in the city. Comments in opposition cited potential increased parking issues, loss of sunlight, and impact to solar power, changes to neighborhood character, and decreased property values. Following the May 14, 2025 public hearing, the Planning Commission voted unanimously forwarded a favorable recommendation to the City Council. Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed text amendment and determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. In recent years the Council has approved a few housing related zoning amendments such as the RMF-30 and Affordable Housing Incentives. The Council may wish to ask the administration how those changes are being received and implemented by developers. a. Some concerns have been raised about the potential for these recent zoning amendments to encourage demolitions of existing housing stock, including naturally occurring affordable housing. The Council may wish to ask the administration if the recently adopted zoning amendments have resulted in more demolitions. 2. How do the proposed changes to RMF-35 and 45 align with the recently adopted RMF-30 zoning district? 3. How do the proposed changes help advance the City’s adopted housing goals? 4. How does the proposal interplay with affordable housing incentives? 5. How do the proposed changes ensure new construction is compatible with the existing development of neighborhoods throughout the city? ADDITIONAL INFORMATION In their current form, the two districts are nearly identical except for maximum building height. The Administration’s initial proposal was to combine both districts into one RMF-45 district. Based on feedback from the public and Planning Commission, the proposal was changed to keep the RMF-35, and RMF-45 zoning districts separate and allow additional building types to be constructed on vacant lots and as infill projects. Some additional recommended changes include reduced minimum lot sizes, eliminating lot width minimums, upzoning approximately two dozen properties RMF-35 to RMF-45 (found in attachment A to this report), and clarification of density bonuses. These are discussed below. RMF-35 and RMF-45 zoning were adopted in 1995 and intended as a transition from low-density neighborhoods to higher intensity areas. Adding multifamily developments to established neighborhoods was also envisioned. However, Planning staff found single-family homes and large apartment buildings have been the primary development patterns for the zones. Only 4% of lots in the districts have had any new development, with a total of eight moderate-density projects in the last 30 years. Planning identified the following complications with the current zoning districts: Minimum lot size requirements are too restrictive. Nearly half of lots in RMF-35 and 45 are smaller than the required 5,000 square feet so new development is not possible. Multi-family buildings cannot be constructed, and single-family homes are the only option. Minimum lot width requirements are too high. Only about one-third of properties in the RMF-35 and 45 zones meet the 50-foot minimum lot width. All others are too narrow. Parking requirements are too high. Planning found that approximately 96% of RMF-35 and 45 properties are within ¼ mile of a transit stop, yet the parking requirements are the same as single- family zones. Affordability, density, and the viability of multifamily projects are impacted by parking requirements that are too high. Page | 5 Planning staff anticipates positive changes if the proposal is adopted, reducing minimum lot sizes and allowing more housing options. These include adding accessory units and small-scale infill projects which can supplement the property owner’s income and facilitate aging in place. An additional potential benefit is reduced per capita water use due to more efficient use in moderate-density developments than single- family building types. The proposal is also intended to align with City plans including the Plan Salt Lake (2015), and Thriving in Place and Housing SLC, both adopted in 2023. PROPOSAL SUMMARY Planning staff identified four key proposal objectives: Align the districts’ purpose with adopted plans and policies Clarify and simplify regulations Encourage moderate density development and infill development Preserve existing buildings and neighborhood character. To achieve these objectives six recommendations are proposed: New “form-based” approach Adjustments to lot requirements Incentives for retention of existing structures Introduction of design standards New landscaping and open space requirements Updates to parking minimums Each recommendation is summarized below. For additional information, please see pages 6-9 of the Administration’s transmittal. New “Form-Based” Approach Rather than the current method of all residential building types being required to comply with the same standards, the proposal calls for varying standards depending on building type. A multifamily building impacts neighboring properties, the street, and neighborhood differently than a cottage development, rowhouses, and other less intense building types. Under the proposal, sideways rowhouses and cottage courts would be added to the current list of building types that includes single-family homes, duplexes, street-facing townhomes, and multi-family buildings. Adjustments to Lot Requirements Lot Widths The proposal recommends eliminating the current minimum lot width, which varies depending on use. Those would be replaced with a maximum lot width of 110 feet, intended to prevent the banking of land for larger developments. As discussed above, only about one-third of RMF-35 and 45 lots meet the 50-foot minimum. Lot Area Current and proposed minimum lot areas for the subject zoning districts are shown in the table below. The proposal would reduce the minimums for all but non-residential buildings. Page | 6 Building Form Current Minimum Lot Area Proposed Minimum Lot Area Urban House & Two-family Single-family: 5,000 square feet Two-family: 8,000 square feet 1,500 square feet (for 1 or 2 units) Cottage Development 5,000 square feet per unit, each as a single-family dwelling 500 square feet per unit Row House 3,000 square feet per unit 750 square feet per unit (minimum of 3 units) Multi-family 3 units: 9,000 square feet RMF-35: +2,000 square feet per unit over 3 RMF-45: +1,000 square feet per unit over 3 750 square feet per unit (minimum of 3 units) Non-residential building 5,000 square feet 5,000 square feet Public Street Frontage Proposed updates to the RMF-35 and 45 zoning districts would permit lots and buildings without frontage on a public street if specific conditions are met. Current code requires street frontage for all buildings unless an exception is approved by the Planning Commission. Incentives for Retention of Existing Structures The proposal calls for allowing bonus units if existing structures are retained. Similar incentives are offered in the RMF-30 zoning district. If one or two dwelling units are kept, two bonus units would be allowed. Retaining three or more units qualifies for four additional units. Note: this would not require the principal building to be more than 50 years old, as is required in the zoning incentives for building preservation, though the proposal allows for that. Design Standards Another proposed change is to add design standards to the RMF-35 and 45 zones. These are summarized below and in the image that follows. Durable Building Materials: a minimum of 50% of a building’s street-facing façade must use durable materials such as stone, brick, wood siding, shingles, glass, etc. Glass: Depending on building form, 15% to 20% of street-facing floors above the ground floor must be glass. Ground Floor Transparency: Again, depending on building form, 15% to 20% of street-facing ground floors must be glass. Entry Features: Under the proposal, entry features such as a porch and fence, terrace and light well, portico, awning, forecourt, or stoop. Building Fenestration: Street-facing walls cannot exceed a length of 15 feet without interruptions that include windows, doors, or a change in the wall plane with an offset of at least 12 inches. Page | 7 Image illustrating design standards in the RMF-35 and RMF-45 proposed text amendment. Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division Landscaping and Open Space Currently, the RMF-35 and 45 zones do not require open space other than yard setbacks. The proposal recommends open space, landscaping, and personal and shared space that vary based on building forms, as shown in the table below. Building Form Open Space Per Unit-Personal Open Space Per Unit-Common Requirements Urban House and Two-family N/A but subject to lot area requirements. * N/A but subject to lot area requirements. * General landscaping standards Cottage Development 200 square feet 150 square feet General landscaping and proposed open space standards Page | 8 Row House 200 square feet 150 square feet General landscaping and proposed open space standards Multi-family Not permitted 50 square feet General landscaping and proposed open space standards Other Building Forms Not permitted 15% of lot area General landscaping and standards for common open space. *Open space for Urban houses and two-family dwellings Urban house and two-family dwelling building forms would not be permitted to exceed 60% of the lot area. Because these are smaller scale, the proposal does not call for personal or common open space. They would still need to meet applicable landscaping requirements. It is worth noting that the above open space requirements would not apply when a property is within 800 feet of a public park or open space. Landscape Buffers The proposal retains landscape buffers for row houses, multi-family, and non-residential building forms currently found in City code. They would not be required for cottage developments, urban houses, or single-family dwellings. Parking RMF-35 and 45 zoning are both currently in the “General” parking context, which has the highest minimum parking requirements, with one to two parking spaces for each unit, depending on unit type or number of bedrooms (more bedrooms require more parking). It is Planning’s opinion that this context is appropriate for lower-density neighborhoods that are more car dependent and have limited transit access. The proposal recommends including RMF-35 and 45 in the “Neighborhood Center” parking context which requires only one parking space for all types and sizes of dwellings. Planning found that 20% of RMF-35 and 45 properties are within a quarter mile of a fixed rail station and, as noted above, 96% are within a quarter mile of a transit stop. Planning staff also recommends this change to encourage more bedrooms within multifamily and rowhouse dwelling units. The current “General” parking context requires two parking spaces for units with two or more bedrooms. The “Neighborhood Center” context would require one space per dwelling unit regardless of the number of bedrooms. ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS Attachments D and E (pages 101-106) of the March 12, 2025 Planning Commission staff report outline zoning text and map amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. The standards and findings from both attachments are combined and summarized below. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for additional information. Factor Finding Whether a proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents. Complies Page | 9 Whether a proposed amendment furthers the applicable purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Complies Whether a proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Complies. The proposal is compatible with the intent of the H Historical Overlay District. The extent to which a proposed text amendment implements best current, professional practices of urban planning and design. Complies The impact that the proposed text amendment may have on city resources necessary to carry out the provisions and processes required by this title. The adequacy of public facilities a services intended to serve the subject property, including, but not limited to, roadways, parks recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection. Proposed amendments will not change the level of impact that development in the affected districts may have on City resources. The impact that the proposed text amendment may have on other properties that would be subject to the proposal and properties adjacent to subject properties. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent and nearby properties due to the change in development potential and allowed uses that do not currently apply to the property. Proposed amendments will ensure that affected properties have equitable development rights and protections by ensuring that the City’s multifamily districts function as they were initially intended. The community benefits that would result from the proposed text amendment, as identified in 21A.50.050.C. While a community benefit is not required, the proposal will bring a diversity of housing options to neighborhoods that have typically excluded new development since 1995. The status of existing transportation facilities, any planned changes to the transportation facilities, and the impact that the proposed amendment may have on the city’s ability, need, and timing of future transportation improvements. There are adequate transportation facilities to support the potential additional growth from the proposed amendment. The proximity of necessary amenities such as parks, open space, schools, fresh food, entertainment, cultural facilities, and the ability of current and future residents to access these amenities without having to rely on a personal vehicle. RMF-35 and RMF-45 districts are, for the most part, located within neighborhoods close enough to the listed amenities for access without reliance on personal vehicles. Page | 10 The potential impacts to public safety resources created by the increase in development potential that may result from the proposed amendments. No public safety concerns were reported during the department review process. Developments will be reviewed for compliance with building codes and fire prevention standards. The potential for displacement of people who reside in any housing that is within the boundary of the proposed amendment and the plan offered by the petitioner to mitigate displacement. No more displacement anticipated than current regulations allow. A citywide amendment will help alleviate displacement pressure in vulnerable parts of the city. The potential for displacement of any business that is located within the boundary of the proposed amendments and the plan offered by the petitioner to mitigate displacement. Proposed amendments are not expected to displace businesses or change their status under current zoning regulations. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • December 2, 2024 – Initial study of RMF-35 and 45 districts published. • December 11, 2024 – o Project story map launched. o 45-day notice sent to recognized community organizations. • December 12, 2024 – Focus group with small-scale affordable housing developers. • December 14, 2024 – Petition to merge RMF-35 and 45 districts initiated by Mayor Mendenhall. • December 23, 2024 – Property owners and residents within 300 feet of the affected properties were provided early notification of the proposal and the March 12, 2025 Planning Commission hearing date. • January-March 2025 – Planning presented at community council meetings. • January 8, 2025 – Public notice signs advertising the proposal and the March 12, 2025 Planning Commission public hearing posted at all Salt Lake City Public Library branches. • January 22, 2025 – General community open house at City Hall. • February 12, 2025 – First Planning Commission briefing. • February 28, 2025 – Public notice posted on City and State websites and Planning Division listserv. • March 12, 2025 – o Second Planning Commission briefing. o First public hearing. Page | 11 • May 14, 2025 – o Third Planning Commission briefing. o Second public hearing. • August 6, 2025 – Transmittal received in City Council Office. Page | 10 Attachment A – Properties Proposed to be Rezoned From RMF-35 to RMF-45 Address Council District Land Use Neighborhood Plan 321 S Concord St.2 Located at Neighborhood Node Westside Master Plan 866 West 700 South 870 West 700 South 876 West 700 South 665 South 900 West 2 Nonresidential Use Located at Neighborhood Node Westside Master Plan 1659 West 300 South 1671 West 300 South 1677West 300 South 351 South Concord St. 2 Located at Regional Node and Redwood Road Corridor Westside Master Plan 8 East Hillside Ave.3 High-density Residential Capitol Hill 321 South 600 East 323 South 600 East 602 East 300 South 4 Medium Residential/ Mixed-use Central Community Plan 120 West Mead Ave. 126 West Mead Ave. 130 West Mead Ave. 5 Central 9th Corridor Area Ballpark Station Area Plan 1414 South West Temple 5 Medium Density Transition Area Ballpark Station Area Plan 976 South 200 East 5 Medium High Density Central Community Plan 996 South 200 East 5 Medium High Density Central Community Plan 1418 South 1100 East 5 Low Residential/ Mixed-Use Central Community Plan 2321 East 2100 South 6 Medium High Density Residential Sugar House Neighborhood Plan 2673 South Preston St.7 Medium High Density Residential Sugar House Neighborhood Plan 1945 South 1300 East 1949 South 1300 East 7 Medium High Density Residential Sugar House Neighborhood Plan 1121 East Brickyard Road 7 Medium High Density Residential Sugar House Neighborhood Plan Salt»Lake»City// Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning City Council Briefing –December 2, 2025 RMF-35 & RMF-45 UPDATES Salt»Lake»City//Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning Salt»Lake»City//Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning Salt»Lake»City//Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning 1938 S DOUGLAS ST 116 feet Salt»Lake»City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning 1963 S 1200 E 165 feet Salt»Lake»City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning 1900 S DOUGLAS ST 101 feet Salt»Lake»City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning 1961 S 1200 E 123 feet Salt»Lake»City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning 2665 E PARLEYS WAY 201feet Salt»Lake»City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning 2186 S 800 E 128 feet Salt»Lake»City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning 2015 S 200 E 261 feet Salt»Lake»City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning THANK YOU! Salt»Lake»City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning Aaron Barlow Senior Planner Aaron Barlow@slc.gov 801.535.6182 Krissy Gilmore Planning Manager Kristina.Gilmore@slc.gov 801.535.7780 Salt»Lake»City // Planning Division MULTI-PRONGED APPROACH •Max Lot Width •Max Building Length •Max units per building BUILDING SCALE Salt»Lake»City // Planning Division MULTI-PRONGED APPROACH •Max Lot Width •Max Building Length •Max units per building BUILDING SCALE Still effective at limiting building scale Salt»Lake»City // Planning Division MULTI-PRONGED APPROACH •Max Lot Width •Max Building Length •Longer buildings in RMF-45 •Max units per building •Higher limit for RMF-45 BUILDING SCALE Better differentiates RMF-35 & RMF-45 SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL To:  Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date: 07/22/2025 Date Sent to Council: 08/06/2025 From: Department * Community and Neighborhood Employee Name: Barlow, Aaron E-mail aaron.barlow@slc.gov Department Director Signature Director Signed Date 08/01/2025 Chief Administrator Officer's Signature Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date 08/06/2025 Subject: Text Amendment - RMF-35 & RMF-45 Multi Family Zoning District Update Additional Staff Contact: Krissy Gilmore - kristina.gilmore@slc.govGrant Amann - grant.amaan@slc.gov Presenters/Staff Table Aaron Barlow - aaron.barlow@slc.govKrissy Gilmore - kristina.gilmore@slc.gov Document Type Ordinance Budget Impact? Yes No Recommendation: That the City Council follow the Planning Commission’s recommendation and approve the requested zoning text and map amendments. Background/Discussion See first attachment for Background/Discussion Will there need to be a public hearing for this item?* Yes No Public Process Please review Attached memo. This page has intentionally been left blank ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Tammy Hunsaker Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Salt Lake City is proposing amendments to the zoning ordinance and map intended to update the RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multifamily Residential and RMF-45 (Moderate/High Density Multifamily Residential) zoning districts. These proposed changes aim to remove barriers to new housing development and facilitate compatible infill within the City’s moderate-density neighborhoods. These proposed updates introduce design standards for new development, reduce minimum lot size requirements, eliminate lot width minimums, permit multiple buildings per lot, and offer a density bonus for preserving existing housing units. In 2023, the City Council adopted Housing SLC, a five-year comprehensive housing plan for the City. That plan calls for changes to zoning regulations that can support an established goal of entitling 10,000 new units throughout the City. Later, in 2023, the City Council also adopted Thriving in Place, Salt Lake City’s Anti-Displacement Strategy, which found that “Salt Lake City has a shortage of housing at every income level, but an especially significant shortage of housing affordable to lower-income households” (p. 15). Among other things, Thriving in Place calls for City staff to “create more diverse housing choices in all areas so that people can find housing that meets their needs in locations that work for them” (p. 48). This proposal aims to update the RMF- 35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family) and the RMF-45 (Moderate/High-Density Multi-Family) zoning districts to align with key City plans and policies, including Plan Salt Lake (2015), Thriving in Place (2023), and Housing SLC (2023). WHY UPDATE THESE REGULATIONS? Initially adopted in 1995, the RMF-35 and RMF-45 zoning districts were intended to support a variety of medium- to high-density housing types. Development in these districts was meant to serve as a transition from low-density neighborhoods to higher-intensity areas and allow multi- family development to be integrated into established neighborhoods. However, since their creation, both districts have driven two predominant housing outcomes: single-family homes and large-scale apartment building developments. In recent years, there has been a growing awareness of this gap in our housing, referred to as “the missing middle,” and a desire to create more diverse housing choices. Existing District Complications 1. Minimum Lot Size Requirements Are Too Restrictive: 47% of the lots are smaller than 5,000 square feet and do not meet the minimum lot area for new development. Due to their size, these lots would only be eligible for single-family development. This means the two districts cannot accommodate moderate-density development intended for each zoning district. Additionally, what moderate density already exists is likely nonconforming (or “grandfathered”). 2. Minimum Lot Width Requirements Are Too High: To construct any new building, the lot must be at least 50’ wide. 66% of the lots within the two districts do not meet this minimum width. This means that only 1/3 of properties are eligible for redevelopment. All other lots are too narrow. PLNPCM2024-01388 – Updated Multi-Family Merger 2 3. Parking Requirements Are Too High: Approximately 96% of RMF-35 and RMF-45 properties are within ¼ miles of a public transit stop. However, both districts have the same parking requirements as single-family zones. Requiring too much parking can significantly impact the affordability, density, and feasibility of development proposals. As a result, over the past 30 years, only 4% of lots within these districts have seen any development, with just eight projects resulting in moderate- density housing. Most completed projects were low- density, like single-family houses. Due to challenges in meeting existing zoning standards, many of these projects also required special approvals. As they are currently written, both districts have encouraged the removal of older, more affordable units (known as “naturally occurring affordable housing”) for new development that is incompatible with its surroundings. For more information on background and research contributing to the proposal, refer to Planning staff’s study of the RMF-35 and RMF-45 zoning districts. WHY DOES THIS MATTER? Housing Pressure Utah is on track to be short more than 150,000 housing units by 2030 (Kem Gardner Policy Institute). In Salt Lake City, housing costs have risen far faster than wages. Since 2005, wages have grown by 19%, but rents have climbed 38% and home prices have risen 83%. As a result, over half of renter households in the city are now considered cost-burdened. Despite steady construction—about 1,700 new units per year since 2017—production has not kept pace with demand. The gap continues to widen. The illustration above shows the range of “Missing Middle” housing types. Image © Opticos Design. Inc. For more info visit: https://missingmiddlehousing.com "Moderate-scale" or "missing middle" housing refers to housing types that fall between single-family homes and high-rise apartment buildings. These homes are appropriately scaled, thoughtfully designed, and located to support walkable neighborhoods. Examples include cottage courts, duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, and small to medium multi-unit apartments. They are intended to be compatible in scale with single-family neighborhoods while providing a gradual transition to higher-density areas. WHAT DO WE MEAN BY "MODERATE-SCALE" AND “MISSING MIDDLE” HOUSING? PLNPCM2024-01388 – Updated Multi-Family Merger 3 Zoning’s Role Zoning is one of the many factors that influence housing costs. In this case, rules within the RMF- 35 and RMF-45 districts have sharply limited what can be built. Restrictions on lot size, setbacks, and other standards make it challenging to add units, even when the land is otherwise suitable for infill development. This stalls the gradual aging and turnover of housing stock that typically leads to more affordable homes over time—a process often referred to as “filtering.” Without new construction, even older housing becomes more expensive. Impacts on Property Owners: Allowing more housing options, such as accessory units or small-scale infill, can offer practical benefits to homeowners, making it easier to age in place, generate supplemental income, or support extended families under one roof. Unfortunately, numerous requirements in the RMF-35 and RMF-45 zones hinder this flexibility. These proposed changes can help create more inclusive, financially sustainable communities while addressing the City’s growing housing needs. Equity Issues: Like much of the United States, zoning regulations have influenced where people can live in Salt Lake City. Historically, land use policies have excluded lower-income households from many neighborhoods, concentrating new housing near freeways or arterial roads, areas that typically have worse air quality, more noise, and weaker health outcomes. Meanwhile, large parts of the city are zoned only for single-family homes, which are not subject to federal accessibility requirements and are largely out of reach for people with disabilities or lower incomes. Revising RMF zoning can help distribute housing opportunities more evenly and expand access to healthier, better-served areas. Addressing these systemic zoning issues is essential to creating a more inclusive and equitable City. Water Considerations Building more housing closer together, with smaller lots, reduced setbacks, or infill, can reduce per capita water use. Research (cited in staff’s report for the Planning Commission's meeting on March 12, 2025) shows that compact development, especially moderate-density development, uses existing infrastructure more efficiently than single-family development and supports long-term water savings. These principles have been incorporated into the zoning proposal currently under consideration. The illustration above shows how dwelling units make their way down the housing ladder, providing housing opportunities for lower incomes as they age. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. For more info visit: cmhc-schl.gc.ca/ PLNPCM2024-01388 – Updated Multi-Family Merger 4 PROPOSAL SUMMARY The following is a summary of the proposal approved by the Planning Commission. Throughout the last part of 2024, the Planning Staff developed new regulations based on their initial research and feedback from other departments. The initial proposal was developed based on key proposal objectives (listed to the right), intended to align it with adopted plans and policies. Feedback from residents, community councils, businesses, developers, and commissioners (from both the Planning Commission and the Historic Landmark Commission) shaped updates developed by staff. The proposal underwent several iterations before the Planning Commission ultimately recommended approval to the City Council at its meeting on May 14, 2025. New “Form-Based” Approach This proposal takes a form-based approach to regulating new development. Form-based regulations are development standards that vary based on the type of proposed building. Currently, all residential building types (i.e., multi-family apartments, attached townhouses, individual detached houses, or duplexes) are subject to the same standards. This one-size-fits-all approach overlooks the distinct impacts different building forms have on adjacent properties, the street, and the overall neighborhood. Instead, under the proposed regulations, each building form would be assessed individually with customized standards for setbacks, building heights, and design. Finally, in addition to single-family homes, duplexes, multi-family buildings, and street-facing townhouses, the proposal adds sideways-oriented rowhouses and cottage courts as permitted building types. Adjustments to Lot Requirements These updates include several changes to lot and building configuration standards, specifically adjustments to the lot width, lot area, and public street frontage requirements for the RMF-35 and RMF-45 zoning districts. •Align the district’s purpose with adopted plans and policies. •Clarify and simplify regulations. •Encourage moderate density development and infill development. •Preserve existing buildings and neighborhood character. Key Proposal Objectives The illustration above shows residential building forms that would be permitted within the proposed RMF-45 zoning district. PLNPCM2024-01388 – Updated Multi-Family Merger 5 Lot Width The current RMF-35 & RMF-45 districts specify minimum lot widths by use. Rather than requiring minimums, these updates would require a maximum lot width of 110 feet, or approximately ¼ of a city block. Lot Area Currently, housing density in the RMF-35 and RMF- 45 districts is determined by a sliding scale; the larger the lot, the greater the density allowed. As shown in the table, this proposal standardizes and reduces minimum lot area requirements. Building Form Current Minimum Lot Area Proposed Minimum Lot Area Single-Family: Two-Family:1,500 sq ft (for 1 or 2 units) Cottage Development 500 sq ft per unit Row House 3,000 sq ft per unit 750 sq ft per unit Minimum 3 units Multi-Family 3 units: RMF-35: +2,000 sq ft per unit over 3 RMF-45: 750 sq ft per unit Minimum 3 units 5,000 sq ft 5,000 sq ft Public Street Frontage The RMF-35 & RMF-45 districts currently require all buildings and lots to have frontage along a public street. Exceptions can only be approved by the Planning Commission. The proposed updates include a general provision that permits lots and buildings without public street frontage, provided certain conditions are met. Incentives for Retention of Existing Structures Increasing development potential carries the potential risk of existing housing being demolished and redeveloped. To mitigate displacement pressure, this proposal includes incentives for retaining existing structures, similar to those in the RMF-30 zoning district. Maintaining one or two dwelling units awards two bonus units beyond the minimum lot area (or density) requirement. Retaining PLNPCM2024-01388 – Updated Multi-Family Merger 6 three or more dwelling units on a lot allows four additional units. Unlike the Zoning Incentives for building preservation (that would still be permitted in this proposal), this benefit would not require principal buildings to be older than 50 years. Design Standards The current RMF-35 and RMF-45 districts lack standards for the exterior design of new buildings, often resulting in development that feels disconnected from the pedestrian experience and out of step with the neighborhood character. These proposed updates introduce comprehensive design standards intended to ensure that all new development makes a positive contribution to the community. Key features included: • Durable Building Materials: At least 50% of the street-facing facade must use high-quality, durable, natural materials like stone, brick, wood siding, shingles, glass, etc. • Glass: 15% to 20% of all street-facing floors above the ground floor must be glass. The building form determines the exact amount. • Ground Floor Transparency: 15% to 20% of all street-facing ground floors must be glass. The building form determines the exact amount. PLNPCM2024-01388 – Updated Multi-Family Merger 7 • Entry Features: Each ground-floor building entrance facing the street must have an entry feature. Examples include a porch and fence, a terrace and light well, a portico, an awning, a forecourt, or a stoop. • Building Fenestration: No building wall that faces onto a street shall exceed more than 15 feet in length without being interrupted by windows, doors, or a change of building wall plane that results in an offset of at least 12 inches. Landscaping and Open Space Beyond basic yard setback requirements, open space is not currently required in the RMF-35 or RMF-45 zoning districts. Due to varying impacts and resident needs, open space and landscaping requirements for new development would differ based on building form under this proposal. Requirements for personal and shared open space are also differentiated with these updates. A complete summary of the proposed landscaping and open space requirements can be found in staff’s memo for the Planning Commission’s February 12, 2025, briefing. Parking The current RMF-35 and RMF-45 zoning districts both fall under the ‘General’ parking context, where parking requirements can vary (based on unit type or number of bedrooms) from one to two spaces per dwelling unit. This context is particularly suitable for lower-density neighborhoods with limited transit access, which tend to be highly car-oriented, such as single-family neighborhoods and industrial areas. However, Staff’s analysis of the RMF-35 and RMF-45 districts found that 96% of their lots were within a quarter mile of a transit stop, and more than 20% are within a quarter mile of a fixed rail station. To better align the RMF-35 and RMF-45 districts with their transportation reality, these updates place them under the ‘Neighborhood Center’ context, where new dwelling units are required to have only one parking space (regardless of building type or number of units). This context is appropriate for neighborhoods with more pedestrian-scale development and amenities, while acknowledging that most residents will be car owners. MARCH 2025 UPDATES Cottage Development Requirements A consistent theme from Staff’s discussions with community members was an interest in the cottage development building form. Initially, staff had proposed a larger minimum lot area for cottage developments compared to other building forms (1,000 square feet per unit versus 750 square feet per unit). After some consideration, staff determined that, due to the smaller scale of their buildings, cottage developments could accommodate reduced minimum lot area and open space requirements, and made the following changes: • Minimum lot area: Reduced from 1,000 square feet to 500 sq. ft. per cottage unit. PLNPCM2024-01388 – Updated Multi-Family Merger 8 • Minimum open space area: Reduced personal open space area from 200 sq. ft. to 150 sq. ft. per unit and reduced common open space from 150 sq. ft. to 100 sq. ft. per unit. Zoning Incentives A second consistent theme from both the community and commissioners was a concern about the potential scale of new development. In particular, there was concern about the additional height that could be allowed through zoning incentives. Planning staff’s initial proposal would have allowed up to five stories (up to 55 feet in height) for new multi-family building projects that qualified for either Affordable Housing or Building Preservation incentives. Acknowledging these concerns, the additional height for incentives was removed from the proposal in March 2025. While projects that qualify for incentives would need to meet the height requirements for the base zoning district with this change, they could still receive an exemption from many other zoning regulations, including minimum lot area (density). Open Space Exception Finally, another consistent yet surprising theme was an interest in reducing the minimum open space area requirement for properties located near public parks or open spaces. Open space is an important part of any new development, but Planning staff concurs that public open space can fill that need when it is nearby and accessible to a property. The updated proposal eliminated the open space requirements for projects within 800 feet (via the closest reasonable walking path) of a public park or open space. MAY 2025 UPDATES A complete summary of the final proposal is included in Staff’s memo for the Planning Commission’s continued May 14, 2025, public hearing. Maintain both the RMF-35 and RMF-45 Zoning Districts The original Multi-family Merger proposal combined the RMF-35 and RMF-45 zoning districts into a single RMF-45 zoning district. In response to feedback from the Planning Commission and the public, staff revised the proposal to maintain two separate districts. Except for maximum height for certain building forms, the regulations for both districts are essentially the same. Urban Houses, Two-Family Dwellings, and Rowhouses all have a maximum height of 35 feet in both proposed districts. The maximum height for Cottage Developments is also the same in both districts, capped at 23 feet. On the other hand, multi-family and non-residential building forms do not have the same maximum height in both districts. They are permitted to be as tall as 45 feet in the RMF-45 district and limited to 35 feet in the RMF-35 district. Identify Properties that Need a Change in Zoning As directed by the Planning Commission, Planning staff reviewed properties on a block-by-block basis to identify where a different zoning district could be a better fit. They focused on properties in the RMF-35 zoning district with a higher land use designation in an associated adopted neighborhood plan. Naming conventions for Future Land Use Maps can vary between plans; however, for the most part, staff identified properties with a designation of Medium/High Mixed Use or higher. Ultimately, staff identified 23 properties with land use designations that recommended increased zoning intensity. Maps identifying each property are located in Exhibit 4. Other Changes to the Proposal Splitting the proposal back into two districts required Planning staff to make additional adjustments. Since the original proposal only included the RMF-45 zoning district, references to the RMF-35 district were removed. Those have been reincorporated. PLNPCM2024-01388 – Updated Multi-Family Merger 9 Planning staff also clarified the unit bonuses. The revised proposal clarifies that units used to qualify for the bonus do not all need to be located within the same building. Multiple units within multiple structures (i.e., three separate cottages in an existing cottage development) may be preserved to qualify for the unit density bonus. Finally, based on direction from Legal staff, projects that qualify for unit bonuses must have a restrictive covenant recorded on the affected property by the Salt Lake County Recorder's Office. The proposal also includes the necessary terms for those restrictive covenants. PUBLIC PROCESS PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT EFFORTS The Planning Division has prioritized equitable and accessible public participation throughout its efforts. To facilitate this, an interactive website (StoryMap) was created as a central hub to access information on the proposal. All public notice requirements in Utah Code and City Code were adhered to, with every affected property owner receiving a specific notice with the required information. All occupants were also notified, as were all occupants and owners within 300 feet of a property that was subject to the changes. The following is a schedule of City-wide early engagement efforts by Planning staff: • December 11, 2024 – The project Storymap was launched • December 11, 2024 – Recognized Organizations were sent the 45-day required notice for recognized community organizations • December 12, 2024 – Focus group with small-scale and affordable housing developers • December 23, 2024 – Property owners and residents within 300 feet of the affected properties were provided early notification of the proposal and the March 12, 2025, Planning Commission hearing date. • January 8, 2025 – Public notice signs advertising the proposal and the March 12, 2025, public hearing were posted at all Salt Lake City Public Library branches • January 22, 2025 – General Community Open House at City Hall Additionally, to more efficiently and effectively engage with residents and property owners, Planning staff worked with Community Councils to connect with their established neighborhood networks. The following is a list of Community Council meetings and events where staff gave a presentation, held an open house, or provided both. • January 6, 2025 – East Central Community Council Executive Board Presentation • January 8, 2025 – Downtown Alliance Development Committee Presentation • January 8, 2025 – Central City Community Council Open House and Presentation • January 8, 2025 – Sugar House Community Council Open House and Presentation • January 15, 2025 – Capitol Hill Community Council Open House and Presentation • January 16, 2025 – Liberty Wells Community Council Open House and Presentation • January 23, 2025 – East Liberty Park Community Organization Presentation • February 13, 2025 – East Central Community Council Community Resource Fair Open House and Presentation • March 5, 2025 – Greater Avenues Community Council Presentation PUBLIC FEEDBACK Through the numerous public engagement events and the initial briefings on the proposal to the Historic Landmark Commission (at the meeting on February 6, 2025) and the Planning PLNPCM2024-01388 – Updated Multi-Family Merger 10 Commission (at their meeting on February 12, 2025), planning staff identified several key themes. They are discussed below 1. Demolition of Existing Housing A common concern raised by the public was that increasing housing allowances could lead to the demolition of existing homes, especially those that may be older or more affordable, to make room for larger, more expensive developments. This is a valid issue and has shaped how staff approached the proposal. While the current RMF zoning districts are intended to permit multifamily housing, in practice, very few lots meet the requirements for its construction. In RMF- 35 and RMF-45 zones, most lots are too small to allow more than a duplex or triplex. Even in RMF-45, only about 53 properties can currently achieve a density of 30 units per acre, which is well below the intended goal of around 43 units per acre set by neighborhood plans. While these changes would allow more units on some lots, many existing multifamily buildings already have more units than would be permitted under the new rules. This means there is less incentive to demolish these buildings, even if the land becomes more valuable. The following were included in the proposal in an attempt to discourage demolition further and prevent displacement: • A 110-foot maximum lot width would limit land assembly for large-scale developments. • Unit bonuses are offered for projects that add housing without demolishing existing structures. • The Building Preservation Incentives, adopted earlier, are also included. These offer benefits such as reduced parking requirements and waived density caps when older buildings are preserved and renovated. • About 37% of all affected lots are in local historic districts, where demolition is more challenging and requires special approval. State and federal historic tax credits also encourage rehabilitation over replacement. Still, staff recognizes that some demolition will happen, as that decision ultimately lies with property owners. The proposal aims to mitigate that impact while still accommodating additional housing. 2. Affordability and Attainability of New Housing Another concern linked to demolition is that the housing replacing older buildings may be unaffordable to current residents. This is a common concern with zoning changes that allow for more development, especially when new buildings tend to be more expensive to rent or buy. It is important to note that housing prices are already rising due to demand outpacing supply. Without any change, this trend is expected to continue. The proposed updates to the RMF districts aim to The chart above illustrates how much the proposed minimum lot area changes would impact the affected properties' development potential. PLNPCM2024-01388 – Updated Multi-Family Merger 11 accommodate more housing, particularly smaller units, which are generally more affordable to construct and own. While zoning changes alone cannot guarantee deeply affordable housing, increasing the overall number of units available helps reduce pressure on the market. With more units to choose from, competition for any single unit decreases. This helps stabilize prices over time and gives households at more income levels a better chance to find housing that fits their needs. The proposal helps address affordability in three main ways: • Makes it easier to build more housing across a range of lot sizes. • Encourages the construction of smaller units, which typically cost less. • Preserves existing buildings where possible, reducing displacement of current residents. 3. Scale of New Development Some residents, especially in areas zoned RMF-35, raised concerns about the size of new buildings that could result from these changes. In response, several guardrails are built into the proposal to manage scale and preserve the feel of existing neighborhoods. Key limits include: • 110-foot maximum lot width to prevent very large developments. • Design standards to guide the look and form of new buildings. • A cap of 20 units per building, which is roughly the size of a traditional four-story walk-up. • Further, in response to scale concerns, the original proposal to allow 55-foot-tall buildings with affordable housing or preservation incentives was removed from the proposal. To reach the 20-unit threshold, a developer would need a lot of space, at least 15,000 square feet. Only about 13.7% of affected properties (299 lots) are large enough to meet that size requirement, and that’s before accounting for existing buildings or site constraints. This balanced approach allows for some growth while still keeping larger-scale buildings limited to specific sites that can support them. COMMISSION BRIEFINGS AND HEARINGS February 2025 Briefings Planning Staff held briefings on the initial proposal with the Historic Landmark Commission (HLC) on February 6, 2025, and with the Planning Commission (PC) on February 12, 2025. Both commissions provided general feedback, with concerns that generally aligned with those of the community. The Historic Landmark Commission had particular concerns about new development within Local Historic Districts. Planning staff assured them that new development and any demolitions of contributing structures would require HLC review. The illustration above show how a limited the supply of housing for all incomes in a community makes it unattainable for lower-income residents. PLNPCM2024-01388 – Updated Multi-Family Merger 12 March 2025 Planning Commission Hearing The Planning Commission held a public hearing for the proposal on March 12, 2025. The Commission’s response to staff’s updated proposal was mixed. Specifically, there were scale concerns about the proposed 45-foot height in neighborhoods zoned RMF-35, especially within neighborhoods with relatively larger lots that could see an increase in development pressure. Concerns were also raised regarding individual properties in either district located within neighborhoods that consist primarily of single-family zoning. Other Commission members were more supportive and suggested only minor tweaks, such as setback requirements for larger building forms, including multifamily and non-residential buildings. Some commissioners expressed full support for the original proposal. In their motion, the Commission directed staff to maintain the two districts (RMF-35 and RMF- 45) and identify properties that may be appropriate for an increase (from RMF-35 to RMF-45) or decrease (from RMF-35 to RMF-30) in zoning intensity. Planning Staff has incorporated the Commission’s direction as much as possible. Specific changes are outlined in the “Updates to the Proposal” section of this report. May 2025 Planning Commission Hearing Between the March 12, 2025, Public Hearing and the continued public hearing on May 14, 2025, Planning staff updated the proposal to reflect the Planning Commission’s direction. In particular, the revised proposal maintained the RMF-35 and RMF-45 zoning districts and their associated maximum height. Additionally, staff identified RMF-35 properties that are suitable for rezoning to RMF-45. Following staff’s presentation and the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council approve the proposal. Public Hearing Comments Public comments during the two public hearings were mixed, with opinions roughly evenly divided between support and opposition to the proposal (minutes for the March 12, 2025, public hearing can be found here, and minutes for the May 14, 2025, public hearing can be found here). Those who opposed the proposal raised concerns about the potential changes to affected neighborhoods. Specific issues mentioned by the public included parking, loss of sunlight and solar access, alterations in neighborhood character, possible decreases in property values, and the need for appropriate setbacks between taller and shorter buildings. Supporters of the proposal highlighted several reasons the changes were necessary. They echoed Planning staff’s concerns about the ineffectiveness of current regulations. Many expressed worries about school closures, low-quality housing, and a competitive rental market due to documented shortages in housing, all of which have been exacerbated by existing policies and regulations. They also pointed out the proximity of affected neighborhoods to transit, jobs, and downtown, emphasizing the need to expand housing opportunities in these areas. Advocates countered the argument that new development would displace naturally occurring affordable housing. One commenter reiterated staff’s earlier point that new housing development helps to alleviate demand for existing units, thereby supporting affordability. Additional public comments received after the public hearings are located in Exhibit 3. Planning Commission Records 1. February 6, 2025 – Historic Landmark Commission Briefing a. Agenda b. Minutes PLNPCM2024-01388 – Updated Multi-Family Merger 13 c. Staff Memo d. Presentation Slides e. Video Recording 2. February 12, 2025 – Planning Commission Briefing a. Agenda b. Minutes c. Staff Memo d. Presentation Slides e. Video Recording 3. March 12, 2025 – First Planning Commission Public Hearing a. Agenda b. Minutes c. Staff Report d. Presentation Slides e. Video Recording 4. May 14, 2025 – Second Planning Commission Public Hearing a. Agenda b. Minutes c. Staff Report d. Presentation Slides e. Video Recording EXHIBITS: 1. Zoning Map Amendment Ordinance 2. Zoning Text Amendment Ordinances 3. Public Comments Received After Staff Reports Were Published 4. Maps identifying properties to be rezoned from RMF-35 to RMF-45 This page has intentionally been left blank 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2025 (Amending the zoning map pertaining to multiple parcels of property from RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District to RMF-45 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District in connection with revised regulations for such districts) An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to multiple parcels Citywide as shown on Exhibit A, attached hereto, to rezone select properties from the RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family) district to the RMF-45 (Moderate Density Multi-Family) district, pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2024-01388. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on May 14, 2025, on a petition initiated by Mayor Erin Mendenhall to amend various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code related to the RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family) and RMF-45 (Moderate Density Multi-Family) zoning districts and establish new regulations pertaining to those districts; and WHEREAS, in order to conform with the future land use maps of the neighborhood plans implicated by these zoning districts, the parcels identified in this ordinance needed to be rezoned; WHEREAS, at its May 14, 2025, meeting the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a position recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said petition; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter, the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that the property depicted in Exhibit A and listed by Tax ID number 2 in Exhibit B shall be rezoned from the RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family) district to the RMF-45 (Moderate Density Multi-Family) district. In the event that a conflict arises between Exhibit A and Exhibit B, Exhibit A shall control. It is not the intent of this Section 1 to modify existing district boundaries (i.e. the physical location between or on parcels where a district boundary lies), only to change the assigned zoning district of the properties subject to this Section 1. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 2025. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2025. Published: ______________. Ordinance Rezoning Properties for RMF35/45 Amendments_v1 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney July 22, 2025 3 Exhibit “A” Zoning Map Amendment - Depiction NORTH TEMPLE ST 1300 S 13 0 0 E MA I N S T RE D W O O D R D ST A T E S T HI G H L A N D DR 2700 S 90 0 W 600 N 400 S INDIANA AVE 800 S 30 0 W 1700 S 2100 S 40 0 W 90 0 E 11 0 0 E VIC T O R Y RD RE D W O O D R D 21 0 0 E SOUTH TEMPLE ST 500 S FOO T H ILL DR 1000 N 100 S FO O T H I L L D R 90 0 W 600 S 70 0 E BEC K S T 200 S 700 N SUNNYSIDE AVE WE S T T E M P L E S T 500 S PAR L E Y S W A Y 500 S MAR IOCA P E C C H I DR 22 0 0 W 2100 N CALIFORNIA AVE 3300 S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Map Number RMF-35 to RMF-45 ¯0 3000 6000 Feet Zoning Map Amendment - Map Index 7/22/2025 280 N JO R D A N RIV E R PK Y NA V A J O S T PU E B L O S T 13 3 0 W 300 S INDIANSUMM E R DR 200 S 11 0 0 W 200 N NORTH TEMPLE ST 12 8 0 W DE M P S EY LN 180 N MO N T G O M E R Y S T 240 N EM E R Y S T CO N C O R D S T CH E Y E N N E S T FA L L S T 400 S EUCLID AVE 12 0 0 W PIERPONT AVE 13 0 0 W 200 S MOTOR AVE BO T H W E L L S T GL E N D A L E S T 13 0 0 W IOLA AVE 14 0 0 W I-80 EB I-15 NB RAMP 13 2 0 W 13 4 0 W 15 0 0 W FO S S S T I-80 WB FWY I-80 W BREDWOODOFF RAMP CO R N E L L S T 14 6 0 W I-80 EB REDWOOD ON RAMP I-80 EB FW Y RMF-35 to RMF-45 ¯0 300 600 Feet Zoning Map Amendment: Map 1 7/22/2025 ST A T E S T 300 S MA I N S T 200 N EASTCA P I T OL ST CA N Y O N R D 4TH AVE ORPHEUM AVE MA I N S T 400 S 200 S EXCHANGE PL 100 S SOUTH TEMPLE ST NORTH TEMPLE ST 3RD AVE HILLSIDE AVE 2ND AVE 1ST AVE CA N Y O N ( E ) R D 20 0 E ALM O ND ST 30 0 W WE S T T E M P L E S T 20 0 W RE G E N T S T CA N Y O N S I D E L N 100 S PO P L A R C T DE L M A R C T WA Y N E C T MA R G U E R I T E C T SH E L M E R D I N E C T QU I N C E S T QU A R TE R RO W VINEST FL O R A L S T PL U M A L Y GALLIVAN AVE PIERPONT AVE SOCIAL HALL AVE MARKET ST ED I S O N S T RMF-35 to RMF-45 ¯0 300 600 Feet Zoning Map Amendment: Map 2 7/22/2025 SOUTH TEMPLE ST 100 S 200 S 300 S 400 S ARNOLD PL 80 0 E 90 0 E ST R O N G S C T MARKEA AVE 4TH AVE 3RD AVE 2ND AVE 1ST AVE BUENO AVE RE E V E S T E R ISOM PL H S T 60 0 E 50 0 E DE N V E R S T 40 0 E CLAWSON PL LINDEN AVE BA N K S C T IV A N C T HE A T H E R S T C S T WE S T C T D S T E S T 70 0 E F S T G S T I S T J S T K S T L S T M S T ALAMEDA AVE LA K E R C T HA W K E S C T SLADE PL VI N C E N T C T CHAPMAN PL HANOVER PL DO O L E Y C T WI N D S O R S T BU R N S S T MENLO AVE RMF-35 to RMF-45 ¯0 300 600 Feet Zoning Map Amendment: Map 3 7/22/2025 500 S 600 S 700 S 800 S 900 S 90 0 W 40 0 W 50 0 W I-1 5 SB 90 0 SONRAM P I-1 5 NB 90 0 SOFF RAMP 60 0 W 80 0 W 700 S 600 S 500 S PIONEER CIR I- 1 5 S B F W Y I-1 5 S B C O L L E C T O R R A M P JE R E M Y S T I- 1 5 N B F W Y 600 FRTG 50 0 W 70 0 W 76 5 W MONTAGUE AVE MEAD AVE DALTON AVE 70 0 W PACIFIC AVE GENESEE AVE PO S T S T FAYETTE AVE 500 FRTG 46 5 W ARAPAHOE AVE FAYETTE AVE MONTAGUE AVE WO O D B I N E S T JE R E M Y S T I-1 5 N B I - 8 0 W B R A M P I-1 5 NB 40 0 SOF F RA MP I-1 5 S B 4 0 0 S O N R A M P I-80 WB 500SONRAMP I-8 0 EBI-15 SB R A M P I- 1 5 NB 60 0 SOFF RAM P I-8 0 EB 600 SOFF RAM P I-1 5 SB 50 0 S O N R A M P RMF-35 to RMF-45 ¯0 300 600 Feet Zoning Map Amendment: Map 4 7/22/2025 20 0 W 900 S BROOKLYN AVE 800 S 500 S 700 S 600 S 20 0 E ST A T E S T 30 0 W EARDLEY PL MA I N S T PL E A S A N T C T WE S T T E M P L E S T BAILEY PL MA J O R S T BELMONT AVE MEAD AVE LOWELL AVE UPTON PL GREGORY PL MONTROSE AVE WASATCH PL ST R I N G F E L L O W C T MA J O R S T MO R T E N S E N C T COLFAX AVEPORTOLA AVE HUBBARD AVE ORCHARD PL JE F F E R S O N S T WA S H I N G T O N S T HERBERT AVE WILLIAMS AVE RO B E R T A S T ED I S O N S T RI C H A R D S S T FAYETTE AVE I-15SB900SONRAM P WES T TE M P L EFR T G I-15 NB 900 S OFF RAMP RMF-35 to RMF-45 ¯0 300 600 Feet Zoning Map Amendment: Map 5 7/22/2025 MA I N S T WE S T T E M P L E S T 20 0 E 20 0 E 1700 S ANDREW AVE ST A T E S T 1300 S 1400 S BROWNING AVE KENSINGTON AVE 30 0 W 20 0 W HIGH AVE LUCY AVE PAXTON AVE ED I S O N S T MA J O R S T WA S H I N G T O N S T RO B E R T A S T HARRIS AVE WILSON AVE MA J O R S T FO U L G E R S T RO B E R T A S T JE F F E R S O N S T 1630 S GOLTZ AVE FREMONT AVE MERRIMAC AVE VAN BUREN AVE CLEVELAND AVE QUAYLE AVE COATSVILLE AVE WOOD AVE BRYAN AVE HARRISON AVE HARVARD AVE RI C H A R D S S T RI C H A R D S S T JE F F E R S O N S T EDITH AVE KELSEY AVE HAMPTON AVE YALE AVE HERBERT AVE PARAMOUNT AVE BOULEVARD GARDENS ST RMF-35 to RMF-45 ¯0 300 600 Feet Zoning Map Amendment: Map 6 7/22/2025 15 0 0 E PRINCETON AVE 14 0 0 E HARVARD AVE 11 0 0 E 13 0 0 E 10 0 0 E YALE AVE BRYAN AVE MILTON AVE 1700 S MC C L E L L A N D S T 14 0 0 E 1300 S WILSON AVE BLAINE AVE PRINCETON AVE 12 0 0 E UI N T A H C I R LA I R D C I R LAIRD AVE NO R M A N D I E C I R 10 0 0 E WILSON AVE EMERSON AVE HARVARD AVE DO U G L A S S T YALE AVE HARRISON AVE LOGAN AVE FI L M O R E S T ROOSEVELT AVE BLAINE AVE SHERMAN AVE BROWNING AVE KENSINGTON AVE LOGAN AVE WOOD AVE RMF-35 to RMF-45 ¯0 300 600 Feet Zoning Map Amendment: Map 7 7/22/2025 ELM AVE 2100 S HI G H L A N D D R 11 0 0 E HOLLYWOOD AVE RAMONA AVE DOWNINGTON AVE WILSON AVE 13 0 0 E PARKWAY AVE 12 0 0 E DO U G L A S S T EL I Z A B E T H S T 10 0 0 E 15 0 0 E MC C L E L L A N D ST 14 0 0 E I-80 EB FWY SUGARHOUSEPARK SOUTH RD GARFIELD AVE SUGARMONT DR WILMINGTON AVE I-80 WB FWY VI E W S T SU G A R H O U S E PAR K WESTRD EL I Z A B E T H S T SIMPS O NAVE DOWNINGTON AVE I-80 WB FWY WESTMINSTER AVE FI L M O R E S T 15 0 0 E DE A R B O R N S T CH A D W I C K S T BE V E R L Y S T WILSON AVE AL D E N S T WARNOCK AVE 13 0 0 F R T G E GARFIELD AVE RAMONA AVE HOLLYWOOD AVE REDONDO AVE SUGARHOUSE PARK NORTH RD 11 0 0 E ASHTON AVE I-80 WB 1 3 0 0 E OFF RAMP DO U G L A S S T WESTMINSTER AVE ALLEN PARK DR I-80 EB 1300 E O F F R A M P DRIGGS AVE STRINGHAM AVE SUGARHOUSE PARK MIDDLE RD I-80 EB 1300 E ON RAMP RMF-35 to RMF-45 ¯0 300 600 Feet Zoning Map Amendment: Map 8 7/22/2025 2700 S WHITLOCK AVE AN G E L ITA CT 11 0 0 E HIG H L A N D D R 3000 S JASPER CIR CLAYBOURNE AVE ZENITH CIR HU D S O N C I R FO R E S T D A L E C I R CAT O N WAY EL I Z A B ET H ST STRATFORD AVE BRICKYARDRD JU D I T H S T RI C H MOND ST DO U G L A S S T CRANDALL AVE 13 0 0 E ELGIN AVE AUSTIN AVE ZENITH AVE 13 3 5 E ELGINHE I G H T S L N 10 0 0 E CHARLTON AVE HUDSON AVE ATKIN AVE 13 0 0 F R T G E 14 0 0 E 15 0 0 E ATKIN AVE 12 0 0 E WARNOCK AVE BE V E R L Y S T AL D E N S T MALVERN AVE DE A R B O R N S T FI L M O R E S T CRYSTAL AVE CH A D W I C K S T GRAYSTONE WAY MC C L E L L A N D S T 11 7 0 E HUDSON AVE 15 0 0 E RMF-35 to RMF-45 ¯0 300 600 Feet Zoning Map Amendment: Map 10 7/22/2025 STRATFORD AVE 2700 S 20 0 0 E COVE Y V I E W C T CRANDALL CIR YU M A S T ATKIN AVE IM P E R I A L S T MARY DOTT WAY MABEY DR SO N N E T D R ID A C I R PR E ST O N ST STR A T F O R D DR 21 0 0 E CRYSTAL AVE CO N N O R S T HIGHLAND VIEW CIR 17 0 0 E HILLCREST AVE I-80EBFWY PR E S T O N S T 19 0 0 E GR A N D V I E W C I R WE L L I N G T O N S T ME L B O U R N E S T 18 0 0 E KE N W O O D S T PARLEYS TER WHITE AVE BOSHAM LN CLAYBOURNE AVE I-80 W B F W Y RMF-35 to RMF-45 ¯0 300 600 Feet Zoning Map Amendment: Map 11 7/22/2025 4 Exhibit “B” Zoning Map Amendment - Identification by Tax ID Number TAX ID NUMBER ADDRESS CURRENT ZONE NEW ZONE 09-31-307-001-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-002-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # 101 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-003-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # 102 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-004-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # 103 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-005-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # 104 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-006-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # 105 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-007-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # 201 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-008-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # 202 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-009-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # 203 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-010-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # 204 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-011-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # 205 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-012-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # 206 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-013-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # 207 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-014-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # 208 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-015-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # 301 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-016-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # 302 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-017-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # 303 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-018-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # 304 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-019-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # 305 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-020-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # 306 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-021-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # 307 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-022-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # 308 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-023-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # 401 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-024-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # 402 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-025-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # 403 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-026-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # 404 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-027-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # 405 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-028-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # 406 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-029-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # 407 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-030-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # 408 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-031-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # 501 RMF-35 RMF-45 Exhibit B - Zoning Map Amendment – Identification by Tax ID Number 1 of 9 TAX ID NUMBER ADDRESS CURRENT ZONE NEW ZONE 09-31-307-032-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # 502 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-033-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # 503 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-034-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # 504 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-035-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # 505 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-036-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # 506 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-037-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # 507 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-038-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # 508 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-039-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # 601 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-040-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # 602 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-041-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # 603 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-042-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # 604 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-043-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # 605 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-044-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # 701 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-045-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # 702 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-046-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # 703 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-047-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # 704 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-049-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # PENH RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-050-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # P6 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-052-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # P10 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-053-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # P53 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-054-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # P12 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-055-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # P13 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-056-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # P15 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-057-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # P17 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-058-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # P22 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-059-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # P24 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-060-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # P25 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-061-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # P35 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-062-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # P40 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-063-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # P47 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-064-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # P49 RMF-35 RMF-45 Exhibit B - Zoning Map Amendment – Identification by Tax ID Number 2 of 9 TAX ID NUMBER ADDRESS CURRENT ZONE NEW ZONE 09-31-307-066-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # P18 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-067-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # 705 RMF-35 RMF-45 09-31-307-068-0000 8 E HILLSIDE AVE # P9 RMF-35 RMF-45 15-02-306-001-0000 351-363 S CONCORD ST RMF-35 RMF-45 15-03-262-001-0000 1677 W 300 S RMF-35 RMF-45 15-03-262-002-0000 1671 W 300 S RMF-35 RMF-45 15-03-262-003-0000 1659 W 300 S RMF-35 RMF-45 15-11-203-015-0000 665-667 S 900 W RMF-35 RMF-45 15-11-203-016-0000 876 W 700 S RMF-35 RMF-45 15-11-203-017-0000 876 W 700 S RMF-35 RMF-45 15-11-203-018-0000 876 W 700 S RMF-35 RMF-45 15-12-426-004-0000 126 W MEAD AVE RMF-35 RMF-45 15-12-426-005-0000 120 W MEAD AVE RMF-35 RMF-45 15-12-426-006-0000 134 W MEAD AVE RMF-35 RMF-45 15-13-229-005-0000 1416 S WESTTEMPLE ST RMF-35 RMF-45 16-06-284-001-0000 602 E 300 S RMF-35 RMF-45 16-06-428-001-0000 321 S 600 E RMF-35 RMF-45 16-06-428-002-0000 323 S 600 E RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-156-001-0000 150 E BELMONT AVE # 1 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-156-002-0000 150 E BELMONT AVE # 2 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-156-003-0000 150 E BELMONT AVE # 3 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-156-004-0000 150 E BELMONT AVE # 4 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-156-005-0000 150 E BELMONT AVE # 5 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-156-006-0000 150 E BELMONT AVE # 6 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-156-007-0000 150 E BELMONT AVE # 7 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-156-008-0000 150 E BELMONT AVE # 8 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-156-009-0000 150 E BELMONT AVE # 9 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-156-010-0000 150 E BELMONT AVE # 10 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-156-011-0000 150 E BELMONT AVE # 11 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-156-012-0000 150 E BELMONT AVE # 12 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-156-013-0000 170 E BELMONT AVE # 1 RMF-35 RMF-45 Exhibit B - Zoning Map Amendment – Identification by Tax ID Number 3 of 9 TAX ID NUMBER ADDRESS CURRENT ZONE NEW ZONE 16-07-156-015-0000 170 E BELMONT AVE # 3 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-156-016-0000 170 E BELMONT AVE # 4 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-156-017-0000 170 E BELMONT AVE # 5 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-156-018-0000 170 E BELMONT AVE # 6 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-156-019-0000 170 E BELMONT AVE # 7 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-156-020-0000 170 E BELMONT AVE # 8 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-156-021-0000 170 E BELMONT AVE # 9 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-156-022-0000 170 E BELMONT AVE # 10 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-156-023-0000 170 E BELMONT AVE # 11 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-156-024-0000 170 E BELMONT AVE # 12 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-156-025-0000 170 E BELMONT AVE # 13 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-156-026-0000 170 E BELMONT AVE # 14 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-156-027-0000 170 E BELMONT AVE # 15 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-156-028-0000 170 E BELMONT AVE # 16 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-156-029-0000 170 E BELMONT AVE # 17 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-156-030-0000 170 E BELMONT AVE # 18 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-156-031-0000 170 E BELMONT AVE # 19 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-156-032-0000 170 E BELMONT AVE # 20 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-156-033-0000 170 E BELMONT AVE # 21 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-156-034-0000 170 E BELMONT AVE # 22 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-156-035-0000 170 E BELMONT AVE # 23 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-156-036-0000 170 E BELMONT AVE # 24 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-156-037-0000 190 E BELMONT AVE # 1 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-156-038-0000 190 E BELMONT AVE # 2 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-156-039-0000 190 E BELMONT AVE # 3 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-156-040-0000 190 E BELMONT AVE # 4 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-156-041-0000 190 E BELMONT AVE # 5 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-156-042-0000 190 E BELMONT AVE # 6 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-156-043-0000 190 E BELMONT AVE # 7 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-156-044-0000 190 E BELMONT AVE # 8 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-156-045-0000 190 E BELMONT AVE # 9 RMF-35 RMF-45 Exhibit B - Zoning Map Amendment – Identification by Tax ID Number 4 of 9 TAX ID NUMBER ADDRESS CURRENT ZONE NEW ZONE 16-07-156-046-0000 190 E BELMONT AVE # 10 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-156-047-0000 190 E BELMONT AVE # 11 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-156-048-0000 190 E BELMONT AVE # 12 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-156-050-0000 170 E BELMONT AVE # 2 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-156-051-0000 976 S 200 E RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-307-018-0000 992 S 200 E RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-314-001-0000 996 S 200 E # 101 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-314-002-0000 996 S 200 E # 102 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-314-003-0000 996 S 200 E # 103 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-314-004-0000 996 S 200 E # 104 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-314-005-0000 996 S 200 E # 105 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-314-006-0000 996 S 200 E # 106 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-314-007-0000 996 S 200 E # 107 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-314-008-0000 996 S 200 E # 108 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-314-009-0000 996 S 200 E # 109 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-314-010-0000 996 S 200 E # 110 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-314-011-0000 996 S 200 E # 201 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-314-012-0000 996 S 200 E # 202 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-314-013-0000 996 S 200 E # 203 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-314-014-0000 996 S 200 E # 204 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-314-015-0000 996 S 200 E # 205 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-314-016-0000 996 S 200 E # 206 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-314-017-0000 996 S 200 E # 207 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-314-018-0000 996 S 200 E # 208 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-314-019-0000 996 S 200 E # 209 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-314-020-0000 996 S 200 E # 210 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-314-021-0000 996 S 200 E # 301 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-314-022-0000 996 S 200 E # 302 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-314-023-0000 996 S 200 E # 303 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-314-024-0000 996 S 200 E # 304 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-314-025-0000 996 S 200 E # 305 RMF-35 RMF-45 Exhibit B - Zoning Map Amendment – Identification by Tax ID Number 5 of 9 TAX ID NUMBER ADDRESS CURRENT ZONE NEW ZONE 16-07-314-026-0000 996 S 200 E # 306 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-314-027-0000 996 S 200 E # 307 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-314-028-0000 996 S 200 E # 308 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-314-029-0000 996 S 200 E # 309 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-314-030-0000 996 S 200 E RMF-35 RMF-45 16-07-314-031-0000 996 S 200 E # 310 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-15-380-022-0000 2243 E 2100 S RMF-35 RMF-45 16-16-352-006-0000 1951 S 1300 E RMF-35 RMF-45 16-17-204-032-0000 1418-1426 S 1100 E RMF-35 RMF-45 16-17-481-008-0000 1945 S 1300 E RMF-35 RMF-45 16-21-479-020-0000 2673 S PRESTON ST RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-255-002-0000 1151 E BRICKYARD RD #1001 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-255-003-0000 1151 E BRICKYARD RD #1002 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-255-004-0000 1151 E BRICKYARD RD #1003 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-255-005-0000 1151 E BRICKYARD RD #1004 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-255-006-0000 1151 E BRICKYARD RD #1005 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-255-007-0000 1151 E BRICKYARD RD #1006 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-255-008-0000 1149 E BRICKYARD RD #1101 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-255-009-0000 1149 E BRICKYARD RD #1102 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-255-010-0000 1149 E BRICKYARD RD #1103 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-255-011-0000 1149 E BRICKYARD RD #1104 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-255-012-0000 1149 E BRICKYARD RD #1105 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-255-013-0000 1149 E BRICKYARD RD #1106 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-255-014-0000 1145 E BRICKYARD RD #1201 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-255-015-0000 1145 E BRICKYARD RD #1202 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-255-016-0000 1145 E BRICKYARD RD #1203 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-255-017-0000 1145 E BRICKYARD RD #1204 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-255-018-0000 1145 E BRICKYARD RD #1205 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-255-019-0000 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-255-020-0000 1141 E BRICKYARD RD #1301 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-255-021-0000 1141 E BRICKYARD RD #1302 RMF-35 RMF-45 Exhibit B - Zoning Map Amendment – Identification by Tax ID Number 6 of 9 TAX ID NUMBER ADDRESS CURRENT ZONE NEW ZONE 16-29-255-022-0000 1141 E BRICKYARD RD #1303 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-255-023-0000 1141 E BRICKYARD RD #1304 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-255-024-0000 1141 E BRICKYARD RD #1305 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-255-025-0000 1141 E BRICKYARD RD #1306 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-255-026-0000 1139 E BRICKYARD RD #1401 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-255-027-0000 1139 E BRICKYARD RD #1402 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-255-028-0000 1139 E BRICKYARD RD #1403 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-255-029-0000 1139 E BRICKYARD RD #1404 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-255-030-0000 1139 E BRICKYARD RD #1405 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-255-031-0000 1139 E BRICKYARD RD #1406 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-255-032-0000 1133 E BRICKYARD RD #1501 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-255-033-0000 1133 E BRICKYARD RD #1502 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-255-034-0000 1133 E BRICKYARD RD #1503 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-255-035-0000 1133 E BRICKYARD RD #1504 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-255-036-0000 1133 E BRICKYARD RD #1505 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-255-037-0000 1133 E BRICKYARD RD #1506 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-255-038-0000 1125 E BRICKYARD RD #1601 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-255-039-0000 1125 E BRICKYARD RD #1602 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-255-040-0000 1125 E BRICKYARD RD #1603 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-255-041-0000 1125 E BRICKYARD RD #1604 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-255-042-0000 1125 E BRICKYARD RD #1605 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-255-043-0000 1125 E BRICKYARD RD #1606 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-255-044-0000 1129 E BRICKYARD RD #1701 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-255-045-0000 1129 E BRICKYARD RD #1702 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-255-046-0000 1129 E BRICKYARD RD #1703 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-255-047-0000 1129 E BRICKYARD RD #1704 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-255-048-0000 1129 E BRICKYARD RD #1705 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-255-049-0000 1129 E BRICKYARD RD #1706 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-255-050-0000 1121 E BRICKYARD RD #1801 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-255-051-0000 1121 E BRICKYARD RD #1802 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-255-052-0000 1121 E BRICKYARD RD #1803 RMF-35 RMF-45 Exhibit B - Zoning Map Amendment – Identification by Tax ID Number 7 of 9 TAX ID NUMBER ADDRESS CURRENT ZONE NEW ZONE 16-29-255-053-0000 1121 E BRICKYARD RD #1804 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-255-054-0000 1121 E BRICKYARD RD #1805 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-255-055-0000 1121 E BRICKYARD RD #1806 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-255-056-0000 1157 E BRICKYARD RD RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-258-002-0000 1217 E BRICKYARD RD # 101 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-258-003-0000 1217 E BRICKYARD RD # 102 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-258-004-0000 1217 E BRICKYARD RD # 103 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-258-005-0000 1217 E BRICKYARD RD # 104 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-258-006-0000 1217 E BRICKYARD RD # 105 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-258-007-0000 1217 E BRICKYARD RD # 106 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-258-008-0000 1227 E BRICKYARD RD # 201 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-258-009-0000 1227 E BRICKYARD RD # 202 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-258-010-0000 1227 E BRICKYARD RD # 203 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-258-011-0000 1227 E BRICKYARD RD # 204 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-258-012-0000 1227 E BRICKYARD RD # 205 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-258-013-0000 1227 E BRICKYARD RD # 206 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-258-014-0000 1237 E BRICKYARD RD # 301 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-258-015-0000 1237 E BRICKYARD RD # 302 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-258-016-0000 1237 E BRICKYARD RD # 303 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-258-017-0000 1237 E BRICKYARD RD # 304 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-258-018-0000 1237 E BRICKYARD RD # 305 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-258-019-0000 1237 E BRICKYARD RD # 306 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-258-020-0000 1241 E BRICKYARD RD # 403 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-258-021-0000 1241 E BRICKYARD RD # 401 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-258-022-0000 1241 E BRICKYARD RD # 402 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-258-023-0000 1241 E BRICKYARD RD # 404 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-258-024-0000 1241 E BRICKYARD RD # 405 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-258-025-0000 1241 E BRICKYARD RD # 406 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-258-026-0000 1231 E BRICKYARD RD # 501 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-258-027-0000 1231 E BRICKYARD RD # 502 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-258-028-0000 1231 E BRICKYARD RD # 503 RMF-35 RMF-45 Exhibit B - Zoning Map Amendment – Identification by Tax ID Number 8 of 9 TAX ID NUMBER ADDRESS CURRENT ZONE NEW ZONE 16-29-258-029-0000 1231 E BRICKYARD RD # 504 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-258-030-0000 1231 E BRICKYARD RD # 505 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-258-031-0000 1231 E BRICKYARD RD # 506 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-258-032-0000 1221 E BRICKYARD RD # 601 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-258-033-0000 1221 E BRICKYARD RD # 602 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-258-034-0000 1221 E BRICKYARD RD # 603 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-258-035-0000 1221 E BRICKYARD RD # 604 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-258-036-0000 1221 E BRICKYARD RD # 605 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-258-037-0000 1221 E BRICKYARD RD # 606 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-258-038-0000 1181 E BRICKYARD RD # 701 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-258-039-0000 1181 E BRICKYARD RD # 702 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-258-040-0000 1181 E BRICKYARD RD # 703 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-258-041-0000 1181 E BRICKYARD RD # 704 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-258-042-0000 1181 E BRICKYARD RD # 705 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-258-043-0000 1181 E BRICKYARD RD # 706 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-258-044-0000 1167 E BRICKYARD RD # 801 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-258-045-0000 1167 E BRICKYARD RD # 802 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-258-046-0000 1167 E BRICKYARD RD # 803 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-258-047-0000 1167 E BRICKYARD RD # 804 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-258-048-0000 1167 E BRICKYARD RD # 805 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-258-049-0000 1167 E BRICKYARD RD # 806 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-258-050-0000 1155 E BRICKYARD RD # 901 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-258-051-0000 1155 E BRICKYARD RD # 902 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-258-052-0000 1155 E BRICKYARD RD # 903 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-258-053-0000 1155 E BRICKYARD RD # 904 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-258-054-0000 1155 E BRICKYARD RD # 905 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-258-055-0000 1155 E BRICKYARD RD # 906 RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-278-021-0000 3025 S 1100 E RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-401-003-0000 1006 E WELBY AVE RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-401-004-0000 3103 S 1000 E RMF-35 RMF-45 16-29-401-005-0000 3111 S 1000 E RMF-35 RMF-45 Exhibit B - Zoning Map Amendment – Identification by Tax ID Number 9 of 9 This page has intentionally been left blank 1 Project Title: RMF 35 and RMF 45 Consolidation: Chapter 21A.24.130 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential 45 Districts Petition No.: PLNPC2024-01388 Version: 1 Date Prepared: July 16, 2025 Planning Commission Action: Recommended May 14, 2025 This proposed ordinance makes the following amendments (for summary purposes only): • Amends Chapter 21A.24.130 to remove RMF-35 language • Amends Chapter 21A.24.130 to replace RMF-35 with new RMF-35 & RMF-45 Ordinance • Amends 21A.24.140 to remove RMF-45 language Underlined text is new; text with strikethrough is proposed to be deleted. All other text is existing with no proposed change. 1. Amends Chapter 21A.24.130 as follows: 1 21A.24.130: RMF-35 and RMF-45 MODERATE DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 2 DISTRICTS 3 A. Purpose Statement: The RMF-35 and RMF-45 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential Districts 4 are intended to provide an environment in the city suitable for a variety of residential building forms 5 that are moderate in scale, up to a height of 35 feet in the RMF-35 district and 45 feet in the RMF-45 6 district, with a density based on the land use policies identified in the general plan. The districts serve 7 as a transition between low-density neighborhoods and areas with greater land-use intensity. The 8 primary intent of both districts is to enable infill development, encourage incremental construction of 9 affordable and attainable housing, and support the character of established residential neighborhoods. 10 The form-based standards for the districts are intended to promote a variety of housing options. These 11 districts are meant to facilitate an engaging pedestrian experience, support nearby commercial uses, 12 and encourage sustainable modes of transportation. 13 B. Allowed Uses: Land uses shall be allowed as a permitted or conditional use based on the land use 14 tables for each listed district in Chapter 21A.33. Any permitted or conditional use shall also be 15 limited by any specific provision in this chapter or as determined by the building type definitions 16 found in 21A.62.060. 17 1. Accessory Uses and Structures: Accessory uses and structures shall be allowed subject to the 18 requirements of 21A.36.020, 21A.36.030, and 21A.40 of this title and any other provisions that 19 specifically apply to accessory uses and structures that may be found in this title. 20 C. General Provisions: 21 1. Building Height: 22 a. Maximum: Building height maximums are based on building forms listed in Section 23 21A.24.130.I. 24 b. Measurement: Building height in this chapter shall be measured from finished grade. 25 2. Yard and Setback: 26 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: _7/16/25_____________________ By: ____________________________ Courtney Lords, Senior City Attorney 2 a. General Yard Applicability: When a development includes multiple lots, the minimum 27 required yards may apply to the perimeter of the development rather than to individual lots. 28 b. Front and Corner Side Yard Exceptions: 29 (1) Adjacent Building Exception: A required minimum front or corner side yard may be 30 reduced to equal an abutting lot's front or corner side yard if the yard area is located along 31 the same block face. 32 (2) Curb Distance Exception: No minimum setback is required for the front or corner side 33 yard if the respective lot line is more than 20 feet from the street curb face. 34 c. Side or Rear Yard Abutting an Alley: Half the width of an abutting alley may be counted 35 toward a required side or rear yard. 36 3. Lot Size Provisions: 37 a. Lot Width Maximum: The width of a new lot shall not exceed 110 feet. Where more than 38 one lot is created, the combined lot width of abutting lots within a new subdivision, including 39 area between lots, shall not exceed 110 feet. 40 b. Lot Area Requirement Exception: No minimum lot area is required for utility buildings and 41 structures or for allowed uses that do not involve the construction of a principal building, 42 such as parks and open space. 43 4. Open Space Area Requirements: Open space areas may include landscaped yards, patios, 44 dining areas, common balconies, rooftop gardens, and other similar outdoor living spaces. Private 45 balconies, required parking lot landscaping, or required perimeter parking lot landscaping shall 46 not be counted toward the minimum open space area requirement. When required by the building 47 form standards in this chapter, the following open space standards shall apply: 48 a. Common Open Space Areas: A common open space area is an outdoor space shared by all 49 dwelling units within a development that meets the minimum size requirement specified in an 50 applicable building form table. For developments that involve subdividing a site into multiple 51 lots, common open space areas may use the entire development area, provided each dwelling 52 unit has legally established access to the common open space area. At least 50% of the 53 required common open space shall be contiguous and include the following: 54 (1) A minimum of 33% live vegetation; 55 (2) A minimum width of 6 feet; 56 (3) and at least two of the following: 57 (A) A bench for every 250 square feet of common open space area; 58 (B) An outdoor amenity intended to provide outdoor recreation and leisure opportunities, 59 which may include playgrounds, seating areas, gardens, sports courts, or similar 60 amenities intended to promote outdoor activity; or 61 (C) A shade structure or tree with a minimum spread of 20 feet at mature height for every 62 250 square feet of common open space area. If a tree is provided, the tree canopy at 63 maturity may count toward the required minimum area of vegetation. 64 b. Personal Open Space Areas: A personal open space area is a private area that is accessible 65 only to its respective dwelling unit. Each personal open space area shall be separated from 66 other areas by a fence, hedge, or other physical barrier to distinguish it as private. When 67 required, the minimum personal open space area shall apply to each dwelling unit in a 68 development. Each personal open space area shall: 69 (1) Contain at least one shade area. Shade may include a tree, pergola, gazebo, or other 70 similar structure designed to provide shade to the area. Shade structures may encroach 71 into a required yard provided they are located at least one foot from all lot lines; 72 3 (2) Have no more than 50% coverage of impervious surfaces; 73 (3) Not be located within a required front yard; and 74 (4) Have a minimum width of 6 feet. 75 c. Proximity to Public Parks: The open space required by a building form standard does not 76 apply when the subject property is within 800 feet of a public park or open space, as 77 measured along the closest reasonable walking path. 78 5. Public Street Frontage: 79 a. Buildings Without Frontage: A lot may contain principal buildings without public street 80 frontage provided that: 81 (1) At least one principal building on the lot has public street frontage and meets the 82 minimum front yard setback, 83 (2) Each building has legally established access to a public street, and 84 (3) Each ground-floor dwelling unit of the Row House, Urban House, Two-Family, and 85 Cottage Development forms shall include an entry feature allowed by 21A.37.050, 86 regardless of street frontage. 87 b. Lots without Frontage: For the purpose of this provision, individual dwellings may be on 88 their own lot, including within a condominium development. Lots without public street 89 frontage, used for individual dwelling units or buildings, are allowed subject to a preliminary 90 subdivision plat process and recording a final subdivision plat that: 91 (1) Documents that new lots have adequate access to a public street by way of easements or a 92 shared driveway and 93 (2) Includes a disclosure of private infrastructure costs for any shared infrastructure 94 associated with the new lot(s) per Section 21A.55.110 of this title and all other 95 requirements therein. 96 6. Midblock Walkways: When identified in the general plan, midblock walkways are subject 97 to the following requirements: 98 a. Width: The midblock walkway shall meet the minimum width requirements established 99 in the applicable plan. If no minimum width is provided, it shall be 6 feet. 100 b. Encroachments: The following building encroachments are permitted in an outdoor 101 midblock walkway: 102 (1) Balconies: All balconies must be located at the third story or above; 103 (2) Building overhangs and associated cantilever: These coverings shall be located no 104 lower than 9 feet above the level of the sidewalk and may project up to 6 feet; 105 (3) Other architectural element(s) not listed above that offer refuge from weather and/or 106 provide publicly accessible usable space, projecting up to 1 foot into the midblock 107 walkway. 108 D. Unit Density Bonus: Bonus dwelling units may be granted when an existing principal building is 109 retained as part of a development that adds at least one additional dwelling unit pursuant to the 110 following: 111 1. Two bonus dwelling units of any building type may be granted for retaining an existing structure 112 that contains one or two dwelling units, or retaining two dwelling units within separate buildings 113 on a site. 114 2. Four bonus dwelling units of any type may be granted for retaining an existing building 115 containing three or more dwelling units or retaining three or more dwelling units within multiple 116 buildings on a site. 117 3. A bonus dwelling unit may be added within or attached to an existing principal building or as a 118 separate building, provided that all other applicable zoning requirements are met. Bonus units are 119 not subject to minimum lot area requirements. 120 4 4. The addition of a bonus dwelling unit to an existing principal building does not change the 121 building type of the existing building. 122 5. Bonus dwelling units are exempt from minimum off-street parking requirements. 123 6. Bonus dwelling units are exempt from open space area requirements. 124 7. The exterior building walls and roofline of the existing principal building must be retained to 125 obtain a bonus dwelling unit. Additional stories are permitted and existing architectural elements 126 may be modified provided they meet applicable zoning or historic preservation standards. 127 8. A density bonus may only be requested with a building permit application for development that 128 meets the minimum lot area requirements. 129 9. Any density bonus granted shall be documented through a restrictive covenant, the form of which 130 shall be approved by the city attorney. The restrictive covenant shall be recorded on the property 131 with the Salt Lake County Recorder prior to final inspection of the bonus units. The restrictive 132 covenant shall run with the land and shall provide for the following, without limitation: 133 a. Indicate that bonus dwelling units were established by retaining existing structures on a site. 134 b. Guarantee that the building(s) containing the unit(s) used to qualify for the bonus units shall 135 not be demolished unless the associated bonus units are also demolished; and 136 c. Establish that the terms of the restrictive covenant are enforceable by the city or, pursuant to 137 Utah Code Section 10-9a-802 (or its successor), any adversely affected party, and that in any 138 such enforcement action the court shall award the prevailing party its attorneys' fees. 139 E. Other Applicable Regulations: The following additional regulations apply to properties within 140 this district: 141 1. 21A.33 Land Use Tables 142 2. 21A.24.010 General Provisions for Residential Districts 143 3. 21A.36 General Provisions 144 4. 21A.37 Design Standards 145 5. 21A.38 Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Structures 146 6. 21A.40 Accessory Uses, Buildings, and Structures 147 7. 21A.42 Temporary Uses 148 8. 21A.44 Off Street Parking, Mobility, and Loading 149 9. 21A.46 Signs 150 10. 21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers 151 F. Building Types, Forms and Standards: Allowed building forms shall be determined based on the 152 definitions in 21A.62.060. Standards for each allowed building form are listed in the Building Form 153 Standards tables below. 154 1. Urban House and Two-Family Building Form Standards: 155 TABLE 21A.24.130.F.1 156 Building Regulation Regulation for Building Forms: Urban House and Two-Family Dwelling Maximum: 35 feet Minimum: Minimum: Minimum: Minimum: Minimum: Maximum: 2 5 2. Cottage Development Building Form Standards: 157 TABLE 21A.24.130.F.2 158 3. Row House Building Form Standards: 159 TABLE 21A.24.130.F.3 160 Building Coverage Maximum: Landscape Buffer Attached Garage (50%) of the width of the front facade of the building. of multiple garage doors, the sum of the widths of each garage door plus the width of any intervening wall elements between garage doors. No attached garage shall be constructed forward of the "front line of the building" (as defined in section 21A.62.040 of this title). Building Regulation Regulation for Building Form: Cottage Development Maximum: 23 feet Minimum: Minimum: Minimum: Minimum: Minimum: Maximum: 1 Building Size 850 square feet of gross floor area per Cottage Open Space Area Minimum Landscape Buffers Building Regulation Regulation for Building Form: Row House Maximum: 35 feet Minimum: Minimum: Interior Side Yard Minimum: When the interior side yard abuts an R-1, R- 6 4. Multi-Family Residential Building Form Standards: 161 TABLE 21A.24.130.F.4 162 5. Non-residential Building Form Standards: 163 TABLE 21A.24.130.F.4 164 Rear Yard Minimum: When the rear yard abuts an R-1, R-2, FR, or SR zoning district lot line, the minimum is 15 feet unless a street or alley separates the Minimum: Maximum: 6 Open Space Area Minimum: Landscape Buffers Attached Garages Building Regulation Regulation for Building Form: Multi-Family Residential Maximum: Maximum: Minimum: Minimum: Interior Side Yard Minimum: When the interior side yard abuts an R-1, R- the side lot line, the minimum is 10 feet unless a street or alley separates the Rear Yard Minimum: When the rear yard abuts an R-1, R- lot line, the minimum is 15 feet unless a street or alley separates the Minimum: Maximum: 20 Open Space Area Minimum: developments with 3 dwelling units, a minimum of 200 square feet of Landscape Buffers Building Regulation Regulation for Building Form: Non-Residential Maximum: Maximum: Minimum: Minimum: 7 165 A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District 166 is to provide an environment suitable for a variety of moderate density housing types, including single-167 family, two-family, and multi-family dwellings with a maximum height of thirty five feet (35'). This 168 district is appropriate in areas where the applicable Master Plan policies recommend a density of less than 169 thirty (30) dwelling units per acre. This district includes other uses that are typically found in a multi-170 family residential neighborhood of this density for the purpose of serving the neighborhood. Uses are 171 intended to be compatible with the existing scale and intensity of the neighborhood. The standards for the 172 district are intended to provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play, promote sustainable and 173 compatible development patterns and to preserve the existing character of the neighborhood. 174 B. Uses: Uses in the RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District, as specified in 175 section 21A.33.020, "Table Of Permitted And Conditional Uses For Residential Districts", of this title, 176 are permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in section 21A.24.010 of this chapter and this 177 section. 178 C. Minimum Lot Area And Lot Width: The minimum lot areas and lot widths required in this district 179 are as follows: 180 Land Use Minimum Lot Area Minimum Lot Width Multi-family dwellings (3 through 11 units) 9,000 square feet1 80 feet Multi-family dwellings (12 or more units) 26,000 square feet1 80 feet Municipal service uses, including City utility uses No minimum No minimum Natural open space and conservation areas, public No minimum No minimum Public pedestrian pathways, trails and greenways No minimum No minimum Public/private utility transmission wires, lines, No minimum No minimum Single-family attached dwellings (3 or more) 3,000 square feet per unit Interior: 22 feet Corner: 32 feet Single-family detached dwellings 5,000 square feet 50 feet Interior Side Yard Minimum: When the interior side yard abuts an R-1, R- the side lot line, the minimum is 10 feet unless a street or alley separates the Rear Yard Minimum: When the rear yard abuts an R-1, R- lot line, the minimum is 15 feet unless a street or alley separates the Minimum: Open Space Area Minimum: 15% of the lot area shall be common or private open space Landscape Buffers 8 Utility substations and buildings 5,000 square feet 50 feet Other permitted or conditional uses as listed in 5,000 square feet 50 feet Qualifying provisions: 181 1. 9,000 square feet for 3 units, plus 2,000 square feet for each additional dwelling unit up to and 182 including 11 units. 26,000 square feet for 12 units, plus 1,000 square feet for each additional dwelling unit 183 up to 1 acre. For developments greater than 1 acre, 1,500 square feet for each dwelling unit is required. 184 D. Maximum Building Height: The maximum building height permitted in this district is thirty five 185 feet (35'). 186 E. Minimum Yard Requirements: 187 1. Front Yard: Twenty feet (20'). 188 2. Corner Side Yard: Ten feet (10'). 189 3. Interior Side Yard: 190 a. Single-family detached and two-family dwellings: 191 (1) Interior lots: Four feet (4') on one side and ten feet (10') on the other. 192 (2) Corner lots: Four feet (4'). 193 b. Single-family attached: No yard is required, however, if one is provided it shall not be less than 194 four feet (4'). 195 c. Twin home dwelling: No yard is required along one side lot line while a ten foot (10') yard is 196 required on the other. 197 d. Multi-family dwellings: 198 (1) Interior lots: Side yard shall be at least ten feet (10'). 199 e. All other permitted and conditional uses: Ten feet (10') on each side. 200 4. Rear Yard: Twenty five percent (25%) of the lot depth, but not less than twenty feet (20') and need 201 not exceed twenty five feet (25'). 202 5. Accessory Buildings And Structures In Yards: Accessory buildings and structures may be located 203 in a required yard subject to section 21A.36.020, table 21A.36.020B, "Obstructions In Required Yards", 204 of this title. 205 6. Existing Yards: For buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the required yard shall be no 206 greater than the established setback line of the existing building. 207 F. Required Landscape Yards: The front yard, corner side and, for interior multi-family lots, one of the 208 interior side yards shall be maintained as landscape yards. 209 G. Maximum Building Coverage: 210 1. Single-Family Detached: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall not 211 exceed forty five percent (45%) of the lot area. 212 2. Single-Family Attached Dwellings: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings 213 shall not exceed sixty percent (60%) of the lot area. 214 3. Two-Family And Twin Home Dwellings: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory 215 buildings shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the lot area. 216 4. Multi-Family Dwellings: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall not 217 exceed sixty percent (60%) of the lot area. 218 5. Existing Dwellings: For dwellings existing on April 12, 1995, the coverage of such existing 219 buildings shall be considered legally conforming. 220 9 6. Nonresidential Land Uses: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall not 221 exceed sixty percent (60%) of the lot area. 222 H. Landscape Buffers: Where a lot abuts a lot in a single-family or two-family residential district, a 223 landscape buffer shall be provided in accordance with chapter 21A.48 of this title. (Ord. 56-24, 2024: 224 Ord. 46-17, 2017: Ord. 66-13, 2013: Ord. 12-11, 2011: Ord. 62-09 §§ 6, 9, 2009: Ord. 61-09 § 7, 2009: 225 Ord. 35-99 §§ 18, 19, 1999: Ord. 26-95 § 2(12-12), 1995) 226 227 2. Amends Chapter 21A.24.140 as follows: 228 21A.24.140: Reserved RMF-45 MODERATE/HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 229 DISTRICT 230 231 A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the RMF-45 Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential 232 District is to provide an environment suitable for multi-family dwellings of a moderate/high density with 233 a maximum building height of forty five feet (45'). This district is appropriate in areas where the 234 applicable Master Plan policies recommend a density of less than forty three (43) dwelling units per acre. 235 This district includes other uses that are typically found in a multi-family residential neighborhood of this 236 density for the purpose of serving the neighborhood. Such uses are designed to be compatible with the 237 existing scale and intensity of the neighborhood. The standards for the district are intended to provide for 238 safe and comfortable places to live and play, promote sustainable and compatible development patterns 239 and to preserve the existing character of the neighborhood. 240 241 B. Uses: Uses in the RMF-45 Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential District, as specified 242 in section 21A.33.020, "Table Of Permitted And Conditional Uses For Residential Districts", of this title, 243 are permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in section 21A.24.010 of this chapter and this 244 section. 245 246 C. Minimum Lot Area And Lot Width: The minimum lot areas and lot widths required in this district 247 are as follows: 248 249 Land Use Minimum Lot Area Land Use Minimum Lot Area Multi-family dwellings (3 to 14 units) 9,000 square feet1 80 feet Multi-family dwellings (15 or more) 21,000 square feet1 80 feet No minimum No minimum No minimum No minimum Places of worship less than 4 acres in size 12,000 square feet 140 feet Public pedestrian pathways, trails and greenways No minimum No minimum No minimum No minimum 10 Single-family attached dwellings 3,000 square feet per unit Interior: 22 feet Corner: 32 feet Single-family detached dwellings 5,000 square feet 50 feet Utility substations and buildings 5,000 square feet 50 feet 10,000 square feet 80 feet Qualifying provisions: 250 1. 9,000 square feet for 3 units, plus 1,000 square feet for each additional dwelling unit up to and 251 including 14 units. 21,000 square feet for 15 units, plus 800 square feet for each additional dwelling unit 252 up to 1 acre. For developments greater than 1 acre, 1,000 square feet for each dwelling unit is required. 253 254 D. Maximum Building Height: The maximum building height permitted in this district is forty five feet 255 (45'). 256 E. Minimum Yard Requirements: 257 1. Front Yard: Twenty percent (20%) of lot depth, but need not exceed twenty five feet (25'). For 258 buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the required front yard shall be no greater than the existing 259 yard. 260 2. Corner Side Yard: 261 a. Single-family attached dwellings: Ten feet (10'). 262 b. Multi-family dwellings: Twenty feet (20'). 263 c. All other permitted and conditional uses: Twenty feet (20'). 264 3. Interior Side Yard: 265 a. Single-family attached dwelling: No yard is required, however if one is provided it shall not be 266 less than four feet (4'). 267 b. Multi-family dwellings: The minimum yard shall be eight feet (8'); provided, that no principal 268 building is erected within ten feet (10') of a building on an abutting lot. 269 c. All other permitted and conditional uses: Ten feet (10') on each side. 270 4. Rear Yard: The rear yard shall be twenty five percent (25%) of the lot depth, but need not exceed 271 thirty feet (30'). 272 5. Accessory Buildings And Structures In Yards: Accessory buildings and structures may be located 273 in a required yard subject to section 21A.36.020, table 21A.36.020B, "Obstructions In Required Yards", 274 of this title. 275 F. Required Landscape Yards: The front yard, corner side and, for interior lots, one of the interior side 276 yards shall be maintained as a landscape yard except that single-family attached dwellings, no interior 277 side yard shall be required. 278 G. Maximum Building Coverage: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall 279 not exceed sixty percent (60%) of the lot area. 280 H. Landscape Buffers: Where a lot abuts a lot in a single-family or two-family residential district, a 281 landscape buffer shall be provided in accordance with chapter 21A.48, "Landscaping And Buffers", of 282 this title. 283 284 285 286 1 Project Title: RMF 35 and RMF 45 Consolidation: Chapter 21A.24.130 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential 45 Districts Petition No.: PLNPC2024-01388 Version: 1 Date Prepared: July 16, 2025 Planning Commission Action: Recommended May 14, 2025 This proposed ordinance makes the following amendments (for summary purposes only): • Amends 21A.37.060 so that design standard requirements in residential districts are separated by building type. • Amends 21A.37.060 to update design standards for the RMF-35 and RMF-45 districts. Underlined text is new; text with strikethrough is proposed to be deleted. Modifications made as part of the Planning Commission recommendation are highlighted in yellow. All other text is existing with no proposed change. 1. Amends Chapter 21A.37.060 as follows: 1 21A.37.060: DESIGN STANDARDS REQUIRED IN EACH ZONING DISTRICT: 2 This section identifies each design standard and to which zoning districts the standard applies. If a box is 3 checked (X) or noted with a dimension, that standard is required. If a box is blank, it is not required. If a 4 specific dimension or detail of a design standard differs among zoning districts or differs from the 5 definition, it will be indicated within the box. In cases when a dimension in this table conflicts with a 6 dimension in the definition, the dimensions listed in the table shall take precedence. 7 Table 21A.37.060 8 A. Residential Districts 9 1. Standards for Single-family, Urban House, Two-family, and Cottage Development Building 10 Forms: 11 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: _7/16/25__________________ By: ____________________________ Courtney Lords, Senior City Attorney 2 12 2. Standards for Row House Building Form 13 14 3. Standards for Multi-Family Building Form 15 3 16 4. Standards for all Other Building Forms 17 A. Residential Districts: 18 Standard District 4 (Code Section) RMF- 30 RMF- 35 RMF- 45 RMF- 75 FB-UN1 Ground floor use (%) (21A.37.050 A1) Building materials: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050 B3) 50 Building materials: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050 B4) 50 Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050 C1) 20 Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050 C2) 15 Building entrances (feet) (21A.37.050 D) X Blank wall: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050 E) 15 Street facing facade: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050F) Upper floor step back (feet) (21A.37.050) Lighting: exterior (21A.37.050H) Lighting: parking lot (21A.37.050I) Screening of mechanical equipment (21A.37.050J) X Screening of service areas (21A.37.050K) X Parking garages or structures (21A.37.050M) 19 1 Project Title: RMF 35 and RMF 45 Consolidation: Chapter 21A Assorted References Petition No.: PLNPCM2024-01388 Version: 1 Date Prepared: July 16, 2025 Planning Commission Action: Recommended May 14, 2025 This proposed ordinance makes the following amendments (for summary purposes only): 1. Amends the titles found in the table of contents of 21A.24 to reflect the change moving the RMF-35 and RMF-45 zoning districts in a single chapter. 2. Amends Chapter 21A.22.010 to reflect the change moving the RMF-35 and RMF-45 zoning districts in a single chapter. 3. Amends Chapter 21A.33.020 to update permitted and conditional land uses in both the RMF-35 and RMF-45 zoning districts. 4. Amends Chapter 21A.34.020.M.2 to update section references. 5. Amends Table 21A.40.090 to update section references. 6. Amends Chapter 21A.44.060.A to update section references. 7. Amends Chapter 21A.44.080.B to update section references. 8. Amends Chapter 21A.52.050.G.2 to update section references. 9. Amends Chapter 21A.52.050.H.2 to update section references. 10. Amends Chapter 21A.52.060.A.4.c to update section references. 11. Amends Chapter 21A.52.060.B.4.c to update section references. 12. Amends 21A.55.020.B.4.a to eliminate the lot area limits for waiving density requirements to converting nonconforming commercial properties in RMF districts through a Planned Development. 13. Amends Chapter 21A.55.060 to update section references to only include RMF-45 and reduce the minimum required area for Planned Development. Underlined text is new; text with strikethrough is proposed to be deleted. All other text is existing with no proposed change. 1. Amends the titles found in the table of contents of 21A.24 as follows: 1 21A.24.130: RMF-35 and RMF-45 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential Districts 2 21A.24.140: RMF-45 Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential District 3 2. Amends Chapter 21A.22.010 as follows: 4 21A.22.010: Zoning Districts 5 In order to carry out the purposes of this title, Salt Lake City is divided into the following zoning 6 districts: 7 Section Reference District Name 21A.24.130 RMF-35 and RMF-45 Moderate Density Multi- Family Residential Districts APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: __7/16/25__________________ By: ____________________________ Courtney Lords, Senior City Attorney 2 21A.24.140 RMF-45 Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential District 3. Amends Chapter 21A.33.020, modifying only the RMF-35 and RMF-45 columns, as follows: 8 21A.33.020: TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR 9 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS: 10 Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District Accessory use, except those that are otherwise specifically regulated elsewhere in this title P P Adaptive reuse for additional uses in eligible buildings C3 C3 Affordable housing incentives development P P Community garden P P Community recreation center C C Daycare center, adult P CP Daycare center, child P P Dwelling, assisted living facility (large) CP P Dwelling, assisted living facility (limited capacity) P P Dwelling, assisted living facility (small) P P Dwelling, congregate care facility (large) CP CP Dwelling, congregate care facility (small) P P Dwelling; dormitory, fraternity, sorority Dwelling, group home (large) CP CP Dwelling, group home (small) P P Dwelling, manufactured home P P Dwelling, multi- family P P Dwelling, residential support (large) P CP Dwelling, residential support (small) CP CP 3 Dwelling, rooming (boarding) house P CP Dwelling, single- family (attached) P P Dwelling, twin home P P Governmental facility C C Home occupation P1 P1 Municipal service use, including City utility use and police and fire station C C Nursing care facility P P Office, excluding medical and dental clinic and office Parking, off site Parking, park and ride lot shared with existing use P6 P6 Place of worship on lots less than 4 acres in size C C Plazas P P School, seminary and religious institute C C Utility, building or structure P5 P5 Qualifying provisions: 11 1. Subject to section 21A.36.030 of this title. 12 2. Provided that no more than 2 two-family buildings are located adjacent to one another and no 13 more than 3 such dwellings are located along the same block face (within subdivisions approved 14 after April 12, 1995). 15 3. Subject to conformance with the provisions of subsection 21A.52.060.A. 16 4. Subject to conformance with the provisions of section 21A.36.150 of this title. 17 5. See subsection 21A.02.050B of this title for utility regulations. 18 6. Prohibited when it includes the demolition of a dwelling unit. 19 4. Amends Chapter 21A.34.020.M.2.a as follows: 20 21A.34.020: H HISTORIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT: 21 M. Reconstruction 22 2. Modifications authorized: The following modifications are authorized for reconstruction 23 in accordance with this Subsection: 24 a. Density: The qualifying provisions for density found in the minimum lot area and lot 25 width tables of the zoning district do not apply to the proposed reconstruction, and in 26 4 the RMF-30, RMF-35, and RMF-45 zoning districts, the minimum lot size per 27 dwelling unit does not apply. 28 5. Amends Table 21A.40.090, modifying only the RMF-35 and RMF-45 rows, as follows: 29 TABLE 21A.40.090 30 WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 31 Notes: 32 P =Permitted use C =Conditional use 33 1. Allowed as a permitted use on a residential building consisting of 4 or more attached dwelling 34 units and on nonresidential buildings. Zoning Administrator approval is required to assure 35 compliance to subsection EC2a of this section. 36 6. Amends the headings in Table 21A.44.040 -A. Other than identified below, there are no 37 other changes to the table. 38 TABLE 21A.44.040-A: MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM OFF STREET PARKING: DU= dwelling unit sq. ft.= square feet Land Use Parking General Context Transit Context and MU-11 located fixed- rail transit; Aall not listed in and MU-11 located between ½ mile and ¾ mile from fixed- rail transit; SR-3, FB-UN1, MU-2, MU- -5, MU-6, MU- 8, and MU-11 mile and ¼ mile from fixed-rail transit; D-2 MU-5, MU-6, MU- 8, and MU-11 located within ¼ mile of fixed-rail transit; D-1, D-3, D-4, G-MU, UI Wall Mount3 Roof Mount Antennas And Antenna Support Structure Less Than 2' 3 Antennas And Antenna Support Structure Greater Than 2' Wide3 Lattice Tower Stealth Height Limit But Not To Is Less) Exceeding The Height Limit Of The Zone Up To 30 Height Limit But Not To Is Less) The Height Limit Of The Zone Up To 30 RMF-35 P1 5 Distance to fixed-rail transit shall be measured radially in a straight line from the closest point of the subject property line to the closest point of a fixed-rail transit station platform 7. Amends headings in Table 21A.44.040-C. Other than identified below, there are no other 39 changes to the table. 40 TABLE 21A.44.040-C: MINIMUM BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS*: (Calculation of Bicycle Parking Spaces to be Provided per Residential Unit or Based on Usable Floor Area) USE General Context Transit Context MU-11 located more than ¾ mile to fixed- transit; Aall zoning districts not listed in MU-11 located between ½ mile and ¾ mile from fixed-rail transit; SR-3, FB-UN1, MU-2, MU-3, 8, and MU-11 located between ½ mile and ¼ mile from fixed- rail MU-5, MU-6, MU-8, and MU-11 located within ¼ mile of fixed- rail transit; D-1, D-3, D-4, G-MU, UI 8. Amends Chapter 21A.52.050.G.2 as follows: 41 2. RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45 and RMF-75 zoning districts: The qualifying provisions for density 42 found in the minimum lot area and lot width tables for the RMF-30, RMF-35, and RMF-45, and 43 RMF-75 zoning districts do not apply and in the RMF-30 zoning district, the minimum lot size 44 per dwelling unit does not apply, provided the affordability requirements for Type B in Table 45 21A.52.050.G are met. 46 2. RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45 and RMF-75 zoning districts: In the RMF-30, RMF-35, and RMF-45 47 zoning districts, the minimum lot size per dwelling unit does not apply, and in the RMF-75 48 zoning district, the qualifying provisions for density found in the minimum lot area and lot width 49 table do not apply, provided the affordability requirements for Type B in Table 21A.52.050.G are 50 met. 51 9. Amends Chapter 21A.52.050.H.2 as follows: 52 2. Within the RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45, and RMF-75 zoning districts the following provisions 53 shall apply: 54 a. Unit Mix: No more than 25% of the units in the development shall be less than 500 square 55 feet to promote a mix of unit sizes. 56 b. Parking: Unless there is a lesser parking requirement in Chapter 21A.44, only one half (0.5) 57 of an off-street parking space per unit is required in multifamily developments with less than 58 10 units. 59 c. Yards: The minimum required yards shall apply to the perimeter of the development and not 60 to the individual principal buildings within the development. 61 d. Lot width: Minimum lot width requirements do not apply. 62 10. Amends Subsection 21A.52.060.A.4.c as follows: 63 6 c. Minimum Lot Area and Lot Width: Minimum lot area and lot width requirements of the 64 zoning district do not apply for the adaptive reuse in all zoning districts. In the RMF-30, 65 RMF-35, and RMF-45 zoning districts, the minimum lot size per dwelling unit does not 66 apply. 67 11. Amends Chapter 21A.52.060.B.4.c as follows: 68 c. Minimum Lot Area, Width, and Coverage: 69 (1) The minimum lot width for the land use found in the minimum lot area and lot width 70 tables of the zoning district does not apply. 71 (2) The minimum lot area for the land use found in the minimum lot area and lot width 72 tables of the zoning district only applies for the following zoning districts: FR-1, FR-2, 73 FR-3, R -1/12,000, R-1/7,000 and R-1/5,000. 74 (3) RMF-30, RMF-35, and RMF-45 zoning districts: The minimum lot size per dwelling 75 unit does not apply. 76 (4) Lot coverage may be calculated for the overall development area not the individual lot 77 or parcel within the development area. 78 12. Amends 21A.55.020.B.4.a as follows: 79 a. Developments approved as a Planned Development in In the RMF zoning districts and on 80 lots 0.20 acres or more in size, developments that change a nonconforming commercial use 81 to a residential use that is allowed in the zoning district are exempt from the density 82 limitations of the that zoning district when approved as a planned development. 83 13. Amends Chapter 21A.55.060 as follows: 84 Table 21A.55.060 PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS 85 District Minimum Planned Development Size Moderate Density Multi- 86 This page has intentionally been left blank 1 Barlow, Aaron From:Warren Crummett Sent:Monday, May 19, 2025 3:33 PM To:Barlow, Aaron Subject:Re: (EXTERNAL) Re: RMF-35 Zoning Changes Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Hey Aaron. Congrats on getting a positive recommendation from planning and sending that to city hall! Has much changed with timing of a July acceptance from city council? Then when would I be able to apply for an application under the new zone? On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 3:52 PM Warren Crummett wrote: Hello Aaron, Hope you are doing well and the RMF project is going as smoothly as possible. I have a property that I am planning to buy, and the lender wanted to get confirmation on the unit count that will be allowed under the new zoning. Basically they wanted to get a letter from the city saying 10 units are possible on the property. The property is .32 acres so it is well within the new guidelines. My closing is at the end of July. Do you think it would be out of the question to ask for an informal letter from you so I can make the lender comfortable? On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 12:58 PM Warren Crummett wrote: Hi Aaron, Hope you had a great weekend. Just wanted to include some food for thought as I am working on the design of 2 different RMF-35/45 properties 1. Max Height: I would love to be able to build a 4 story townhome, or at least one with a room upstairs and rooftop deck. Not having a height difference for multifamily vs row houses would be great. In my eyes, changing the use of the building will not impact how well the massing fits into the neighborhood. I understand RMF-35 would still not allow this, but for RMF-45 that could be a great addition. 2. Building Form Unit Limits: I don't think limiting a row house based on units really accomplishes anything. Right now there are limitations on the street facing facade which helps limit the size and massing of the building already. If a developer wants to create smaller units and try to hit a more affordable segment of the market, I feel they should be allowed to do so. 1 Barlow, Aaron From:Barlow, Aaron Sent:Wednesday, June 4, 2025 12:59 PM To:Troy Rawlings Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) Fwd: 2172 S 800 E - RMF-35 I’ve answered your question in green below. From: Troy Rawlings Sent: Wednesday, June 4, 2025 10:42 AM To: Barlow, Aaron <Aaron.Barlow@slc.gov> Subject: Re: (EXTERNAL) Fwd: 2172 S 800 E - RMF-35 Hello Aaron, A follow up to the set-back rules. The address of the subject property is 2172 S 800 E. The neighboring property directly to the east is Single Family. So are you saying that the setback is 10ft, minimum for cottage homes, row houses and apartment buildings? o I’m looking at the zoning map and your property does not abut a single-family zoning district on any side. The single-family houses next to your property are all in the RMF- 35 district and the additional setback is not required. When it is required, that additional setback is only for larger building forms: Row Houses, Apartments, and non- residential buildings—not cottages. Behind the property to the west is an alleyway, and across the alleyway to the west the property is zoned Single Family, what would be the setback for cottage type homes, row houses and apartments? o Since it is zoned RMF-35 not additional setback is required. For parking, what is a standard parking space size? What if the property is located within 1/4 mile to 1/2 mile within public transportation? Can I have fewer parking spaces? o Parking dimension requirements are listed in the Salty Lake City Off-street Parking Manual (found here: https://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Guides/off-street-parking- manual.pdf). It varies based on a number of factors. o There are parking reductions available to projects within ½ mile of fixed rail in 21A.44 of the zoning regulations. Thank you, Troy On Wed, Jun 4, 2025 at 12:14 PM Barlow, Aaron <Aaron.Barlow@slc.gov> wrote: Hi Troy, Thanks for reaching out! I have tried to answer your questions as best I can below: 2 From what I understand the number of units is dictated by lot frontage width and the total acreage (square feet). However, the frontage width will no longer apply potentially if the rules change, Is this correct? o That is correct. Current regulations have a minimum lot width requirement. These are being eliminated, and only the minimum lot size will determine the number of units. If the rule changes then the lot at 2182 S 800 E of .22 acres or 9,583 sq feet would equate to a maximum of 19 units? o For cottage developments, the minimum lot area (density limit) is 500 square feet per unit, so the maximum number of cottages you could build on the lot would be 19. Every other building type in the RMF proposal (Duplexes, Rowhouses, and Apartments) has a minimum lot area of 750 square feet per unit, which would allow for 12 units. Units within cottage developments are typically smaller than other unit types. They cannot have more than 850 square feet of gross floor area (That’s the sq. ft. number usually provided in real estate listings—the floor area of the living space) and must be shorter than 23 feet in height (flat or pitched roof). Could I build a smaller apartment-style complex or condos? o Yes! Apartments are allowed in the proposal, up to 35 feet in height in the RMF-35 district (where your property is located). With a minimum lot area of 750 square feet per unit, your property could have up to 12 units. They can be rented or sold in your case, there is a limit of 20 units per apartment building. A project may have more, but individual buildings are limited to 20. What does a cottage court building style look like? o Cottage developments can come in many forms. Individual units can be standalone, detached buildings, or they can be attached in rows. They can face an internal courtyard or sit in a line, facing the street. Each building can sit on its own lot, or the buildings can all be on one parcel (similar to rowhouses). If a cottage development project includes garages, they cannot be attached to the individual units. Here are some photo examples: 649 E 700 S 3 852 S 800 E What will the setback rules be? o Setbacks would apply to the entire development site and not between individual units (you are only limited by building and fire codes in that regard). Setbacks vary based on the type of building. Smaller buildings, such as cottage developments, single-family houses, and twin homes, have a 4-foot side yard setback and a 10-foot rear yard setback. Larger building types, like apartments and rowhouses, are required to have additional setbacks when a project directly abuts a single-family zoning district (10-foot side yard and 15-foot rear-yard setbacks). Otherwise, they’re the same as the other building types (the tables on pages 5 and 6 in the draft ordinance lay out the requirements for each building type). o Since the setbacks only apply to the perimeter, cottage development units are permitted to be attached like a rowhouse or twin- under 23 feet and less than 850 feet of internal floor area). What parking requirements will there be? o The proposal would require one space per dwelling unit, no matter the unit type, size, or bedroom count. When will the meeting take place when this decision will be final? 4 o I am currently working on the document that we will send to the City Council (I am waiting for a few things from our Attorney’s office) and should have something sent to them by the end of this month. Hopefully, the City Council will review the proposal sometime in July. They would then need to hold a public hearing and make an official decision. I have been saying mid to late fall (October- go well (based on how long similar proposals have taken in the past). How long after the decision is made, will the changes take effect? o That will be up to the City Council, but it is typically immediate with a small gr ace period, where the old regulations are also available if a property owner or developer so chooses. The only delay would be the time it takes for the new regulations to be published—typical 1-2 weeks. Please let me know if you have any follow- the project over the phone if that is easier for you (I know it helps me when I want to talk through a scenario). Thank you! Sincerely, AARON BARLOW, AICP | (he/him) Senior Planner PLANNING DIVISION | SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION Office: 801.535.6182 | Cell: 801.872.8389 Email: aaron.barlow@slc.gov WWW.SLC.GOV SLC.GOV/PLANNING Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights. From: Troy Rawlings Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 9:51 PM To: Barlow, Aaron <Aaron.Barlow@slc.gov> Subject: Fwd: (EXTERNAL) Fwd: 2172 S 800 E - RMF-35 Hello Aaron, 5 I am inquiring about the potential changes to rules around density for RMF-35 and RMF-45 plats. From what I understand the number of units is dictated by lot frontage width and the total acreage (square feet). However, the frontage width will no longer apply potentially if the rules change, Is this correct? Could you confirm a few things for me: - of 19 units? Could I build a smaller apartment style complex or condos? What does cottage court building style look like? -What will the setback rules be? -What parking requirements will there be? -When will the meeting take place when this decision will be final? -How long after the decision is made, will the changes take effect? Thank you, Troy Rawlings ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Gilmore, Kristina <kristina.gilmore@slc.gov> Date: Wed, May 28, 2025 at 3:10 PM Subject: RE: (EXTERNAL) Fwd: 2172 S 800 E - RMF-35 To: Troy Rawlings 7 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Troy Rawlings Date: Thu, May 22, 2025 at 1:00 PM Subject: 2172 S 800 E - RMF-35 To: Elmore, Noah <Noah.Elmore@slc.gov> Hello Noah, Quick question. For the subject address 2172 S 800 E, the property is approximately 60 feet wide and is .22 acres or just over 9,583 sq ft. According to the table of SLC, for me to have up to 11 units the property must be 80 feet wide, or could I get up to 11 units at 60 feet wide? Or simply ask, how many total units could I build on this lot? I know that there was a rule change recently that consolidated RMF-35 and RMF-40, so is there more flexibility to add more units than existing 4 on the property. I want to tear is down and build more missing middle. Thank you, Troy -- 8 TROY RAWLINGS | Realtor® Realty ONE Group | Rawlings Real Estate 1 Barlow, Aaron From:Warren Crummett Sent:Wednesday, July 9, 2025 11:44 AM To:Barlow, Aaron Subject:Re: (EXTERNAL) Re: RMF-35 Zoning Changes Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Hi Aaron, Hope you're enjoying summer. I was wondering if any of the code has changed from the March 5th edition of the code that you sent to me? If it has changed, could you please send? Also, how's the timeline for the next meeting looking? I believe they passed the budget Thanks for all your help! On Fri, Jun 6, 2025 at 9:38 AM Warren Crummett wrote: Hi Aaron, a property? If I wanted to do that for RMF-35, would it be after the decision date I could apply for a zoning certification letter that states this? Thanks for helping me work through this On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 2:28 PM Barlow, Aaron <Aaron.Barlow@slc.gov> wrote: The hearing might be in August, but yeah, that’s essentially the timeline we expect (if thing don’t get slowed down). From: Warren Crummett Sent: Friday, May 23, 2025 1:23 PM To: Barlow, Aaron <Aaron.Barlow@slc.gov> Subject: Re: (EXTERNAL) Re: RMF-35 Zoning Changes Gotcha. And that is a July public hearing and a September decision date unless there is opposition? 3 Then when would I be able to apply for an application under the new zone? On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 3:52 PM Warren Crummett wrote: Hello Aaron, Hope you are doing well and the RMF project is going as smoothly as possible. I have a property that I am planning to buy, and the lender wanted to get confirmation on the unit count that will be allowed under the new zoning. Basically they wanted to get a letter from the city saying 10 units are possible on the property. The property is .32 acres so it is well within the new guidelines. My closing is at the end of July. Do you think it would be out of the question to ask for an informal letter from you so I can make the lender comfortable? On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 12:58 PM Warren Crummett wrote: Hi Aaron, Hope you had a great weekend. Just wanted to include some food for thought as I am working on the design of 2 different RMF-35/45 properties 1. Max Height: I would love to be able to build a 4 story townhome, or at least one with a room upstairs and rooftop deck. Not having a height difference for multifamily vs row houses would be great. In my eyes, changing the use of the building will not impact how well the massing fits into the neighborhood. I understand RMF-35 would still not allow this, but for RMF-45 that could be a great addition. 4 2. Building Form Unit Limits: I don't think limiting a row house based on units really accomplishes anything. Right now there are limitations on the street facing facade which helps limit the size and massing of the building already. If a developer wants to create smaller units and try to hit a more affordable segment of the market, I feel they should be allowed to do so. For instance, if I have a building form that is 150' wide and 40' deep, I can split the 150' into 6 units which is 25' wide for each unit. But if I was able, I would split the units into 20' wide or less unit sizes so I could get roughly 8 units. Both buildings are the same size, could include the same parking, etc but now I have bigger units that I have to sell for a higher price. Feel free to use this as you wish. Also I would love to see the Lake St area be included with your proposal to be RMF-45! On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 5:14 PM Warren Crummett wrote: Right on! Thanks On Wed, Mar 26, 2025, 4:56 PM Barlow, Aaron <Aaron.Barlow@slc.gov> wrote: No that will change to 15 feet Sincerely, Aaron Barlow Sent via phone, so please excuse any typos From: Warren Crummett Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 4:54:06 PM 6 On Mon, Feb 24, 2025, 8:22 AM Warren Crummett wrote: Sounds good. I don't have the info organized, so if there's anything in particular could you please let me know? On the proforma, yes I would be happy to help. Townhomes or apartments? On Sun, Feb 23, 2025 at 1:16 PM Barlow, Aaron <aaron.barlow@slc.gov> wrote: Hi Warren, That would be great! I’m happy to take a look at anything you have put together. If I gave you an address, would you be able to do help me with a baseline proforma calculation for the property’s development potential? Thank you! Sincerely, AARON BARLOW, AICP | (he/him) Senior Planner PLANNING DIVISION | SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION Office: 801.535.6182 | Cell: 801.872.8389 Email: aaron.barlow@slc.gov WWW.SLC.GOV SLC.GOV/PLANNING Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights. This page has intentionally been left blank Properties 1. 8 E Hillside Ave • Capitol Hill Neighborhood Plan • High Density Residential 1 Properties 1. 321 & 323 S 600 E and 602 E 300 S • Central Community Plan • Medium Residential / Mixed Use 1 Properties 1.120, 126, & 130 W Mead Ave • Ballpark Station Area Plan • Central 9th Corridor Area 2. 1414 S West Temple • Ballpark Station Area Plan • Medium Density Transition Area Peoples Freeway Park 3. 976 & 996 S 200 E • Central Community Plan • Medium High Density 1 2 3 Properties 1. 2321 E 2100 S • Sugar House Neighborhood Plan • Medium High Density Residential 1 Properties 1. 2673 S Preston St • Sugar House Neighborhood Plan • Medium High Density Residential 1 Properties 1. 1418 S 1100 E • Central Community Plan • Low Residential / Mixed Use 2. 1945 & 1949 S 1300 E • Sugar House Neighborhood Plan 1 2 Properties 1. 351 S Concord St • Westside Master Plan • Located at Neighborhood Node 2. 866, 870, 876 W 700 S and 665 S 900 W • Westside Master Plan • Located at Neighborhood Node • Nonresidential Use 1 2 Properties 1. 1659, 1671, & 1677 W 300 S • Westside Master Plan • Located at Regional Node and Redwood Rd Corridor 2. 351 S Concord St • Westside Master Plan • Located at Neighborhood Node 1 2 Properties 1. 1121 E Brickyard Rd • Sugar House Neighborhood Plan • Medium High Density Residential 1 This page has intentionally been left blank CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF MEMO CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Austin Kimmel DATE:December 2, 2025 RE: CONSOLIDATED FEE SCHEDULE (CFS) CORRECTION - MISSING TITLE AND DESCRIPTION NEW INFORMATION – DECEMBER 2, 2025 Compliance with State Law for fee setting – the lack of proper labeling on the CFS means that the fee should not have been charged as of July 1. Staff recommendation: credit customers who paid the increased fee between July 1 and present. (Please note: financial impact info below.) Steepness of the increase – the steep one-step increase caused surprise to customers, especially when combined with other rate changes. If the Council does not wish to approve the one-time FY26 increase, it could consider a two- or three-step schedule to phase in the increase. (Please note: financial impact info below.) Proper Labeling – the CFS missed key words to indicate the fee is charged per inch. Staff recommendation: accept the proposed edits to ensure proper labeling on the CFS. Fee Compliance Issue (#1): Council staff learned that the missing “Per Inch” description from the Consolidated Fee Schedule (CFS), which prompted the administration’s initial correction request, represents a more significant issue than originally understood. Utah Code Section 10-8-22 requires municipal water rates to be set legislatively by ordinance with uniform notice and opportunity for public participation. before Public Utilities charges the fee and that Public Utilities provide UPDATED Item Schedule: Page | 2 credits for fees paid by customers from the beginning of FY26 up to the adoption date. The increased fire line fees have been charged to 3,453 customer accounts with fire service lines since July 1, 2025. Corrected Financial Impact (Related to #1 and #2): During the November 25 briefing, Public Utilities corrected an earlier revenue estimate. Rather than a $740,237 annual shortfall if the fire line fee increase is not implemented, the actual shortfall would be approximately $1.7 million annually. If the Council approves the corrected CFS language and requests credited fees for the six-month period from July 1 through December 2025 (the soonest the Council could adopt the corrected CFS language at this time), it is assumed that approximately $850,000 would be credited to customers. Phase-In Options (#2): As requested by Council Members, Public Utilities has analyzed two phase-in implementation scenarios to mitigate immediate customer impacts: Two-Year Phase-In: Public Utilities would charge 75% of the FY26 rate in year one, then increase by 56% in year two to reach the full rate. Three-Year Phase-In: Public Utilities would charge 50% of the FY26 rate in year one, then increase by 80% in year two, and by 95% in year three to reach the full rate. Council Direction Requested: In summary, Staff is seeking Council direction on two items: NEW INFORMATION – NOVEMBER 25, 2025 Page | 3 Based on the phase-in scenarios and financial analysis presented by Public Utilities, the Council has postponed action on the Consolidated Fee Schedule (CFS) correction to a future meeting, allowing additional time for review and consideration of options and fiscal impacts. 17.16.520: UNMETERED FIRE PROTECTION PIPES PERMITTED WHEN: NEW INFORMATION – OCTOBER 14, 2025 ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE BACKGROUND Page | 4 According to the Administration, fire line fees are established in City Ordinance 17.16.520 and have been in place since at least 1981. The fees are charged per inch of connection size. If not updated, the CFS schedule with the missing title and description may lead to customer confusion about what the fees cover. FINANCIAL IMPACT REDLINED CFS SCHEDULE SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL To:  Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date: 08/28/2025 Date Sent to Council: 09/03/2025 From: Department * Public Utilities Employee Name: Jorgensen, Jacob E-mail jacob.jorgensen@slc.gov Department Director Signature Director Signed Date 08/28/2025 Chief Administrator Officer's Signature Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date 09/02/2025 Subject: CFS Correction - Missing Title and Description Additional Staff Contact: Lisa Tarufelli - Lisa.Tarufelli@slc.govBriefer, Laura - Laura.Briefer@slc.gov Presenters/Staff Table Lisa Tarufelli - Lisa.Tarufelli@slc.govBriefer, Laura - Laura.Briefer@slc.govJacob Jorgensen - jacob.jorgensen@slc.gov Document Type Ordinance Budget Impact? Yes No Budget Impact: Approximately $740,237 in uncollected revenue that was budgeted for and rates set to collect. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve adding the Title "Fire Lines" and the Description "Per Inch" which was inadvertently left off of one of the rate tables in the CFS. The title "fire lines" was included in the original submission to the City Council and the rates are being applied the same as they have been historically, which is per inch size of the connection since 1981. This was updated as part of the comprehensive rate study for Water. Background/Discussion These rates were presented as part of the rate study to City Council and the public and published as part of the update rates for Public Utilities. The fee for fire lines is contained in Ordinance 17.16.520 and has been established since at least 1981 (last date of record that we've been able to confirm) and has always been charged per inch size of the connection.since t change the way the rate is applied and the rate study simply updated the cost of service to establish the new rate amount. The rate table itself is published in the CFS, however, without the title and description customers are unaware that it applies to fire lines. This is what we would like to have corrected to avoid any confusion from the customers and correct this error in the published CFS. I have included as attachments the updated redlined CFS and the final rates published from the Water Rate Study. Will there need to be a public hearing for this item?* Yes No Public Process This was presented as part of the rate study to City Council and the public and published as part of the update rates for Public Utilities. The fee for fire lines is contained in Ordinance 17.16.520 and has been established since at least 1981 (last date of record that we've been able to confirm). Legal has reviewed this and the rate is allowable and part of this correction could have been done using "scrivener's error" since the title "Fire Lines" was in the redlined CFS. However, since the description was left off of how the rate is applied, we are correcting both parts through this process of City Council approval of a CFS change. This page has intentionally been left blank WATER For questions regarding Water fees contact: 801.483.6900 Service Fee Monthly Service Fee Size of connection Monthly Amount City County 5/8 inch - 3/4 inch $22.48 $30.35 17.16.670 1 inch $28.57 $38.57 17.16.670 1 1/2 inch $43.66 $58.94 17.16.670 2 inch $61.85 $83.50 17.16.670 3 inch $110.40 $149.04 17.16.670 4 inch $164.95 $222.68 17.16.670 6 inch $316.43 $427.18 17.16.670 8 inch $498.28 $672.68 17.16.670 10 inch $710.49 $959.16 17.16.670 12 inch $1,036.26 $1,398.95 17.16.670 Fire Hydrant $399.49 $539.31 17.16.590 Low Income Abatement: Customer who are granted abatement for taxes on their dwelling shall be granted a five dollar fifty cent ($5.50) abatement of the minimum monthly charge. Fire Lines Size of connection Monthly Amount per inch City County 2 inch $0.84 $1.13 17.16.520 3 inch $1.68 $2.27 17.16.520 4 inch $2.62 $3.54 17.16.520 6 inch $5.23 $7.06 17.16.520 8 inch $8.38 $11.31 17.16.520 10 inch $12.04 $16.25 17.16.520 12 inch $17.67 $23.85 17.16.520 Water Meter Rates Account Type Amount Used Volumetric Rate City County Single family residence Block 1: 0-5 hundred cubic feet $2.84 $3.83 Block 2: 6-10 hundred cubic feet (except as increased for Urban Vegetable Gardens) $3.49 $4.71 Block 3: 11-40 hundred cubic feet $4.46 $6.02 Block 4: >40 hundred cubic feet $4.92 $6.64 Duplex residence / or Single residence with Accessory Dwelling Unit Block 1: 0-10 hundred cubic feet $2.84 $3.83 Block 2: 11-20 hundred cubic feet $3.49 $4.71 Block 3: 21-80 hundred cubic feet $4.46 $6.02 Block 4: >80 hundred cubic feet $4.92 $6.64 Amended 06/10/2025 by Ord. 2025 - 34 Page 48 EXHIBIT A Triplex residence Block 1: 0-15 hundred cubic feet $2.84 $3.83 Block 2: 16-30 hundred cubic feet $3.49 $4.71 Block 3: 31-120 hundred cubic feet $4.46 $6.02 Block 4: >120 hundred cubic feet $4.92 $6.64 City Rates County Rates Summer Rate (April - October) Winter Rate (November - March) Summer Rate (April - October) Winter Rate (November - March) Multi-Family Residential 3.35 $2.18 $4.52 $2.94 Commercial and Non-Residential 3.53 $2.18 $4.77 $2.94 Note: Customers with defective plumbing or unexplained deceases in usage of more than 25 percent may be adjusted back to a prior AWC, or be assigned the class average by meter size. In cases where class average is not available or is not reasonable, the Director may use other consumption information specific to such account to determine AWC. The amount used is referred to as a block or tier rate. Account Type Amount Used Volumetric Rate Irrigation City County 100 Cubic feet to target budget $2.93 $3.96 Over target budget Up to 300% of target budget $4.09 $5.52 Over 300% of target budget $4.30 $5.81 Note: "Irrigation account" means an account established for applying water for irrigation and landscaping only, as determined by the Public Utilities Director or designee. "Target budget" means the estimated amount of water consumed per acre, as established by the Public Utilities Director or designee each year for customer based on factors including, but not limited to, evapotranspiration, and considering efficient water practices. A different target budget is established for each month of the irrigation season. Account Type Amount Used Rate (Summer)Flat Rate (Winter) Secondary Irrigation Per Acre Foot Per ccf Per Acre Foot Per ccf 0 Cubic feet to target budget $285.32 $0.66 Over target budget Up to 300% of target budget $653.04 $1.50 $285.32 $0.66 Over 300% of target budget $1,096.76 $2.52 Note: "Secondary Irrigation account" means an account established for applying water for irrigation and landscaping secondary to the culinary water system for select municipal parks and golf courses only, as determined by the Public Utilities Director or her designee. "Target budget" means the estimated amount of water consumed per acre, as established by the Public Utilities Director or designee each year for customer based on factors including, but not limited to, evapotranspiration, and considering efficient water practices. A different target budget is established for each month of the irrigation season. Miscellaneous Fees City County Urban Vegetable Garden Credit Adjustment Credit per ordinance NA Based on garden size 17.16.685 Deposit for water - residential $75 $75 17.16.380 Deposit for water - business $100 $100 Retail, warehouse, offices 17.16.380 Deposit for water - small restaurants $150 $150 17.16.380 Deposit for water - Laundromats, large restaurants $300 $300 17.16.380 Deposit for water - car washes $600 $600 17.16.380 Meter Test Fee - 5/8" to 1"$145 17.16.050 Meter Test Fee - 1 1/2" to 2"$290 17.16.050 Meter Test Fee - larger than 2"Actual costs 17.16.050 Water turn on - turn off $30 17.16.660 Illegal turn on fee $80 $80 17.16.660 Amended 06/10/2025 by Ord. 2025 - 34 Page 49 Bankruptcy deposit Highest two monthly bills over the previous 12 months period 17.16.660 Charges for water Minimum charges apply See Section 17.16.590 17.16.590 Damage to padlock, inline lock or lock out sleeve Actual costs 17.16.050 Deposit for fire hydrant meter $1,000 $100 not refundable 17.16.050 Opt-out of Advance Metering Infrastructure (AMI) -monthly fee $40 17.16.050 Rain Barrel Actual Costs Plus sales tax Grass Seed Actual Costs Plus sales tax Unauthorized meter, hydrant, or utility access First incident $500 17.16.810 Subsequent incidents previous charge + $500 17.16.810 Plumber or Contractor First incident $1,000 17.16.110 Plumber or Contractor Subsequent incidents previous charge +$500 17.16.110 Construction Water - Fill-up at Department on Public Utilities $50 Includes 4 fill-ups at Public Utilities shops Canyon water surplus sales (for contracts that are not tied to the rate established by the average MWDSLS rate paid by SLC) Contract volume 800 gallons per day $415.65 per year or current MWDSLS rate 17.04.030 Contract volume 400 gallons per day $207.83 per year or current MWDSLS rate 17.04.030 Water Connection Fees - Contact 801.483.6727 17.16.040 Classification Dwelling Meter Size City Connection Fee** County Connection Fee** Meter Hardware & Installation Fee* Residential Single family 3/4 inch $1,871.00 $1,952.00 *See Note - actual cost Single family 1 inch $3,297.00 $3,494.00 *See Note - actual cost Duplex 1 inch $2,234.00 $2,432.00 *See Note - actual cost Triplex 1 inch $2,371.00 $2,492.00 *See Note - actual cost Fourplex 1 inch $3,401.00 $3,580.00 *See Note - actual cost Commercial/Industrial Culinary Meter 3/4 inch $2,000.00 $2,125.00 *See Note - actual cost 1 inch $3,830.00 $4,213.00 *See Note - actual cost 1.5 inch $7,584.00 $8,322.00 *See Note - actual cost 2 inch $11,776.00 $12,834.00 *See Note - actual cost 3 inch $23,678.00 $25,838.00 *See Note - actual cost 4 inch $27,359.00 $27,359.00 *See Note - actual cost 6 inch $54,718.00 $54,718.00 *See Note - actual cost 8 inch $87,549.00 $87,549.00 *See Note - actual cost * Cost includes actual hardware cost, meter construction costs, labor costs, and one inspection. Price will be provided upon request. **Meters not listed will be charged at actual hardware cost, inspection fees, and applicable resource and impact fees. ***For meters 4-inches and larger a water resource fee shall be added. The fee is based on the ratio of the projected usage (gpd) as determined by the AWWA M-22 method to the equivalent residential unit amount of 449 gpd multiplied by $106. Fire Service Connection Charges *** Contact number 801.483.6727 Detector check - Fee listed does not include hardware and meter. Any hardware and meter to be charged at actual cost. 6-inch Price upon request Not allowed for new development or redevelopment - replacement only.17.16.050 8-inch $3,334.20 17.16.050 10-inch $5,272.02 17.16.050 Fire Lines -Fee listed does not include hardware and meter. Any hardware and meter to be charged at actual cost. 2-inch $355.00 17.16.050 4-inch $355.00 17.16.050 6-inch $601.00 17.16.050 8-inch $819.00 17.16.050 10-inch $1,091.00 17.16.050 12-inch $1,309.00 17.16.050 Water Inspection Fees ***Contact number 801.483.6727 New hydrant inspection $135.00 Per each inspection 17.16.050 New hydrant inspection - Long $240.00 Per each inspection 17.16.050 Water inspection fees $110.00 New installation, repair, service, or terminate (kill) inspection; Per each inspection or trip 17.16.050 Relocation of hydrant inspection $220.00 Includes move and terminate 17.16.050 Relocation of water meter inspection $220.00 Includes move and terminate 17.16.050 Water Used During Construction Amended 06/10/2025 by Ord. 2025 - 34 Page 50 Residential Metered Rates 17.16.350 Commercial Metered rates 17.16.350 Other Water Utility Fees Water Pressure Test (Flow Test) for Water Mains under 12"$455.00 Per Test 17.16.050 Water Pressure Test (Flow Test) for water mains greater than 12:$800.00 Per Test 17.16.050 Kills - Meters under 3"$55.00 17.16.050 Kills - Meters 3" or larger $160.00 17.16.050 Inspect Auto Fire Sprinklers less than 2"$136.00 Per Inspection 17.16.040 Inspect Auto Fire Sprinklers 2" or greater $369.00 Per Inspection 17.16.040 Plan Review Fee - Less than 1 acre $216.00 Per Review 17.16.050 Plan Review Fee - Tenant Remodel/Residential Remodel $39.00 Per Review 17.16.050 Plan Review Fee - 1 - 5 acres $1,060.00 Per Review 17.16.350 Plan Review Fee - Greater than 5 acres $2,124.00 Per Review 17.16.050 Amended 06/10/2025 by Ord. 2025 - 34 Page 51 This page has intentionally been left blank Fixed Rate All Customers 5/8" - 3/4"$22.48 1"$28.57 1.5"$43.66 2"$61.85 3"$110.40 4"$164.95 6"$316.43 8"$498.28 10"$710.49 12"$1,036.26 Fire Lines per inch 2"$0.84 3"$1.68 4"$2.62 6"$5.23 8"$8.38 10"$12.04 12"$17.67 Volumetric Rates Residential (Up to 3 units, tier thresholds x unit) Block 1 (0-5 CCF)$2.84 $3.49 $4.46 $4.92 Non-Residential Summer $3.53 Winter $2.18 Multi-Family (4 or more units) Summer $3.35 Winter $2.18 Irrigation Up to target budget $2.93 $4.09 Over 300% of target $4.30 County Rates - Monthly Fixed Rate All Customers 5/8" - 3/4"$30.35 1"$38.57 1.5"$58.94 2"$83.50 3"$149.04 4"$222.69 6"$427.18 8"$672.67 10"$959.16 12"$1,398.95 Fire Lines per inch 2"$1.13 3"$2.27 4"$3.54 6"$7.06 8"$11.31 10"$16.25 12"$23.85 Volumetric Rates Residential (Up to 3 units, tier thresholds x unit) Block 1 (0-5 CCF)$3.83 $4.71 $6.02 $6.64 Non-Residential Summer $4.77 Winter $2.94 Multi-Family (4 or more units) Summer $4.52 Winter $2.94 Irrigation Up to target budget $3.96 $5.52 $5.81 This page has intentionally been left blank SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of ____ 2025 (Amendments to the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule Related to Fire Line Fees) An ordinance amending fees and fee information in the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule related to certain fire line fees. WHEREAS, on May 17, 2011 the City Council adopted Ordinances 2011-23, 2011-24 and 2011-25 to authorize and create the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule has since been amended from time to time; and WHEREAS, it is now proposed that the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule be amended to include, eliminate, or otherwise modify fees and fee information regarding certain fire lines as shown in the attached Exhibit “A”; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds (i) the fees set forth in Exhibit A are necessary, reasonable, and equitable in relation to regulatory and service costs incurred by the City; and (ii) adoption of this ordinance reasonably furthers the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Salt Lake City. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule shall be, and hereby is, amended in pertinent part as set forth in the attached Exhibit “A”. SECTION 2. That a revised copy of the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule that reflects the amendments set forth in the attached Exhibit “A” shall be published on the official Salt Lake City website. SECTION 3. That this ordinance shall become effective upon publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this __ day of _________, 2025. ______________________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: _________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on ____________________________. Mayor’s Action: _________ Approved. ____________ Vetoed. _______________________________________ MAYOR _________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. _______ of 2025. Published: __________________ Approved As To Form By: ___________________________ Jaysen Oldroyd Date: _______9/3/2025___________ This page has intentionally been left blank City Council Announcements Information Needed: A.Council Retreat If the next Chair determines that a Council retreat is needed, would the Council have any scheduling issues with January 27, 2026?